BBC's FINAL WHITEWASH JOB

Dear Readers,

          It all looked very fair and proper. The BBC Trust, which is the governing body of the British Broadcasting Corporation, would consider my appeal. It was against the decisions of three of the BBC’s top executives that its Jersey Radio presenter Murray Norton had not engaged in or incited cyber-bullying against my son Simon Abbott when I believed he had.

          The Corporation would also appoint an Independent Editorial Adviser to examine the entire case and present a report to aid the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee (Committee) in considering my appeal.

          To make it even more just I was to be given a copy of the report to comment on and my views would then form part of my appeal.

          The complaint was initially made by my son, who died aged 47 after being relentlessly cyber-bullied during the last two years of his life. I took it up after his death.    

            It went through the chain of command from Jon Gripton, Editor, BBC Radio Jersey & BBC Channel Islands TV to Leo Divine, Head of the BBC South West Region and then to David Holdsworth, Controller, English Region, BBC News.

        The background to this story is in various posts of mine such as Did Cyber-bullies kill Simon Abbott? BBC’s Dilemma – Defining cyber-bulling and Defending Murray Norton etc.         

 The BBC's appeal process seemed perfect until a host of secrecy issues arose. Bias raised its ugly head when the Corporation refused to name the Adviser leaving me with the uncomfortable feeling that this was a BBC lackey.          

          I complained that as a pillar of British society the BBC had forgotten one of the main principles of fair justice and that was that Not only must it be done, but it must be seen to be done.

          The Independent whitewash specialist obliterated the names of the three executives, referring to them only by their titles. What reason could there be for this?    

The fishy business didn’t end there, it got worse, a lot worse. In the Adviser’s report references to information that would be given to the Committee, but not shared with the parties kept cropping up.

          What kind of justice is this? I asked. How am I supposed to comment on something that is being kept from me?

          The result of my son’s cyber-bullying allegations that came to naught after being given to the Jersey Police were outlined in the report with this rider The Police statement will be provided to the Committee but it has not been shared with the parties to protect the privacy of the individuals referred to (See my post JERSEY’S TWO FACED COPS).         

The same reason was given for only allowing the Committee to see some public postings relating to Norton which have some relevance to this appeal.

           I was kept out of the picture again when the Adviser referred to private posts on Norton’s Facebook wall. Only this time the Adviser went further by acting as the judge as to what even the Committee should be allowed to see when he/she stated The most relevant ones will be shown to the Committee.       

   The Adviser also went to the absurd lengths of removing the names of people in privileged court documents. I commented that this kind of unnecessary censorship tended to tarnish the veracity of the entire report because it makes one wonder what else the Adviser left out to protect somebody or other.

          The people who were seen by the Adviser were listed. But nowhere was my name mentioned. He/she visited Jersey and had a two and half hour meeting with Norton. He had already given his version to both Gripton and Devine, and Holdsworth had sanctioned it yet the Adviser felt it necessary to spend this amount of time speaking to Norton personally. How independent was this, I wanted to know, if the Adviser never even contacted the only surviving complainant?         

          How could all this secrecy possibly comply with the BBC’s Openness undertaking on its website?

          This tells us: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

          I sent all my concerns mentioned above to the BBC and I was assured they were submitted to the Committee. So far I have never been given any reasons to justify the way the Adviser’s investigation was conducted or why this person had to remain anonymous.

          Were things kept from me in the interest of the wider public or more importantly the BBC?

          Eventually I was given the Committee’s findings. First I got a draft with a  warning that these remain strictly confidential until they are published.

Inevitably when the final version arrived for publication on 1 July, that recurring theme some of the wording has been amended to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned cropped up again.

 But only the Committee would know how it could have been changed to protect anybody when, as far as I could see, neither version named a single person.

          Even my son and I were referred to as Complainants 1 and 2 and Norton was an anonymous BBC radio presenter.

          The Trustee members of the Committee who dealt with my appeal were Alison Hastings (Chairman), Sonita Alleyne, Richard Ayre, Bill Matthews and Nicholas Prettejohn. They were not named in their findings; I had to establish this myself.

          They read into my complaint things that were not there; conveniently ignored very important points; came to conclusions not supported by the evidence; contradicted themselves and put forward a very convoluted argument.

          It was such a sloppy job that they must have spilt whitewash all over themselves by the time they had finished.

          They incorrectly read the following into my complaint and decided (I have taken the liberty of inserting the missing names):

·      that “Norton had said nothing on air about Simon which contravened the BBC’s Editorial Guideline” when I had never suggested this. When I made my initial complaint to Gripton he told me that the BBC had not initiated or endorsed cyber-bullying. I replied that he protesteth too much as I was not alleging this. I told him my concern was about what Norton had done on social media and that it was warped morality for him to say that it wasn’t the BBC’s problem, if Norton, who was a freelance, did this in his spare time.

·      that “Norton’s charity work did not imply the BBC endorsement for one charity or cause above others and neither did it undermine the presenter’s on-air role or the public’s perception of the integrity of the BBC.” Again this was not part of my complaint. My point was that as a charity fund raiser himself he could not be impartial when he attacked the way my son was trying to raise money for the post natal cause after his sister committed suicide while suffering from this affliction.

They ignored these very important points:

·      They dismissed one of two reasons I gave as to why Gripton could not have judge my complaint impartially.

     They did not consider it relevant that Gripton was one of Norton’s Facebook friends and ruled that there had been no need for him to declare this when he replied to me. Conveniently they ignored the other much more important one that Gripton had shown that he regarded cyber-bullying as a joke. In an unrelated matter he Tweeted it was very amusing when somebody was cyber-bullying Shona Pitman, a member of the Jersey parliament with particularly offensive comments. In the same Tweet Gripton mocked her husband Trevor. After a complaint was made to the BBC Gripton disappeared from Twitter for months, even though the Corporation took no action against him.

·      They didn’t even consider my evidence that Norton had incited his photographer friend Ian le Sueur to cyber-bully my son. Norton admitted to the Adviser that when he arranged to meet Simon at a church he got Le Sueur to snatch a picture of my son without his knowledge. Le Sueur then used this to spice up Tweets in which he called Simon a con man, conning items out of celebs and duping people of hard earned money.  There was ample evidence to show that Norton and Le Sueur were working together to discredit my son. But the whitewash Five decided that they should only concern themselves with Norton’s actions and not anybody unconnected to the BBC. To justify the use of their brush once again they quoted this from the Corporation’s conflicts of interest guideline: The external activities of BBC editorial staff, reporters and presenters should not undermine the public’s perception of the impartiality, integrity or independence of BBC output. But far from supporting their case I believe it only fortified mine. What Norton did with Le Sueur was very much part of his external activities and as such should not have just been painted out.

Contrary to the facts they concluded the following:

·      that “Norton’s social media comments amounted to no more than a firm questioning of Simon’s motives and credibility for seeking charitable donations for the charity he had set up.” Threatening my son by saying The Police, the press and possibly the taxation authorities must be sent all complaints with hard evidence that Simons has actually done something wrong was definitely not firm questioning. And nor were the following libellous comments that made Simon out to be a crook. I will once again ask the Jersey Police if they have any further thoughts on him. Simon, if you are reading this, which my friends he might be, give it up, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need – instead of fake events that help no one, even those of us trying to raise funds. There were other Norton comments that made nonsense of the Committee’s firm questioning label.

·      that “on a small island like Jersey it was impossible for a well-known person like Norton to have a private life or for his social media to be private, but Norton had been careful to ensure that his various roles did not cross over in a way that brought the BBC into disrepute.” This was NOT TRUE. He was sued for libel by my son in Jersey’s Royal Court because of his slanderous cyber-bullying together with his friend Le Sueur and five other people. This was widely reported on social media and Britain’s Mail on Sunday, which has a readership of over two million. It carried a page lead story headlined ‘BBC man’s Twitter bullying campaign killed my son’ Devastated father claims offensive comments contributed to son’s heart attack. This was repeated in the MailOnline, which is said to be the most widely read website in the world. Inexplicably in the Committee’s eyes this did not tarnish the BBC’s name. 

They contradicted themselves by stating:

·      that “there was no evidence that the BBC presenter had behaved inappropriately on social media.” Again this was NOT TRUE.

·      that “the advice the BBC presenter had been given by the BBC regarding his involvement in the matter had been appropriate and although the actions could potentially have brought the BBC into disrepute, they did not actually do so.” This was the Committee itself contradicting its conclusion immediately above.

It was a watered down version of what the Adviser revealed. 

This was that Devine made it very clear to Murray that his involvement in this matter was ill judged and could, potentially bring the BBC into disrepute, even if, as he thought, he was acting in his private capacity. Furthermore, his freelance status made no difference to how his comments could be viewed. He was told not to make any further comment on any website concerning Simon Abbott.  In my appeal I stated It is absolutely clear that Devine decided that what Norton was doing was wrong and what Norton was doing was cyber-bullying Simon. There can be no other conclusion from the action Devine took and that’s the gist of this case. But in spite of the action Devine took both he, Gripton and Holdworth stuck to what they had claimed all along and that was that Norton had not cyber-bullied my son.

ONLY WHITEWASHERS WOULD HAVE SUCH WEIRD LOGIC 

BULLY WITH PAINT
SHOP CONNECTIONS

         

         In their wisdom the Five rejected my appeal and accepted the very convoluted argument of the BBC’s top brass.

          The Committee capped its findings by emptying the rest of its whitewash onto the BBC by saying it acted in good faith and dealt fairly and openly with both complainants. There was no breach of the Accountability guidelines.

          Regards,

          Jon, a disgusted father who had initially been impressed with the BBC’s apparently very fair appeal procedure, only to find that it was a window dressing illusion.

P.S. While my BBC complaint, which received considerable publicity, was going on Norton announced on his three hour Radio Jersey slot that this would be his last show for the foreseeable future. DOESN’T THAT SPEAK VOLUMNS?

BBC'S DILEMMA - DEFINING CYBER-BULLYING

DAVID HOLDSWORTH

Dear Readers,

         You would think that the BBC that well known pillar of British broadcasting that sets a high standard of investigative journalism with programmes like Panorama would know what cyber-bullying is. In the case of my son Simon Abbott the corporation couldn’t even recognise it after looking up its definition in the dictionary.

         But then white wash was clouding its vision and it was even more difficult to see things clearly when one of its own had been doing the bullying.

         This is what happened when I complained to Jon Gripton, head of the BBC in the Channel Island of Jersey, that Murray Norton, one of his radio presenters had cyber-bullied my son (See my posts DID CYBER-BULLIES KILL SIMON ABBOTT; CYBER WOLVES HUNTING SIMON ABBOTT  etc). It was after my son had died of a heart attack in Jersey aged 47 and I was unaware that he had previous complained to Gripton.

         I sent him a comprehensive dossier that included extracts from the court records of when Simon sued Norton, his photographer friend Ian le Sueur and six others for libel in a desperate bid to get them to stop trashing his name on social media.  

Gripton replied with this brush off. He said he and the BBC complaints team had previously investigated what I had raised after Simon had complained. He added that he did not condone cyber-bullying and refuted any allegation that BBC Radio Jersey initiated or condoned this. He told me that if I didn’t agree I should take the matter up with the Jersey Police.

It was only after I emailed him the same day saying he had neglected to tell me what the result was of his investigations that he replied saying that they found Simon’s and your allegations against the BBC unfounded.

Norton, he wrote, was a freelance and he had told Simon that if he had a complaint against Norton outside his work for the BBC he should pursue it elsewhere as it was not for me to investigate.

I told Gripton that he protesteth too much as I had never suggested that the BBC was involved in cyber-bullying or that it endorsed it. I told him that if the BBC considered this totally unacceptable it was warped morality for it to say it wasn’t its problem if a freelance did this in his spare time because it could still reflect on the BBC.

I also told him he was not convincing when he claimed that he personally did not condone cyber-bullying and I asked: Wasn’t it you who stated it was ‘very amusing’ when somebody was cyber-bullying Shona Pitman, a member of the Jersey parliament, with ‘particularly offensive comments’? In the same Tweet you mocked her husband Trevor.

A couple of days later Gripton sent me an outline of how Simon’s complaint was handled. This made our BBC chief look even more ridiculous. He stated that he got Simon’s complaint in October 2011 and he then made Norton aware of his responsibilities as a freelance presenter working on the BBC, stressed the need for impartiality and reiterated the need to bear this in mind in any dealings in his personal social media or indeed elsewhere.

What! Was this the same person he was talking about when he told Simon that what Norton did outside his work for the BBC was not for me to investigate?

GRIPTON coming out.

Further down the outline he sent me Gripton made himself look an even bigger Charlie by stating: I was of course aware of his (Norton’s) postings on his private Facebook page, but felt, following  my investigations, that this was not a matter for the BBC.

And although he describes himself as a social media wizard Gripton forgot that on Norton’s Facebook page he is listed as his friend since 2011. And that he was also in the Facebook circle and was one of the Twitter followers of Norton’s friend Le Sueur, who aided and abetted Norton in bullying Simon.

So don’t you think you should have got somebody else to investigate Simon’s complaint as you could hardly be described as an impartial judge, I asked him.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S SMOKING



That was when he decided to pass the buck up the line to David Holdsworth, Controller, English Regions, BBC News.

Absolutely DEVINE

As Simon had earlier got no joy from Gripton he had complained to the BBC’s Regional Head, Leo Devine, who did his own investigation and still sided with Gripton.

A couple of days ago Holdsworth came back to me with his decision. He supported his subordinates who had found no evidence that Murray Norton had engaged in or incited cyber-bullying on either BBC or personal accounts, or on public websites.

Holdsworth also concluded that the investigations were properly done.

But how odd is this? According to Holdsworth Divine spoke to Norton, who had ceased posting any comments about Simon Abbott in 2011, after your son had complained and confirmed that he would not be posting further comments.

Norton was doing nothing wrong in the BBC’s eyes, but he suddenly stops doing it when Simon complains. Well actually that’s not quite true. He fired at least one last salvo at Simon on his Facebook page in about November 2011.

This is what he said: I have pretty much run out of patience with this guy. I’ve met him, tried to help him (like hell) and he has even had the cheek to complain to the BBC that I am harassing him. The Police and the press and possibly the taxation authorities must be sent all complaints, with hard evidence that Simon has actually done something wrong, if they are to do something. In Surrey, where his late sister lived, the local Sutton newspaper is tracking him and have been in touch. In Devon the press are following him. I got this the other day. Damien Mills: ‘Hi I’m a journalist in Exeter, Devon, where Simon Abbott is staging another of his infamous fashion shows.’ Give him a shout and tell him your stories and concerns. My concern is his constant appealing to the ‘wannabe’ mentality of young girls asking for models for events that do not exist. He appears to get some replies for unsuspecting girls, some of whom give their details and even phone numbers. Simon, if you are reading this, which my friends he might be, give it up, come clean on the finances of the Trust, put the items you claim to have from the famous to good use. I’ll auction them for some people in real need instead of fake events that help no-one, even those of us trying to raise funds.

Helpfully Holdsworth included this Oxford Dictionary definition of cyber-bullying in his letter to me. It is the use of information technology to bully a person by sending or posting text or images of an intimidating or threatening nature.

Well I don’t think anybody who understands the English language would possibly say that this comment of Norton’s was anything other than intimidating and threatening.

Evidently three of the BBC’s senior executives thought otherwise.

What made it even worse was that this painted Simon as a rogue when there was no evidence to support this at all. Had this been the case the Police would have acted against him which was something that never happened.

All Simon was trying to do was to raise money for the Samantha Abbott Trust. He set this up to help women suffering from post natal depression, because that was what his sister was suffering from when she committed suicide.

MURRAY NORTON

The entire emphasis of the BBC’s investigation appears to have been on what Norton actually posted with the result that no mention is made of what Norton’s photographer friend, Ian le Sueur got up to clearly at Norton’s instigation. Norton organised for Le Sueur to snatch a picture of Simon when he met Simon at a church. 

Flash IAN LE SUEUR

Le Sueur then used this picture to bully Simon on the internet and to enable their fellow bullies to identify Simon whenever he went out so they could post further harassing messages with the result that he was scared to leave home alone towards the end of his life. 

And as Norton organised for the picture to be taken he must share the blame for what Le Sueur did with it.

 

SIMON'S cry for help after LE SUEUR was spamming Twitter with his picture calling him a con man

Was that not clearly inciting cyber-bullying or am I once again confusing plain English with double Dutch?

That's LE SUEUR'S business

If I, as an outsider, could find out that Gripton had a jocular view of cyber-bullying and was too close to both Norton and Le Sueur to judge this matter impartially surely, if the BBC’s sleuths did not already know about it, they could have found out.

So the only inference one can reasonably draw is that they chose to ignore it because it reflected badly on Gripton and as such on the way the investigation was handled.

Wouldn’t this be a good one for Panorama or better still CNN’s 60 Minutes.

Regards,

Jon