Author Topic: MacKenzie on Question Time Tonight (Read 20153 times)

Phil M · « **Reply #80 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:30:01 pm »

Nearly 2000 views of this thread, can everyone who has the time please
make your voice heard by lodging a complaint such as those who have posted above.
The BBC complaints link is on page one here.

Tim · « **Reply #81 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:38:04 pm »

Complaint sent.

s3am · « **Reply #82 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:38:13 pm »

Sent, I had hoped after last time they would think twice about reemploying him. Fat fucking chance.

The man disgusts more than I can properly explain.

hilly · « **Reply #83 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:43:29 pm »

Sent, he's a fucking shit bag. A lying fucking shitbag.

blackandwhitemammals · « **Reply #84 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:44:55 pm »

Just sent them this. Bit long but i got carried away. Never complained before but if it only took 30,000 to get Brand sacked we should be able to get that.

Dear ,
I am emailing you in relation to Kelvin Mackenzie appearance on the panel of tonight’s edition of the BBC’s Question Time programme of which you were also a member. This liars inclusion on the panel is most disgusting and I am disappointed that as an elected official you decided to appear alongside him. I hope you will consider before allowing your integrity to be compromised in this way again. Below is a copy of the complaint I have sent to the BBC, I would be grateful if you would take the time to read it. Thank you for your time.
I feel compelled to complain about the guests scheduled to appear on the upcoming edition of Question Time. In particular I would like to express my outrage and disgust at your inclusion of Kelvin Mackenzie on the panel.
I am sure you are aware of this mans history as the editor of The Sun and of his disgraceful coverage of the Hillsborough disaster during his time at said newspaper. In fact, you have decided to include it in your short biography of him on the question time website. Quite why you thought it was acceptable or proper to do this, I do not understand, but this is not my main complaint.
In continually allowing him to voice his jingoistic, offensive and opprobrious lies, you are showing contempt, not only for your viewers and license fee payers, but more importantly for the families of the 96 people who lost their lives in the Hillsborough disaster. I accept that question time is a show which must remain unbiased and should not be censored in any way, but surely you must consider the distress which this man causes a large number of your license fee payers every time you allow him to broadcast his lies.
I am very disappointed that once again I have to spend time in voicing these opinions to you but as long as the BBC determines that his lies are relevant to their shows I will continue to do so. I will be forwarding this complaint to the other members of the panel for tonight’s show and I strongly urge you not to include this man in any of your programs ever again as doing so brings immense shame on your corporation.

jason42 · « **Reply #85 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:45:53 pm »

Quote from: Phil M on February 12, 2009, 02:32:14 pm

That's great work mate. There might actually be a chance of this concerted effort being taken seriously by them for a change. How many complaints does it actually take for something to hit home to them?

I seriously doubt it mate. They just seem to wait until things go quiet and then wheel him out again.
Last time we complained long and hard and explored many different avenues and we all got the same brush off. They didn't even log the fact that we were complaining.

No666 · « **Reply #86 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:47:31 pm »

They ignored all our emails last time around. We have to long-term think of an effective strategy to protest more meaningfully:

is there the kernel of an idea here -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1412516/Don't-pay-TV-licence-fee,-campaigners-urge-viewers.html

Don't pay TV licence fee, campaigners urge viewers

By Edmund Conway
Last Updated: 11:29PM GMT 07 Nov 2002

A former Soviet dissident launched a campaign of civil disobedience yesterday by urging television viewers not to pay their licence fee, calling it a "medieval arrangement".

Vladimir Bukovsky, 60, who alleges that the BBC is biased, also compared his anti-licence protest to the hunger strikes he organised when in prison in the former Soviet Union.

Mr Bukovsky, who said earlier this week that he was willing to go to jail for refusing to pay the fee, claimed yesterday at the launch of the "Stop BBC Bias" campaign that if 5,000 people joined him they would be successful.

"For a long time I felt it would be ungrateful of me to criticise anything about a country which offered me a home," he said. "But the BBC's TV licence is such a medieval arrangement I simply must protest against it.

"The British people are being forced to pay money to a corporation which suppresses free speech - publicising views they don't necessarily agree with.

"When I needed to persuade my fellow prisoners in Labour camps in the Soviet Union to go on hunger strike, I always said that if enough of us grouped together, we would not be punished, and we would achieve something.

"If 5,000 people join us in refusing to pay their fees, there is no way the BBC cannot take notice and actually debate this issue."

Mr Bukovsky, author of To Build a Castle: My Life as a Defector, spent 12 years in a gulag due to his outspoken opposition to Communism before defecting to Britain in 1976. He now works as an academic and writer and lives in Cambridge.

He is the latest in a line of figures to speak out against the fee. Last month Jonathan Miller, a Sunday Times journalist, invited the BBC to prosecute him after he wrote in his column that he has not renewed his licence.

He claims that the licence fee contravenes article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates the individual's right "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".

"I'm more than willing to go to court but the BBC seems peculiarly reluctant," he said yesterday.

"Shockingly, 80 per cent of the people they do prosecute are single mothers on benefits. I've contacted 30 people being prosecuted in the North-West and the Midlands and am working with them to provide a legal challenge. We have a good case."

Another figure in the anti-BBC campaign is Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who has conducted research into what he claims is biased news coverage.

Earlier this year, Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary, caused controversy when she appeared to rule out any change to the licence fee for the foreseeable future.

A YouGov poll for The Telegraph last week found that almost two thirds of those surveyed agreed that the licence fee should be abolished because so many households had satellite or cable television.

The "Stop BBC Bias" campaign is encouraging "refuseniks" to register with it by phoning 09012 702 414 or by visiting its website - www.bbcbias.org

A BBC spokesman said: "Our policy is and always has been clear. If you don't have a licence and are using televisual equipment, you're breaking the law."

Arthurs Bar · « **Reply #87 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:49:06 pm »

My reply from the BBC. Just infuriating. You try to come across as well as you can so they read your words and take note. But this lot don't give a toss. No wonder people look for other methods to get their views across!!

Thank you for your e-mail.

We note your concerns regarding Kelvin MacKenzie contributing to 'Question Time' on 12 February.

'Question Time' considers him to be a suitable panellist since the programme is committed to including a wide range of views and perspectives. His views can be controversial - but robust argument is what the debate on 'Question Time' is all about. There is no question of the BBC or 'Question Time' endorsing the views of any panellist who appears on the programme.

Please be assured, however, that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

BBC Complaints

Crosby Nick · « **Reply #88 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:49:44 pm »

Rushed it slightly but my complaint has been submitted:

I am writing to complain about the forthcoming appearance of Kelvin Mackenzie on this evening's Question Time, a program that is normally excellent viewing. Mackenzie is a proven liar, worse still, one who has shown no remorse for the lies that he allowed to be printed in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster in April 1989. It seems ironic that the BBC suspended one of it's highest paid employees for essentially a prank made in bad taste due to the number of complaints made by the public yet repeatedly invite Mackenzie; someone who has offended and hurt far many more people than Ross and Brand onto its shows. It seriously makes me question the decsision making process at the head of your organisation.

I know from experience that this complaint will be treated with a standard response but please take my, and countless other of these complaints on board and think in future on whether it's really worth having the view of an unashamed liar on your panel.

Regards

Jason McG · « **Reply #89 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:54:19 pm »

Thank you for your e-mail.

We note your concerns regarding Kelvin MacKenzie contributing to 'Question Time' on 12 February.

'Question Time' considers him to be a suitable panellist since the programme is committed to including a wide range of views and perspectives. His views can be controversial - but robust argument is what the debate on 'Question Time' is all about. There is no question of the BBC or 'Question Time' endorsing the views of any panellist who appears on the programme.

Please be assured, however, that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

BBC Complaints

Same, stock answer as before.

Byrnee · « **Reply #90 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:54:29 pm »

Got the standard response, he is suitable as the panel has to have a wide range of views and opinions, but they don't endorse him etc etc...

So replied in kind:

"I thank you for the speed of your response, but frankly, not good enough, BBC.

You haven't answered the questions I asked so here goes again:

I am also very interested in an answer to the following questions:

Would you employ (and by that word I mean pay to appear even once on a programme) a member of a Neo-Nazi organisation, or perhaps any radical right-wing group so as to allow them to espouse their views?

Would you allow a Holocaust denier to speak openly about political issues, given that their opinions are so horribly skewed on the one issue surely they could not be rational on another?

Finally, would you allow Carol Thatcher back without a full and frank apology? And subsequent to this, if she did indeed apologise but later retracted said apology and remarked that she was proud of her original comments, would she continue to be paid by the BBC?

Interested to hear what the official party line would be, and whether you can see the hypocrisy, BBC.

I'll even add one to the mix. Maybe each time you resposn without answering I'll add another question to the list.
So here goes: Would the neo-nazi or holocaust denier be a suitable candidate due to their views and perspectives?

Sincerely,

David Byrne
London"

RedGirlSuzie · « **Reply #91 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:54:53 pm »

Done and sent, horrible tw*t

To whom it may concern,

I am yet again finding myself writing a complaint to the BBC regarding the hiring of Kelvin Mackenzie, after first complaining in October '08 and receiving a reply which didn't address the issues raised at all.

I have now seen that he is to appear on Question Time tonight, and with the issues that are due to be discussed, I'm guessing the bank bosses apologising etc, having someone such as Mackenzie on talking about such an issue is a complete joke. How can he possibley comment on people making apologies, that is hypocracy of the highest order.

I know that alot of people around the country see the boycott of the s*n newspaper as a joke, but I don't think they realise how much pain they, and mostly Mackenzie, caused to the families and friends of those who were tragically killed on that hurrendous day almost 20 years ago.

I would draw your attention to this website www.hfdinfo.com, ask you to have a look at it, and see whether you still think it is fair that people have to see this man on their television screen paraded around like a celebrity, discussing the issue of apologising, and making a living from tarnishing the names of the 96 people that we lost, something he STILL has not APOLOGISED for himself.

I would be very grateful for a proper response this time, and not one to just fob me off, as this is an extremely important issue, as the constant hiring of such a man is being to make a joke of the BBC.

Regards

Zeb · « **Reply #92 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:57:03 pm »

Quote from: jason23 on February 12, 2009, 03:45:53 pm

I seriously doubt it mate. They just seem to wait until things go quiet and then wheel him out again.
Last time we complained long and hard and explored many different avenues and we all got the same brush off. They didn't even log the fact that we were complaining.

Yeah, was just searching through their official 'responses' to major causes of complaint. Not a single mention about previous complaints.

Still worth doing though. And the more, the better. There's a lot of exiled scousers (myself included) and having complaints appear from all over the place is effective.

Lfc Rules · « **Reply #93 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:57:52 pm »

Stock reply for me as well ........

Thank you for your e-mail.

We note your concerns regarding Kelvin MacKenzie contributing to 'Question Time' on 12 February.

'Question Time' considers him to be a suitable panellist since the programme is committed to including a wide range of views and perspectives. His views can be controversial - but robust argument is what the debate on 'Question Time' is all about. There is no question of the BBC or 'Question Time' endorsing the views of any panellist who appears on the programme.

Please be assured, however, that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Regards

BBC Complaints

redgriffin73 · « **Reply #94 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:57:55 pm »

Got the same standard email response back from them as usual.

Rafas3leggedtable · « **Reply #95 on:** February 12, 2009, 03:59:49 pm »

Just sent this in. Keep fighting lads and lasses.

"There was a surge of Liverpool fans who had been drinking and that is what caused the disaster. The only thing different we did was put it under the headline 'The Truth'. I went on [BBC Radio 4's] World at One the next day and apologised. I only did that because Rupert Murdoch told me to. I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth." Kelvin MacKenzie speaking in 2006.

This man is once again one of the guests on tonights Question Time. Please stop giving this liar a platform to air his bigoted views. Have some respect and thought for the 96 families still suffering nearly 20 years on.

Yours respectfully,

David Matthews

No666 · « **Reply #96 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:00:11 pm »

Did we ask them under FOI 2000 Act how many complaints they had received about the liar? It was something discussed last time this raised its ugly, red-veined head but I am unsure if anyone followed up. Maybe something to do this time - total culmulative complaints received about use of KM in panel/discussion/broadcasts. Also is there any individual more complained about?

RedGirlSuzie · « **Reply #97 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:00:29 pm »

They must know when they arrange for him to appear that a large number of people are going to complain, so they probably already had the reply typed up before they got the first complain.

God damn arsewipes at the bbc

No666 · « **Reply #98 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:08:39 pm »

I've just requested info on the complaints against him, also as compared to complaints against others - might provide some ammunition.

Arthurs Bar · « **Reply #99 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:08:41 pm »

Just sent this back in as a reply to the "stock" answer they have been giving.

He is NOT suitable!!

Please don't patronize me with his "robust argument". He has no argument, he was wrong and has been for 20 years. He told lies, everyone knows this yet you choose to ignore these facts by offering him work that the public pays for. Your show is about people with some sort of intellect that talk about policies in a rational way. He does not come under that discription as he is a disgraced former editor, therfore not "suitable". You are giving him credibility by allowing him on your program. He doesn't deserve it. You know he is just plain wrong, yet you continue to give him your air time. Your company is failing in what it is trying to be. Honest, decent and well-balanced.

kwalitee, no? · « **Reply #100 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:13:44 pm »

I've had the standard response also, didn't address the points I made in my complaint either.

red_til_i_die · « **Reply #101 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:16:02 pm »

Got the same bog standard reply as last time. fucking useless wankers

jason42 · « **Reply #102 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:16:14 pm »

Stock response as expected....
'Question Time' considers him to be a suitable panellist since the programme is committed to including a wide range of views and perspectives. His views can be controversial - but robust argument is what the debate on 'Question Time' is all about. There is no question of the BBC or 'Question Time' endorsing the views of any panellist who appears on the programme.

Bunch of c*nts the lot of them...

Loz81 · « **Reply #103 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:17:36 pm »

Stock response as usual.

Does not mean that it is not worth complaining about. The more complaints there are the more seriously they will take it. And, maybe I am being blindly optimistic here, but some people at the BBC may still look in to it despite the crappy standard reply.

jason42 · « **Reply #104 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:17:54 pm »

Quote from: No666 on February 12, 2009, 04:00:11 pm

Did we ask them under FOI 2000 Act how many complaints they had received about the liar? It was something discussed last time this raised its ugly, red-veined head but I am unsure if anyone followed up. Maybe something to do this time - total culmulative complaints received about use of KM in panel/discussion/broadcasts. Also is there any individual more complained about?

Yep we had several people have several goes at finding out stuff using FOI but got knocked back every time.

ElMagico · « **Reply #105 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:19:01 pm »

Done and got this reply from Justine

Justine Greening MP

Member of Parliament for Putney, Roehampton and Southfields

House of Commons

London, SW1A 0AA

Thank you very much for your recent email. I wanted to email back to let you know that it has been received and I will be taking action on it over the next few days.

If you are a Putney, Roehampton or Southfields resident then it would be very helpful if you could include your full name and address in your email. If you haven't, please resend your original email including this information as I cannot reply without it.

I receive a large number of emails and letters each day but I aim to respond to your message as soon as possible.

Best Wishes,

Justine Greening MP

joezydudek · « **Reply #106 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:24:15 pm »

I've also received the stock response. I'm going to send them a reply when I have the time.

Zeb · « **Reply #107 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:25:03 pm »

re. Members of Parliament

They're not allowed to take action for non-constituents so if someone is resident in her constituency, that would be ideal if you want her to be able to raise it.

Danroge(Y.N.W.A) · « **Reply #108 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:33:41 pm »

just got my response

Thank you for your e-mail. We note your concerns regarding Kelvin MacKenzie contributing to 'Question Time' on 12 February. 'Question Time' considers him to be a suitable panellist since the programme is committed to including a wide range of views and perspectives. His views can be controversial - but robust argument is what the debate on 'Question Time' is all about. There is no question of the BBC or 'Question Time' endorsing the views of any panellist who appears on the programme. Please be assured, however, that we have registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers and commissioning executives within the BBC, and also their senior management. It ensures that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC. Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us. Regards BBC Complaints

like i said in my earlier post same old shit

ElMagico · « **Reply #109 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:40:34 pm »

Quote from: Zeb on February 12, 2009, 04:25:03 pm

re. Members of Parliament

They're not allowed to take action for non-constituents so if someone is resident in her constituency, that would be ideal if you want her to be able to raise it.

Blah, no point messaging Louise Ellman in Liverpool. Nothing to do with anything

Bobbins · « **Reply #110 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:47:07 pm »

Just sent this.

Quote

I was not shocked to find Kelvin MacKenzie listed as a guest on tonight's Question Time. The BBC has shown time and again that it cares not a jot for the feelings of the people of Merseyside. No matter how many complaints and protests, we always get the same stock answer. It seems as though nothing will make the BBC understand our pain.

I was however, shocked to see the Hillsborough tragedy being exploited on your website as an incredibly crass marketing tool. When you acknowledge in his online profile that his disgraceful lies about Hillsborough are one of his few claims to fame, then perhaps it might make you realise just who you are employing. It also serves MacKenzie's long-standing exploitation of the tragedy as a means to gain notoriety.

It is one thing to employ this hideous man; I understand that you feel the need to have lying bigoted reactionaries on the panel from time to time, regardless of their intelligence or worth to the show. But it is another thing to reinforce his behaviour and perpetuate the sense of importance that he feels from causing suffering to the victims families.

People keep saying that Russell Brand got sacked, but he resigned.

red-dragon · « **Reply #111 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:47:15 pm »

Complaint sent:
Again I find myself shaking my head in disbelief. I am again left wondering why the BBC continues to employ the disgusting liar that is Mr MacKenzie on various BBC programmes.

This liar who, not only printed as front page news complete lies relating to the Hillsborough stadium disater in April 1989, he also still, 20 years later refuses to apologise for and stands by those lies. Those same comments that were found to be lies by the Interim Taylor report in to the tragedy.

This man has no place on a channel that should be representing the people of the UK and following recent high profile comments by radio and tv personalities, I would request that Mr MacKenzie, as Carol Thatcher has, for not being remotely sorry for what he said and printed, is never allowed to appear on a BBC show again.

I am also saddened that the BBC chooses to make mention of his coverage of the Hillsborough disaster in his profile for the programme tonight but does not mention that the reason it caused "widespread outrage" was because of the atrocious lies printed that caused no end of heartbreak for families of the bereaved and many other people who were at the stadium that day. The fact that nearly 20 years on there has still been no unreserved apology from this man surely points to him being a descpicable liar who does not deserve any airtime on the BBC.

Although I would be interested to know what the difference was for complaints that were received in order for Jonathan Ross to get suspended, Russell Brand to get sacked and Carol Thatcher to not be asked back, I as previously, shall await your standard response and no action with much anticipation.

Regards

Grobbelrevell · « **Reply #112 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:52:38 pm »

Just sent the following:

I just wished to portray my sheer disbelief that the BBC could again choose to provide a proven liar such as Kelvin McKenzie with a platform with which to air his views.

The BBC is a public body that should be acting in the best interests of the public in my personal opinion. The fact that this man has caused and continues to cause untold distress to the families and friends of the 96 innocent football supporters that perished as a result of the Hillsbrough disaster by peddling the utter lies he passes off as facts should have been at the forefront of your decision as to whether to select such a person for your programme.

The fact that someone such as Russel Brand can be sacked for a childish prank taken too far and yet Mr. McKenzie (i suspect you know of his history due to the boast against his profile relating to his "controversial Hillsbrough coverage" as well as the previous complaints received the last time he was selected), can continually be allowed to feature on a BBC show outlines for me the absolute thoughtlessness of this decision.

I am absolutely certain that the BBC has previously and will continue to receive thousands of complaints relating to this and would like to think that an organisation funded via licence payers would take into consideration the feelings of those very same licence payers.

Unfortunately i expect nothing more than a bog standard response.

As a public organisation you should be utterly ashamed.

RomaRed · « **Reply #113 on:** February 12, 2009, 04:55:11 pm »

Quote from: RomaRed on February 12, 2009, 11:36:47 am

I've never complained to BBC before, but enough is enough. Just sent this off and expect weak justification in return.

Paul

Dear Sir/madam,

I would like to complain in the strongest possible terms regarding your continued use of Kelvin Mackenzie as a guest panellist on Question Time.
Let us be clear about Mr MacKenzie - he is a man who oversaw total falsehoods regarding the worst stadium sporting tragedy in British history - the Hillsborough disaster, by making the most appalling claims regarding supporters' behaviour. In case you forgot, he approved a story claiming, among other lies, that fans stole from corpses and urinated on them. All these claims have been proven to be completely false, the Sun itself issuing a lame apology for what it called "the most terrible mistake in our history." But to compound the great offence he has caused, after first apologizing for the story he later retracted and said he felt no remorse. Mr MacKenzie has also used a previous appearance on Question Time to stand by his comments.
Not only were these claims false and grossly insulting to supporters and the memory of the dead, they also caused untold distress to the families of the bereaved. You or I can have no perception of the continued pain they suffer to see such a person continue to appear on the BBC.
Please do not dismiss me as one outraged football 'fan' who has taken things out of proportion. Yes I love football and yes I have a great devotion to Liverpool, but I also have a sense of decency and certain expectations of how the BBC behaves. Catering to a person who has lied and insulted those who came to the aid of dying friends is behaviour that any person, not matter what their affiliations, should be appalled with.
Furthermore, not only do you continue to give Mr Mackenzie employment, you actually use his track record on Hillsborough in his the blurb promoting your programme. Please do not try and defend this with claims that we all have different views, not matter how outrageous. Mr Mackenzie's were not views, they have been proven to be LIES.
Again, I urge you to stop and consider for one moment the gross offence and hurt your are causing many families and ordinary-thinking people, people who help support the BBC and should expect to be treated better than this. Shame on you.

Paul Anthem

Yep, just got the same bullshit back from the too, and have replied with this...

Dear sir/madam,

Don't insult my intelligence. This is the same stock reply you send to everyone. A subject of such importance and sensitivity deserves a little more, I believe, than some regurgitated response.
It is not about his "views". It is about claims that have been proven to be wrong, to be lies, and that are still not acknowledged with any kind of apology and even recognition. It is about clear actions that have caused further distress and misery to countless bereaved people.
I repeat it is unacceptable that you condone such actions by treating this person as a creditable panellist.
Wake up and show a little guts.

Paul

woosies caddie · « **Reply #114 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:03:34 pm »

Here is the formal BBC Complaints process. Time to escalate the issue, as we have been ignored by the BBC for too long over that lowlife

Stage 1: What happens first when I make a complaint?
We aim to reply to you within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint. We also publish public responses to significant issues of wide audience concern on this website.
If we have made a mistake we will apologise and take action to stop it happening again.
If you are dissatisfied with our first response, please contact the person who replied explaining why and requesting a further response to the complaint.

Stage 2: If I'm not satisfied with this second reply, what can I do next?
If you consider that the second response you received still does not address your complaint, we will advise you how to take the matter further to this next stage. You should normally do this within 20 working days
If it is about a specific item which you believe has breached BBC editorial standards and it was broadcast or published by the BBC, it will normally be referred to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The Unit will independently investigate your complaint (normally in writing), decide if it is justified and, if so, ensure that the BBC takes appropriate action in response.
Other complaints at this stage will normally be referred to management in the division responsible. For full details of the BBC’s complaints processes please visit the BBC Trust website.

Stage 3: If I still think the BBC has got it wrong what can I do?
The BBC Trust ensures complaints are properly handled by the BBC and that the complaints process reflects best practice and opportunities for learning.
Within 20 working days of your response at Stage 2, you may ask the BBC Trust to consider an appeal against the finding. If the BBC Trust upholds an appeal it expects management to take account of its findings.
You can write to the BBC Trust at 35 Marylebone High Street, London W1U 4AA. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website.

woosies caddie · « **Reply #115 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:04:20 pm »

This is the BBC trust website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/index.html

Papey · « **Reply #116 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:20:15 pm »

To Whom it may concern: I have never made a complaint in my life regarding a television programme. I believe in freedom of speech and that people are entitled to an opinion. However, I must take exception to Kelvin McKenzie being given a platform to spout his usual bigoted bile on your question time programme to be broadcast tonight. I would draw your attention to this website www.hfdinfo.com, ask you to have a look at it, and see whether you still think it is fair that people have to see this man on their television screen paraded around like a celebrity, discussing the issue of apologising, and making a living from tarnishing the names of the 96 people that we lost in the Hillsborough disaster, something he STILL has not APOLOGISED for himself."There was a surge of Liverpool fans who had been drinking and that is what caused the disaster. The only thing different we did was put it under the headline 'The Truth'. I went on [BBC Radio 4's] World at One the next day and apologised. I only did that because Rupert Murdoch told me to. I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth." Kelvin MacKenzie speaking in 2006. This man is once again one of the guests on tonights Question Time. Please stop giving this liar a platform to air his bigoted views. Have some respect and thought for the 96 families still suffering nearly 20 years on. Sadly, I know you will get many complaints regarding this PROVEN liar and that you will unfortunately be unable to reply to each one. I will expect the usual generic brush-off from the BBC and that nothing will be done with regard to the cretin. Yours in hope, Daniel Pape (Licence payer) JFT96

Sent. I took some of that off some other posters on here who complained, I didn`t think you would mind if you spot some of your own work there. If you do, sorry for the plagiarism.

Deman · « **Reply #117 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:22:04 pm »

Same stock reply here also.

Thank you for your e-mail.

We note your concerns regarding Kelvin MacKenzie contributing to 'Question Time' on 12 February.

'Question Time' considers him to be a suitable panellist since the programme is committed to including a wide range of views and perspectives. His views can be controversial - but robust argument is what the debate on 'Question Time' is all about. There is no question of the BBC or 'Question Time' endorsing the views of any panellist who appears on the programme.

etc...

rafasredangel · « **Reply #118 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:29:12 pm »

Quote from: Byrnee on February 12, 2009, 03:54:29 pm

Got the standard response, he is suitable as the panel has to have a wide range of views and opinions, but they don't endorse him etc etc...

So replied in kind:

"I thank you for the speed of your response, but frankly, not good enough, BBC.

You haven't answered the questions I asked so here goes again:

I am also very interested in an answer to the following questions:

Would you employ (and by that word I mean pay to appear even once on a programme) a member of a Neo-Nazi organisation, or perhaps any radical right-wing group so as to allow them to espouse their views?

Would you allow a Holocaust denier to speak openly about political issues, given that their opinions are so horribly skewed on the one issue surely they could not be rational on another?

Finally, would you allow Carol Thatcher back without a full and frank apology? And subsequent to this, if she did indeed apologise but later retracted said apology and remarked that she was proud of her original comments, would she continue to be paid by the BBC?

Interested to hear what the official party line would be, and whether you can see the hypocrisy, BBC.

I'll even add one to the mix. Maybe each time you resposn without answering I'll add another question to the list.
So here goes: Would the neo-nazi or holocaust denier be a suitable candidate due to their views and perspectives?

Sincerely,

David Byrne
London"

This is quality.

arnaldo · « **Reply #119 on:** February 12, 2009, 05:31:33 pm »

thats what he wants. he wants us to complain so he gets more attention.