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.