The BBC have now responded to my complaint about bias requesting information on their monitoring of bias with the following dismissal.  I have appealed to the Information Commissioner on the grounds that this is management information as well as journalistic information and is therefore not protected.


Tom Franklin
By email
11 TH December 2018

Dear Tom,

Freedom of Information request – RFI20182116

Thank you for your request to the BBC of 26 th October 2018, seeking the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000:


The response failed to answer the question

Thank you for your rapid response to my complaint of bias over Brexit coverage at the BBC.
Unfortunately it doesn’t really address the issue. Although you make assertions that there is impartiality there is nothing in your email which actually demonstrates this. I would therefore be grateful if you would supply me with information that will enable me to understand how you ensure impartiality. In particular could you send me

1. A copy of your policy on impartiality in relation to Brexit. Given the nature of Brexit I presume that you do have one 
2. Data on who you have interviewed on Brexit on national radio and TV, in what programmes and time slots where appropriate (eg the Today Programme), how long they were interviewed for, what their position was deemed to be in relation to Brexit (or why they were chosen). 
3. How you monitor impartiality within and between programmes. 

If it helps, this can be considered to be a Freedom of Information Request as well as a complaint. I am sure that you understand that unless you are gathering and monitoring this (or similar) information yourself you cannot know whether or not you are being impartial. I look forward to your response.
The information you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion. Part VI of Schedule 1 to FOIA provides that information held by the BBC and the other public service broadcasters is only covered by the Act if it is held for ‘purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature”. The BBC is not required to supply information held for the purposes of creating the BBC’s output or information that supports and is closely associated with these creative activities.
The limited application of the Act to public service broadcasters was to protect freedom of expression and the rights of the media under Article 10 European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). The BBC, as a media organisation, is under a duty to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest and the importance of this function has been recognised by the European Court of Human Rights. Maintaining our editorial independence is a crucial factor in enabling the media to fulfil this function.

That said, the BBC makes a huge range of information available about our programmes and content on bbc.co.uk. We also proactively publish information covered by the Act on our publication scheme and regularly handle requests for information under the Act.

Appeal Rights

The BBC does not offer an internal review when the information requested is not covered by the Act. If you disagree with our decision you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. Contact details are: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, tel: 0303 123 1113 or see https://ico.org.uk/. Please note that should the Information Commissioner’s Office decide that the Act does cover this information, exemptions under the Act might then apply.

Yours sincerely,
INFORMATION RIGHTS,
BBC Legal

BBC additional response to my complaint - and my response

Dear Tom

Reference CAS-5182836-DCZY8T

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate that you were dissatisfied with our previous response and felt strongly enough to write to us again.

1. We treat Brexit like any other news item - the same rigorous guidelines on due impartiality apply to it as to all topics we report on. They are available here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality
2. We don't routinely provide this information as part of our complaints process. However, we have made your specific request known to our FOI team who will respond directly to you in due course.
3. Each programme team put great care into the planning and execution of each episode. Great effort goes into bids for interviews and contributors to ensure a breadth of opinion, taking into account recent guests, their views and arranged guests confirmed for subsequent appearance. When a particular item, like Brexit, is regularly covered, a reasonable period of time is used for including the full spectrum of opinions. That will differ for each programme depending on whether it's a daily or weekly slot, rolling news and hourly radio bulletins will achieve the same over a series of hours as the conversation unfolds in real time.

It's not true to say we overlook the Remain argument on the Today programme. Just looking at recent editions alone, it's featured a range of voices about the wider Brexit debate - including Carolyne Fairbairn (CBI), Anna Soubry, Shami Chakrabarti, ex-European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, Ken Clarke, Jo Johnson, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Tony Blair, David Lidington, Justine Greening, Nicky Morgan, and Chuka Umunna.

We have read and noted your points but don’t consider they suggest evidence of a possible breach of standards. Opinions do vary widely about the BBC and its output, but this does not necessarily imply there has been a breach of standards or of the BBC’s public service obligations. For this reason we regret we don’t have more to add to our previous correspondence, and so will not respond further or address more questions or points.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision you may ask the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) to review it. Details of the BBC complaints process are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ where you can read the BBC’s full complaints framework.

If you wish to ask the ECU to review this decision, you should contact it directly within 20 working days of receiving this reply. Please explain to the ECU why you believe there may have been a potential breach of standards or other significant issue to investigate. You can email ecu@bbc.co.uk, or write to: Executive Complaints Unit, BBC, Broadcast Centre, London W12 7TQ. Please include the case reference number we have provided in this reply.

If you have a disability which means you cannot write to the ECU and may need the BBC to provide a reasonable adjustment to access stage 2, you can telephone the ECU on 0303 0806145.

Thank you again for contacting us.
Kind regards
Donal Rainey
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

---

I do not believe that the response (included below) provided adequately deals with the complaint as it does not address the points that I raised. I would have preferred to await the results of the Freedom of Information request that I made before submitting this response, but as you have only given me 20 days to respond, and I cannot guarantee that I would have the time to understand the response to the Freedom of Information request whenever I receive it and be able to respond within your time limit.  I may therefore need to add to this once I receive that response.

My complaint in short is that the BBC shows severe bias in its Brexit interviews by

• Giving undue weight to “hard Brexiters”.
• Giving undue prominence to Conservative party members.

It is rare for a discussion not to include “hard Brexiters”, but may omit Remainers, and it is common for all, or at least a significant majority of the people being interviewed to be Conservatives.

The response only provided anecdotal information, which does not go to the core of the problem (the plural of anecdote is NOT data), and does not help to dispel the view that there is bias.  Indeed, the failure to provide any sort of numerical data (despite the request) strongly suggests that the BBC is trying to hide something.

In your guidance to impartiality https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/breadth-diversity-opinion you say in section 4.4.2

“Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single programme, web page or item.  Instead, we should seek to achieve 'due weight'.  For example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing consensus.

“Nevertheless, the omission of an important perspective, in a particular context, may jeopardise perceptions of the BBC's impartiality.  Decisions over whether to include or omit perspectives should be reasonable and carefully reached, with consistently applied editorial judgement across an appropriate range of output.”

But you clearly fail in this. “hard Brexit” is clearly a view held by only a minority of people see, for instance, https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/if-there-was-a-referendum-tomorrow-with-the-option-of-accepting-the-governments-brexit-agreement-or-leaving-the-eu-without-a-deal-which-would-you-support-2-2/

Fieldwork End Date / Pollster	Remaining in the EU	The government's Brexit agreement	Leave the EU without a deal	Don't know
15 November 2018 / Survation	43%	16%	28%	13%
15 November 2018 / Opinium	32%	21%	24%	23%

A hard Brexit is clearly only supported by a minority (a minority that is probably increased by the frequency with which the BBC pushes the idea) but is perpetually offered as though it is the main alternative to accepting the negotiated deal.  It is rare to hear a discussion of Brexit on the BBC without the no deal Brexit option being offered, while frequently we do not hear from a remain spokesperson (despite this being a much more commonly supported idea). 

You also omit many perspectives.  You never, or almost never, cover the idea of greater integration with the EU than we currently have, though this is a legitimate idea and part of the perspective and part of the debate that we need to be having, and which you have a duty to cover.

I would therefore like to have the data I have requested, and to know what action you are taking to ensure that you end the bias in your coverage of Brexit.

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin

email:    tom@tomf.org.uk

BBC response to my complaint of bias - and my reply

I wrote to the BBC complaining of Bias on 10 November

Here is their response:

Dear - Franklin

Reference CAS-5173865-KL2G8M

Thanks for contacting us regarding the Radio 4 programme ‘Today’ broadcast on 10 November 2018.

I understand you felt there were a lack of strong remain viewpoints.

Thanks for rising these concerns. The reports on this edition were focused more on Theresa May’s inner party divisions and to gather viewpoints from party members about those concerns. It wasn’t focused specifically on leave or remain viewpoints from the EU referendum. Due impartiality isn’t necessarily always achieved in one single report or programme, so we would ask that you take account of how we cover a topic over time. This means if Jacob Rees-Mogg appears on a programme, then we wouldn’t necessarily have a counter version of Jacob on the programme to offer immediate view. Balance is more achievable over a more reasonable period and the programme features a wide spectrum of political viewpoints.

Also note that presenters would play devil’s advocate and put forward counter viewpoints when challenging comments made by interviewees. These interviews can be very robust and aggressive if they feel the interviewee isn’t directly addressing the concerns in the question put forward.

Impartiality is a core value of the BBC, and one reason why we believe our news coverage is trusted and respected around the world. We apply this principle to our reporting of all issues. BBC News never takes a position on anything that we cover, but we always aim to reflect a broad range of voices on any given subject. The BBC is of course independent of any political or commercial interests, and our news agenda would never be influenced by any outside organisation.

With regards to Brexit coverage in general, we aim to cover the ongoing Brexit negotiations with due impartiality. This means we carry a wide range of views about the European Union from across the political spectrum on our output.

We approach the story with the required level of impartiality, with input from various commentators and experts. 'Feedback' on BBC Radio 4 has addressed the issue of complaints about how we cover the story. Our Chief Political Adviser and the controller of the BBC's daily news programming joined Today presenter Nick Robinson, to discuss the common complaints from all sides. You may be interested in the sections at 3mins and 13mins especially: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09z688x

As with any story we cover, BBC News does not have an opinion on the European Union, or on the UK’s position within it. Instead we try to explain the different and sometimes complex issues affecting our audience during Brexit. Our aim is to give them the information they need in order to follow the process clearly.

We appreciate your concerns and hope this helps to explain how we approach our reporting of this subject.

That said, we value your feedback about this issue. All complaints are sent to senior management and programme teams every morning and I included your points in this overnight report.

These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensures that your complaint has been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future programmes.

Once again, thank you for contacting us.

Kind regards

Philip Young
BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaint


Thank you for your rapid response to my complaint of bias over Brexit coverage at the BBC. Unfortunately it doesn’t really address the issue. Although you make assertions that there is impartiality there is nothing in your email which actually demonstrates this.

I would therefore be grateful if you would supply me with information that will enable me to understand how you ensure impartiality. In particular could you send me

1. A copy of your policy on impartiality in relation to Brexit. Given the nature of Brexit. I presume that you do have one.
2. Data on who you have interviewed on Brexit on national radio and TV, in what programmes and time slots where appropriate (eg the Today Programme), how long they were interviewed for, what their position was deemed to be in relation to Brexit (or why they were chosen).
3. How you monitor impartiality within and between programmes

If it helps, this can be considered to be a Freedom of Information Request as well as a complaint.

I am sure that you understand that unless you are gathering and monitoring this (or similar) information yourself you cannot know whether or not you are being impartial.

I look forward to your response.

Bias in the BBC - a formal complaint

Once again on the Today programme you are only interviewing Tories on Brexit.  It is not as if other parties don't have views on the issue, but you had an interview, quite correctly, with Jo Johnson, followed later by one with a minor back bencher who is a particularly extreme brexiter ie Rees-Mogg.

I have yet to hear from an extreme remainer on Radio 4. And whenever Brexit is discussed you seem to want to have an extreme brexiter. This pushes the whole debate in that direction and is not a neutral act.

Once again, you are supporting a particular type of brexit by giving it a platform over all other forms of brexit.

Esther McVey and Universal Credit - open letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Mr Sturdy,

Earlier this week in parliament Esther McVey lied by claiming that Mind, amongst other charities, welcomed the recent announcement from the government on Universal Credit. 

I know you don't use twitter, so I am copying in Mind's response ( I realise this is not the easiest way to read it, but perhaps it is important that you see what Mind wrote)

Yesterday the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions @EstherMcVey1 mentioned us in a list of organisations who had recognised and welcomed changes to #UniversalCredit. We thought it was important to set the record straight.

Here’s what we said in July when the Government first published its plans for moving people from older benefits onto #UniversalCredit > https://bit.ly/2zzxP2y 

Here’s what we said in response to the budget last week > https://bit.ly/2AOupLf 

And here's what we said yesterday when the Government published it’s updated plans for #UniversalCredit > https://bit.ly/2JN4kPO

We remain clear that new #UniversalCredit regulations don't go far enough. We won't stop campaigning until we get a benefits system that really works for people with mental health problems.

We need MPs to vote against these regulations which create a real risk for people with mental health problems. And we need as many people as possible to join us. Find out more about the campaign here > https://bit.ly/2zvDFlB

I am therefore writing to you to request that you

• Write to Esther McVey to ask her to correct the lies she told in parliament (or if you prefer to correct the way she misinformed parliament)
• Write to Esther McVey to tell her that the current proposals for Universal Credit are woefully inadequate and the roll out must be stopped as a matter of urgency.
• To do all in your power to stop the roll our of Universal Credit and work for its replacement by something that actually helps the most vulnerable members of society rather than punishing them.

Yours sincerely

Tom.

Tom Franklin
4 Frazer Court
York
YO30 5FH

email:    tom@franklin-consulting.co.uk
mobile: 07989 948 221
skype:   tomnfranklin

BBC bias - The response

So the BBC has sent out the blandest possible non-response...

Dear - Franklin

Thanks for contacting us regarding the Andrew Marr Show on November 4.

We've received a wide range of feedback from our audience regarding Arron Banks’s scheduled interview on the programme. To allow us to reply promptly and use our resources as efficiently as possible, we’re sending this response to everyone. We’re sorry we can’t reply individually, but we hope this will address most of the points raised.

There is strong public interest in an interview with Arron Banks about allegations of funding irregularities in relation to Leave.Eu and the 2016 EU Referendum. The Electoral Commission has laid out concerns about this in public and it is legitimate and editorially justified for Andrew Marr to question Mr Banks robustly about them, which he will do on Sunday morning.

We do appreciate your feedback on this issue and once again thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

BBC bias and platforming of fascists

Complaint to the BBC:

Tomorrow on the Andrew Marr Show Aaron Banks is due to be interviewed. This is giving voice to a fascist currently being investigated for fraud relating to Brexit.  This is grossly irresponsible as it is rewarding criminality which was used to get a platform on the BBC (and other sites) in the first place.

As Aaron Banks achieved platforming through fraud it is totally inappropriate to reward this by more air time. 

I have seen in your early response that you claim that this is appropriate to interview people being investigated for criminality.  If that is so, what are the editorial guidelines that determine which crimes are worthy of giving air time to those under investigation and which are not?

Also, this is not a new story, but one that has been emerging for months, how come you are willing to give the person under investigation TV time whilst you have given almost none for those raising the allegations in the first place.

This is evidence of persistent and systematic bias by the BBC in favour of Brexit.

Peoples' vote - open letter to Julian Sturdy

Dear Julian,

I strongly believe that there should be a vote at the end of the negotiations so that people can decide what they want.  There are several very powerful reasons for this, and I am sharing some of them with you here.

• The original referendum was very close.  It was only 52% to 48% which is very close, and now more people have dropped off the electoral register than the majority in the referendum.
• At the time we did not know what leave would mean.  We were told many things including such things as (many of these come from “Vote leave for a fairer Britain” http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/vote_leave_for_a_fairer_britain.html
• We would be better off with Brexit (all reputable bodies say that we will be worse off under any deal, especially a “no deal” scenario.
• There will be £350 million a week for the NHS (as the economy is already estimated to be £250 a week smaller than if we had decided to remain this is clearly not true).
• We would have as good or better trade terms under Brexit (absolutely not true)
• “Wages will be higher for working people outside the EU… because pay will no longer be undercut by uncontrolled migration.” All economic forecasters are saying that we will be worse off under any Brexit scenario.
• After we Vote Leave, there won’t be a sudden change that disrupts the economy. – This will clearly not be true if there is no deal, and even with a deal many companies are talking or relocating part or all of their business to Europe.
• There’ll be no damage to trade with the EU – something which is clearly untrue under any scenario, and disastrously so under a no deal Brexit.
• Given that only 52% wanted to leave and 48% to remain, it was also clear that there was no uniformity of opinion of what people wanted, going from at one end people who wanted full integration in the “United States of Europe” through reluctant remainers who thought it would on balance be better to reluctant leavers who thought on balance it would be better to leave to hard Brexiters who wanted no deal.  In this situation it is clear that we should be going for the least possible Brexit (in accordance with only 52% wanting it all). But that is not going to be offered.
• There are around 1 million new adults now entitled to vote
• In any sensible deal there is a vote to call for negotiations, and then another vote to decide whether people accept the result.  If you think of negotiations between businesses and trades unions there is a vote to empower the trade union to negotiate, and then a vote on whether or not to accept the terms.  NB if the terms are not accepted then the status quo is preserved, not all the workers leave the business.

So, I am asking to press the Prime Minister and Brexit Secretary to support a vote on the results of their negotiations, and to support such a vote.  Anything else would be an abrogation of democracy.

If the Brexit terms agreed are as good as ministers claim then there should be resounding support, and if people do not want whatever have been negotiated they should be allowed to say so. 

Best wishes

Tom.

Tom Franklin

Solar power tariff - open letter to Julian Sturdy MP

Dear Julian,

I am one of the many people who support solar power, to the extent that I have installed solar panels on my roof. Solar energy is supported by the vast majority of the population (something like 6 in 7 people support it). 

The IPCC recently warned that we must drastically cut carbon emissions far more quickly than the government is currently proposing in order to avoid climate breakdown.  I am therefore shocked and appalled that the government is now preparing to remove the final support mechanisms for new solar installations. The export tariff payment currently sits alongside the feed-in tariff subsidy for small scale solar installations. The export tariff pays solar owners in exchange for surplus power exported to the grid for use by others. The export tariff is the supplier buying energy generated by people’s homes, and is in no sense a subsidy.   If it is removed, as proposed, then people will be giving electricity to their electricity supplier, when they generate it, while having to buy electricity when they are not.

I am writing to ask you to urgently write to the minister, Claire Perry, to express your opposition to this removal of the ability of home owners to sell their surplus electricity and ask her to guarantee an ‘export tariff’ for rooftop solar installations after March 2019.

Best wishes

Tom

Tom Franklin 

Don't let the government remove democracy over fracking

My letter to York City Council leaders relating to the proposed changes to planning law to make exploratory drilling the same as putting up a garden shed and fracking nationally important.  Both remove local control over the process.

It is based on a letter you can send via CPRE

---

As my local council leader, I am contacting you to express my concern about the government consultations launched recently that aim to speed up the planning process for shale gas extraction in England.

The consultations seem to have been deliberately timed so that there will be very few full council meetings across the country where they can be discussed.  For instance the next meeting of York Council is two days after the end of the consultation.

Under the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the government is intending to treat non-hydraulic exploratory drilling for shale gas as permitted development (PD).  This would preclude any  democratic oversight as permitted development does not come to the council.  As can be seen at exploratory sites fracking is on a different scale to other permitted developments and what other permitted development required approval by several regulatory authorities.  This is quite clearly an undermining of local democracy.

At the other end of the process they want to include shale gas extraction in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Regime (NSIP).

There is a clear contradiction here.  The first part is said to be too small to be covered by planning permission, the extraction process to large to be addressed locally.  It  would effectively reduce local input all the way through the planning process for fracking, from exploration to production. For further detail, please find a short briefing below.

Planning is at the core of local democracy, and is currently one of the only channels through which local people like me can have a say on what happens in our local area. In that spirit, I urge you to raise my concerns with our MPs.

Further, please submit a local council response to the consultations, specifically calling on the government to drop the PD and NSIP proposals.

The issue of shale gas extraction has led to local people across the country engaging in the planning process on scales rarely seen before, and so I believe the channels through which they can engage should not be removed.

I believe that given the risks posed to our countryside, and the strength of opposition, that there should be greater - not less - scrutiny on decisions surrounding fracking.  I am campaigning with CPRE to see that these proposals are dropped.

Yours sincerely

Tom
Tom Franklin

Capital punishment - Joint open letter to Julian Sturdy and Rachel Maskell MPs

Dear Julian Sturdy / Rachael Maskell,

We are writing to express our deep shock and concern over the actions of Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, and Prime Minister Theresa May in relation to El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey.

Let us first make clear that we consider the crimes which El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey have been accused of are absolutely abhorrent and we totally condemn what they are alleged to have done.

As you are no doubt aware Sajid Javid has written to the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions stating that “I am of the view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case, so no such assurances will be sought.”[1]  This is a clear departure from existing UK policy, which had been to require such assurances as the death penalty has been abolished under UK law, and is outlawed by the European Convention on Human Rights.[2]

We call upon you to:

• Write to Sajid Javid condemning this change of policy, and demanding that he refuses any support for the extradition or trial of El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey unless, and until, he receives assurances that they will not be subject to the death penalty
• Write to the Prime Minister demanding that parliament be given a say before there is any change of policy relating to the death penalty, including supporting extradition or trials without assurances that accused people will not be subject to the death penalty
• Issue a statement condemning the government’s support for the death penalty

Yours sincerely.

Tom Franklin, Dave Taylor, York Green Party

Ian Buchanan, Secretary York Amnesty International

Emilie Knight, Matt Elliot, Clare Harrison, York for Europe

Janet Beattie

Steve Roskams

Sally Brooks

Mick Phythian

Gwen Vardigans

Jonathan Tyler

Graham Martin

Rosie Baker

Margot Brown

Nicola Normandale

[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/22/uk-drops-death-penalty-guantanamo-opposition-opens-door-execution/

[2] European convention on Human Rights Protocol 6 Article 1 reads “The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.”

Capital punishment - open letter to Julian Sturdy

Dear Julian,

I am shocked that Sajid Javid has taken it upon himself, without consulting parliament, to end the UK’s ban on the use of the death penalty or supporting the death penalty elsewhere.

As I am sure you are aware by now, El Shafee Elsheikh and Alexanda Kotey are currently being detained with the likelihood that they will be sent to face trial in the US for their heinous crimes. For many many years the UK government and the Home Office have refused to be complicit in the use of the death penalty, and have required assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed on anyone extradited from the UK even where the crime is a capital crime in the country they are being extradited to.

Sajid Javid seems to have taken it upon himself, without reference to parliament, to change this policy.

I find this appalling not only because the death penalty should never be used, and has been abolished in this country, but also because it seriously undermines the role of parliament.

I am therefore writing to ask you to:

• Write to Sajid Javid condemning this change of policy
• Write to the Prime Minister demanding that parliament be given a say in any such change in  policy
• Issue a statement condemning the government’s support for the death penalty

Yours sincerely

Tom.

Tom Franklin

Complaint of bias in BBC

3 July 2018

On World at One today we only heard from Tory politicians on the issue of Brexit.  Most of the time was taken up with one extremely hard brexit  backbench MP who represents a small group of MPs.

We did not hear from any party other than the Tories.
We did not hear from any remain MPs
We did not hear any real challenges of Rees-Mogg's position.

This is part of a huge trend where we here mostly brexit speakers and increasingly rarely from politicians who are not Tory.

While it is more extreme in World of One today we are increasingly seeing alternative (to hard right Tory Brexit) squeezed out of the BBC.

There was absolutely no balance today.

letter to Julian Sturdy MP Please sign the pledge 'MPs not border guards'

Please email your MP too.

I am writing to ask that your surgery remains a place where everyone in our constituency can safely seek guidance and support.

I am horrified by reports of MPs turning over constituents to the Home Office to face possible detention or deportation. MP surgeries should not be a place where the government’s ‘hostile environment’ approach towards immigrants is allowed to flourish. In a democratic society everyone should have the right to safely meet with their member of parliament and expect representation without fear of being detained or deported.

The recent Windrush scandal has exposed the dangers of the government’s hostile environment policy and the inadequate and dysfunctional nature of the Home Office's procedures. As my MP, please show leadership in standing up against this vicious attempt to turn us all into border guards reporting on members of our community.

Please sign the pledge 'MPs not border guards' at http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/pledge to reassure your constituents that you will never hand anyone over for immigration enforcement, and instead maintain the discretion and care we expect from MPs.

By signing the pledge you will send a message that you reject the idea of making the country a hostile environment for immigrants, and instead guarantee a safe and confidential surgery for anyone in your constituency who needs it.

Yours sincerely

Tom

Tom Franklin

Open letter to Julian Sturdy MP on Inquiry into UK involvement in rendition and torture.

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I am writing to you to ask that you take action to secure an independent public inquiry into UK complicity in torture and rendition. There is clear evidence of UK involvement in both torture and rendition since 2001, including in the aftermath of the Afghan and Iraqi wars.

Recently Theresa May’s government apologised for the government’s role in  the rendition and torture of Abdul-Hakim Belhaj and Fatima Boudchar in Ghaddafi’s Libya.

Last year the government stated that it ‘condemns torture in all circumstances’, and issued a call for ‘governments around the world to eradicate this abhorrent practice.’ If the Government is to prevent any such cases arising in the future, and is to speak with moral authority against torture overseas, a full public reckoning into the UK’s own involvement in these practices is essential.

In 2010, the UK Government promised such an independent public inquiry into UK complicity in torture and rendition. However, over eight years later the Government has failed to deliver on this promise, and has instead allowed only a narrower, restricted study by the Intelligence and Security Committee. This investigation was not public and did not have full access to vital information, including the cases of Abdul-Hakim and Fatima.

Last week, a cross party group of MPs and Peers, led by former Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke, wrote the Prime Minister to demand that an independent judge-led inquiry now be established.

I am therefore asking that you add your voice to this growing cross-party consensus and write to the Prime Minister, demanding that the Government deliver on its original promise, and hold an independent judge-led inquiry with access to any information that it needs.

Please support this initiative to ensure that the UK is never again involved in rendition or torture.

Best wishes

Tom.

Open letter to Julian Sturdy MP on CETA (Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement)

Dear Mr Sturdy,

I’m writing to you as one of your constituents, because I care about the impacts that modern trade deals can have on many areas of life, from food standards to jobs to the environment.

This Monday, 18 June, the Commons will vote on a motion on CETA (Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement), the EU-Canada trade deal. I believe this deal poses unacceptable risks and I ask you to vote against it.

Key areas of concern include:

• Job losses and inequality:

The Employment and Social Affairs Committee of the European Parliament said that CETA is likely to lead to job losses, long-term unemployment and increased inequality. (See: https://bit.ly/2JDak0G )

• Undermining standards:

CETA could undermine standards on health, food safety, the environment and other areas, and similar trade deals have been used to bully countries into lowering standards including severely delaying the implementation of plain packaging for cigarettes and safety standards for oil pipelines.

• Public services:

CETA will open up public services to privatisation and make it harder for them to be taken back into public hands in future, and making it impossible to ensure that they are delivered for the benefit of users of the service rather than the profits of corporations.  We have already seen some of this with the health service and education and railways.

• Corporate courts:

CETA includes provision for corporate courts, which allow foreign corporations to sue governments outside of the national legal system. Following public pressure, the provisions in CETA have been marginally improved to make them more transparent (the Investment Court System), but without changing their fundamental basis. They have also been put on hold and face a legal challenge, but would pose a huge risk if implemented. If you believe that one of the reasons that we are leaving the EU is to take back control then you should vote against corporate courts as they are outwith parliamentary control, and will bind future parliaments even more than being a member of the EU and without any democratic oversight.

I believe that trade deals like CETA need to be rethought to support people and planet. I ask you to vote against the motion and work for trade deals that will help to build shared prosperity in the UK and around the world.

Kind regards,

Tom Franklin

4 Frazer Court

York

YO30 5FH

Syria: Response from Julian Sturdy MP

I wrote to Julian Sturdy about Syria http://tomfranklin.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/syria-open-letter-to-julian-sturdy-mp.html.

Here is his response

Dear Mr Franklin 

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent decision by the UK Government, alongside the US and France, to target three chemical weapons facilities in Syria following a poison gas attack in the town of Douma. l am very grateful to hear your concerns over this most important and pressing issue. 

l have carefully considered the correspondence l have recieved in the past few days and thought I would provide a comprehensive response which responds to the various points raised with me during this time. 

I believe the Prime Minister was right to take decisive action following the horrendous attack in Douma given the consensus in the international community that the use of chemical weapons on civilians should be met with targeted, but severe repercussions. The Prime Minister, following detailed military and secret intelligence briefings, assessed that the UK should join our close allies to make absolutely clear to President Assad that we will not sit idly by and allow these atrocities to take place without consequence. 

I understand the concerns raised about the lack of a specific parliamentary vote beforehand. However, this is not required for all forms of military action, and our Government acted in line with legal advice. The Government has ensured that Parliament can scrutinise this decision; with significant time set aside for debate. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has said she took this course of action in the knowledge that Parliament would hold her to account, and she has received support from across the House. 

Western leaders continue to seek a diplomatic solution to the Syrian Civil War, and an important part of this was an agreement to eliminate Assad's chemical weapons programme following the attack on civilians in Ghouta in 2013. Since this time, the OPCW has not been able to verify whether all manufacturing, storage and research facilities were in fact destroyed. 

On each occasion when chemical weapons have been used in Syria, Russia has blocked any attempt to hold the perpetrators to account at the UN Security Council, with six such vetoes since the start of 2017. Just last week, Russia blocked a UN resolution to establish an independent investigation able to determine responsibility for the attack in Douma. This is why a response via the UN was sadly not possible. To say the government should not have acted without this authorisation is to say that dictators should be free to murder people with impunity, as long as they have a protector on the Security Council. I do not believe any of us wish to live in a world where this is the norm. 

The use of chemical weapons is completely illegal, but these rules are worth nothing without the willingness to take action against those who use such weapons. If the international community does  

not punish the perpetrators, we are all made less safe, as we send out the message that there are no consequences for such wicked criminal behaviour. 

Just as we cannot allow the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be deployed without consequence,we cannot allow the use of deadly nerve agents here in Britain. Sergei Skipal could easily have decided to settle in a larger cathedral city, such as York, and it could have been a North Yorkshire Police officer admitted to intensive care. 

Throughout this incident, the Kremlin made light of the situation and denied all involvement. This  

represents Russia's total disregard for international cooperation and tendency to employ misinformation. 

The unrelenting civil war is now in its seventh year and we still face repercussions from the immense destruction. Our response to this crisis has been unprecedented, committing £2.6b since 2012 to meet 

the immediate needs of vulnerable people in Syria and refugees in the region. This makes us the second largest bilateral donor. 

The UK resettled more refugees than any other country in the EU in 2016 and our approach has  

thankfully discouraged people from undertaking perilous journeys that have too often proven to be fatal. 

Our country will continue to provide a comprehensive humanitarian package for those caught up in the conflict, coupled with supporting a united international consensus around punishing the use of chemical weapons. I firmly believe that the ordinary citizens of Syria should be our primary concern and this should drive our approach to this conflict, whilst sewing the UK's national interest. 

Once again I am grateful for your thoughts on this challenging area and fully appreciate the level of  

concern on all sides of this debate. If there are any further points you feel it would be helpful for me to respond to or address then please do not hesitate to let me know. 

Thank you again for your correspondence. 

Yours sincerely

Julian Sturdy

BBC bias the brush off

So, following my complaint about bias in the BBC

http://tomfranklin.blogspot.com/2018/04/bbc-bias-failure-to-report-islamophobia.html

their response and my further complaint http://tomfranklin.blogspot.com/2018/05/bbc-bias-bbcs-response.html

They have now given me a total brush off, but I will be responding.


Dear - Franklin

Reference CAS-4917021-G1CZX1

Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate that you were dissatisfied with our previous response and felt strongly enough to write to us again.

We have read and noted your further points but don’t consider they suggest evidence of a possible breach of standards. Opinions do vary widely about the BBC and its output, but this does not necessarily imply there has been a breach of standards or of the BBC’s public service obligations. For this reason we regret we don’t have more to add to our previous correspondence, and so will not respond further or address more questions or points.

If you are dissatisfied with this decision you may ask the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) to review it. Details of the BBC complaints process are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ where you can read the BBC’s full complaints framework.

If you wish to ask the ECU to review this decision, you should contact it directly within 20 working days of receiving this reply. Please explain to the ECU why you believe there may have been a potential breach of standards or other significant issue to investigate. You can email ecu@bbc.co.uk, or write to: Executive Complaints Unit, BBC, Broadcast Centre, London W12 7TQ. Please include the case reference number we have provided in this reply.

Kind regards

Janine McMeekin
BBC Complaints Team

BBC Bias - The BBC's response

Dear - Franklin

Thanks for contacting us about recent BBC News coverage of UK politics.

We note you feel there hasn't been enough coverage of alleged incidents of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party. It's clear you find a difference between this and the media treatment of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. This has been shared with news staff and senior colleagues in BBC News.

Following Baroness Warsi’s comment, the Muslim Council of Britain’s complaint about the Conservatives has not been picked up by other organisations or Westminster politicians - as the anti-Semitism allegations within the Labour Party have been. The Muslim Council of Britain appears to have made these most recent comments in a statement to another news organisation. At the time of writing, the MCB has not issued a press release, or put these comments about the Conservative Party and Islamophobia on its website.

However, we have reported on the suspension of specific individuals in the Conservative party - online examples remain here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43959705
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-43647990
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-43656434

In 2016 we also reported criticisms of the tone of the Conservative Mayoral campaign in London: https://bbc.in/1qYgdbd

We have also reported on attitudes to and the treatment of Muslims more widely in the UK. For example, earlier this year Panorama recently reported from Blackburn, a town with a large Muslim Asian population, looking at divisions along ethnic lines in the town and how they have changed over time.

We will continue to report impartially and fairly on developments, both at a Party level and more generally speaking.

Thanks for taking the time to share your reaction with us.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

---

I do not think that this in any way addresses the problem that I complained about in my previous post.

I will therefore be taking this further, addressing what they say and restating the point.

I find it seriously worrying that you only consider something newsworthy if it is "picked up by other organisations or Westminster politicians".  The BBC employs a large number of journalists who should be researching these stories themselves, rather than relying on other media or the MPs to do their work for them. When did the BBC stop looking for news stories and only pick them up from other organisations.  

I think few would dispute that the vast majority of the main stream media ("other organisations") are conservative supporting, and certainly anti-Corbyn (and anti-Green Party too).  This means that you are taking your stories from a very biased source and creating the very echo chamber that is so often decried.  This simply reinforces the so called "Westminster bubble" and it is imperative for the survival of democracy in this country that you use a much wider set of sources.

Secondly, on the specifics of your response.  Yes, the three stories  that you cite were reported online, but the anti-Semitism story was the lead story for day after day and in the news for weeks. What is more, a quick search of your site finds plenty of stories of Labour councillors being suspended such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-43836166

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-43825864

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-43655793

And, I could easily find more.

So, to suggest that a few articles about suspension of individual Tory councillors (when there are a similar number of articles on suspended Labour councillors (and quite possibly from other parties if I could be bothered to look), simply does not balance the endless stories about anti-Semitism in the Labour party.

Indeed, I find the response so disingenuous that it is quite clear that you are trying to cover up the degree of bias that exists at the BBC.