BBC holds the law in contempt

There is a derogation from the Freedom of Information Act created specifically for the BBC.  When the new bill was wending its way through Parliament, the BBC and Channel 4 complained to the Home Office that they would not be able to do their job properly if covered by the Act. They argued that, if for example their journalistic sources were compromised, they would no longer be able to collect important news stories. They didn't  mention Robert Peston acting as a receptacle every time a minister wanted to make a diversionary leak, but that kind of activity would also presumably have been threatened were the corporation to fall under the Act.

In the event, a compromise was reached and the derogation was written into the act, exempting the BBC from its terms but only regarding "journalistic and artistic" activities. At the time it was agreed that this would cover all of the day-to-day activities of the BBC. See here.

With depressing predictability, the BBC, those lovers of freedom of information, have now set about expanding the scope of the derogation as far as they possibly can. The meaning of "journalistic purposes" has been expanded to cover editorial policy, reviews of editorial and journalistic performance and a host of other activities that can't possibly have been the original intention of Parliament. The Information Commissioner (ICO) has sat back and accepted all this.

Even where an activity is known not to be covered by the derogation, the BBC routinely claims that it is. The ICO has managed to show his teeth on the subject of the BBC's finances, which he has ruled are not covered by the derogation. And does the BBC care? Take a look at some of the decisions of the Information Commissioner.

• Someone asked for production costs of East Enders. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.
• Someone asked for the name of the highest BBC earner in Northern Ireland. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.
• Someone asked for the 20 highest paid entertainers at the BBC. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.
• Someone asked about expense claims at BBC Scotland. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.
• Someone asked about money handed out in game show prizes. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't. 
• Someone asked about spending on radio stations. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.
• Someone asked about budgets for Top Gear. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.
• Someone asked about costs of the Children in Need appeal. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.
• Someone asked about expense claims made. The BBC said it was covered by the derogation. The ICO said it wasn't.

I could go on, but I think you get the drift by now. You have to remember that decisions of the Information Commissioner carry the full force of law: they are equivalent to the decision of a judge. So for the BBC to continually argue that financial information it holds is not covered by the Act can only be described as contempt of court. The powers that be at the BBC clearly feel that the law can safely be flouted, and continually so, without the slightest fear of any comeback.

And meanwhile the Information Commissioner doesn't even raise a squeak of complaint. And why not, we might wonder? It's speculation, but perhaps the BBC and the ICO are both happy with the arrangement since both sides can keep themselves comfortably employed, bloated pensions fed by the poor unsuspecting licence fee payer and the poor unsuspecting taxpayer that they both wilfully ignore.

Comments

[Ron.Zelius]

Spot on, as usual. They are totally out of control but can levy a tithe on us. Why?

[Lanna]

That's..really incredible actually, thanks for posting.

I wonder how much that piss-poor revamp of the bbc's weather website cost...not that I have the mental energy to spare in trying to ask..:P

[Pete Stroud]

Thanks for the information. I must say I am not surprised.

Incidentally did anyone else hear James Hansen on the Today programme this morning? As usual he was given free rein to spread his pseudo scientific claptrap about AGW without any sceptical counter argument. I have complained yet again but expect nothing.

My complaint about the BBC's errors whilst reporting Dr Field's global warming rant on 14th February has been finally acknowledged. The BBC cannot deal with it unless I give them full details of the programme. I had given them the date and pointed out that the report was covered by news programmes throughout the day. Either grossly inefficient or stalling.

[Bishop Hill]

Almost certainly stalling. It's standard public sector practice as far as I can tell.

[Bob Ashton]

Bisop Hill and Pete Stroud have the same experience I have had with the Biased B******t Corporation. Although attempts have been made by his Lackeys to side-step the issue, I have written 7 - yes, 7 - letters directed personally to Mark Thompson.

For nearly 30 months I have been trying to elicit answers from him about their blatently biased reporting of climate change. He hasn't even shown the common decency to acknowledge my correspondence.

If he thinks this will make me go away, he is in for a shock!