Please click here for more information about who I am and why I do this.
The text shown after 1), 2), 3) and 4) is copied exactly from the BBC's daily JV Show web page and I acknowledge their copyright of this text.
The "Find out more..." links to web pages referred to by the JV Show web page are available by clicking on the text following 1), 2), 3) and 4).
"Find out more..." text is only included here when it refers to a non-BBC web page link.
You can follow my occasional postings on Twitter at @JVineBlogMan although @TheJeremyVine has blocked me from following him.
I am subject to the BBC's "expedited complaints handling process" (meaning I'll be ignored) for two years from 25/01/12.

Thursday, 29 March 2012

My second appeal letter to the BBC Trust

According to their acknowledgement email, my second appeal letter is due to be discussed today. I can see no reason to not share it with you today, but I do not expect to receive a reply - or a decision - until sometime in May, which is nice...

Ladies and Gentlemen of the BBC Trust,

For a second time I have been invited to write to you to appeal against the BBC’s ruling that I will be subject to the “BBC’s expedited complaints handling procedure” for a period of two years following “dozens of complaints” that I have allegedly submitted over the past 17 months concerning Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine Show.

On 6th March I was in receipt of an unaddressed emailed letter from Natalie Rose saying that my initial appeal had been rejected and that a further appeal was needed from me, hence my letter to you today.

Ms Rose has gone through the 19 complaints I submitted in some detail, and I understand that you will have copies of our correspondence to hand.

The complaints I made are what they are. I stand by every word that I wrote and I see no need to go through them again. However, in the section of Ms Rose’s letter headed “Your appeal” my complaints have been categorised in to three distinct types:

 - Editorial choices of the programme
 - Updates to the programme’s web page
 - Mr Vine’s use of Twitter

There should, of course, be a fourth category concerning those complaints that refer to factually incorrect, speculative or biased reporting, but Ms Rose has chosen to ignore those from her categorisation. I consider that complaints 5, 6, 7, 9 and 13 as shown on Ms Rose’s letter would fall in to this fourth category.

I would like to take advantage of Ms Rose’s categorisation and write about the three issues she has highlighted in more general terms.

Editorial choices of the programme

The Jeremy Vine Show web page describes the programme thus:
Jeremy Vine and guests discuss the news headlines and talk to the people making them

Please note the use of the words “news headlines”. One of my issues with the content of this programme is that it fails to do exactly that. I can cite many examples of where important news headlines are completely ignored and instead completely trivial non-news topics are chosen for discussion instead. During 2011 these mind-numbing subjects included:
 - 14th January: FREEZER - What's the oldest thing in yours?
 - 23rd February: TV ADVERTS - Do you prefer them to the programmes?
 - 24th February: BREAST MILK ICE CREAM - Would you eat it?
 - 3rd June: TV TALENT SHOWS - Did the bitter reality of TV talent shows break your child's heart?
 - 10th June: EXPLODING GLASS TABLES - Has this ever happened to you?
 - 16th June: WART REMOVED BY SHOTGUN – Man used a shotgun to remove a wart on his finger.
 - 24th June: TOOTHBRUSH - Do you share a toothbrush with your partner?
 - 6th October: MEMORIAL BENCHES - When you die do you want a memorial bench?
 - 21st November: FISHY HANDBAG - We discuss the M&S handbag that smells of fish.

June was a bad month!

Following a number of complaints about these choices I was told by Andrew Martin (CAS-658231-6ZZPV6 29/03/11 12:00) that “our audience feedback shows that their editorial team’s story selection is not of huge concern to the vast majority of Jeremy Vine listeners”. Please believe me when I write that as an avid Radio 2 listener it is of concern to me! My complaints were an apparently vain attempt to have this policy changed, or at least re-examined, and have the programme “discuss the news headlines” as described. It appears that I have no choice other than to accept that this programme can and will discuss whatever it likes, whether relevant or not, whether current or not, and safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of its listeners could not care less.

In the same way as professional wrestling is described as Sports Entertainment (and not a proper sport as such) I used the phrase News Entertainment to describe Mr Vine’s programme. I still consider that to be fair, accurate and appropriate.

If you grant my appeal I promise that I will not complain about editorial choices in future. I will also accept that Radio 2’s flagship news programme will discuss non-news trivia on an almost daily basis as it sees fit while continuing to ignore the major and significant news stories of the day.

Updates to the programme’s web page

The BBC has invested millions of pounds in a web presence that is surely the envy of other broadcasters and news organisations. Despite this, it appears that the ability of somebody to type four titles, type four sentences, provide four links to relevant news pages and press “Publish” before 12 o’clock is often beyond the technological capabilities of the people responsible for this task.

My complaints about this poor service, for that is all it is, have been many. In his email (CAS-1260999-S6V2FV 25/01/12 12:08) Lee Rogers told me that “the programme holds the right to publish website content at a time convenient to it”.

If you grant my appeal I promise that I will not complain about late web page updates in future. I will also accept that it is often beyond the capabilities of the BBC to provide such simple updates in a timely and efficient manner, and I will remember that such updates are made for the convenience of the BBC and not for those who fund it.

Mr Vine’s use of Twitter

Mr Vine continues to block my main Twitter account from following his tweets for reasons unknown and unexplained to me.

I have read several sets of BBC guidelines on the use of Twitter, and they make no mention of blocking followers and when and why this may occur. It is obvious that the BBC is keen to embrace Twitter as a method for news dissemination and, presumably, audience interaction. For example, the Updated Social Media Guidance For BBC Journalists (
gives all kinds of information on how Twitter accounts should be used, with links to other relevant documents but I can find no mention of blocking anywhere. It also states “We label the Twitter accounts of some presenters and correspondents as "official"” so the distinction between “official” and “personal” is obviously already acknowledged and in place.

I have made several complaints about this with particular regard to these BBC guidelines. I received an email from Leanne Bennett (CAS-1235418-P7G2F1 20/01/12 05:55) that said “However, if you believe a serious and specific breach of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines has occurred and you wish to pursue this complaint further, you can contact the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit … and they will carry out an independent investigation.”. I took up this invitation, only to be told by Fraser Steel of the ECU: “I should also take the opportunity of rectifying an error; as your complaint doesn't relate to a matter of editorial standards in an item broadcast or published by the BBC, it doesn't fall within the remit of this Unit. The issue it raises is a matter for the management of BBC Audio & Music, and accordingly I have forwarded your message to them.”. This means, of course, that BBC Complaints wasted my time by giving me erroneous information. And needless to say, I have not had a response from BBC Audio & Music.

A typical response from BBC Complaints to other complaints on this issue would be (Terry Hughes CAS-1226295-676LCP 09/01/12 08:25) “I understand you are unhappy at being blocked from Jeremy Vine's Twitter feed. However, the Twitter account in question is a personal account and it is neither officially linked to, nor does it represent the views of, the BBC.”.

Let us look at that second sentence in more detail…

the Twitter account in question is a personal account

It is true that Mr Vine’s Twitter page used to say “All views personal of course” in the heading, but he has changed this recently to read “All views are my mum’s”:

Note that the heading also gives a link to his personal BBC presenter web page.

In earlier correspondence I cited the example of Vanessa Feltz who has two Twitter accounts: one for her personal life and another for her BBC broadcasts. I consider this to be an admirable way of dealing with Twitter and wished that other BBC presenters did the same.

Mr Vine already has two BBC email addresses (personal, and for his programme so the concept of separation will not be unknown to him.

Mr Vine uses his Twitter account to regale his followers with the latest football scores, his experiences of being a cyclist in London, what music he is listening to, etc., in which, and quite frankly, I have absolutely no interest. However, I would like the ability to interact with his Radio 2 programme in the same way that other listeners can and with the ease that Twitter provides. At present, this is being denied to me.

“it is neither officially linked to the BBC”

I do not understand how these words can possibly be true.

Mr Vine frequently promotes the use of Twitter before and during his programme, and on his web page. His stock phrase is “… and you can follow me on Twitter at @theJeremyVine …”. These invitations are many and I recently counted three in the first 40 minutes of the programme.

Mr Vine has also on occasions posted a photo of his radio programme script on Twitter for all to see, such as this one which related to one of my other complaints (number 13 in Ms Rose’s letter):

I am at a complete loss to understand how such a major part of the audience interaction on which Mr Vine’s programme depends cannot be “officially linked” to the BBC. In my view it is absolutely linked to the BBC and the production of this programme. That a multi-billion pound monopoly broadcaster such as the BBC does not understand the difference between the personal and broadcast views of its staff is, in my opinion, absolutely incredulous.

If you grant my appeal and my Twitter account remains blocked I do not promise that I will cease to complain about Mr Vine’s unfair use of Twitter in the future. Forgetting the specifics concerning Mr Vine for a moment, I feel that this is a major issue for the BBC and one that needs to be addressed. I will continue to press for a change in the way that the BBC learns to cope with this particular social media facility and continues to shirk its obvious responsibilities.

I respectfully request that my complaints are no longer subject to the expedited complaints handling procedure and that normal handling of any complaints I may wish to make (and subject to the undertakings given above) about Mr Vine’s programme is reinstated immediately.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this letter, and please feel free to contact me should you require any further information.

I look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience.

Monday, 26 March 2012

This week's shows 26/03/12 to 30/03/12

Dear blog readers,

I can't stand Feltz. Vine is irritating, but I really cannot stand Feltz. At all. Remember, she is the person who works in an industry that surrounds her with technology and yet she proudly proclaimed that "I have never sent an email in my life".

For the past few weeks I have felt that the time I spend writing this stuff every day is having a detrimental impact on other aspects of my life simply down to the time I spend on it. True, it is only 30 to 45 minutes per day but it can be at a time that is inconvenient during my working day. This is made worse when somebody at "our" BBC cannot be bothered to type four titles, four sentences and provide four web links to update the JV Show web page before the programme starts.

Once again, I am considering ending my daily rants. I have been doing this now for about four years (although the blog only started in January 2011) and, quite frankly, I am becoming aware that I am saying the same thing over and over again, and I'm getting bored with it.

Despite my best efforts, nothing really has changed. The JV Show continues to bombard us with irrelevant misinformation every day, while telling us what to think in its own special way. He will continue to have so-called experts in to brainwash us with their own points of view, and he will continue to think that I have the remotest interest in what Beryl from Bognor thinks about X, Y and Z without actually understanding any of them. The BBC continues to police itself, and I am expecting my second BBC Trust appeal to be just another "we think we're doing a great job, now go away and buy a TV Licence" response. And Radio 2 management continue to think that the award-winning Jeremy Vine Show is great radio.

However, my blog has proved that fans of the programme have to resort to personal insults when commenting, and the lack of any kind of "No, you're wrong, the JV Show is great because..." response is noteworthy. Pro-JV Show commenters (presumably that is what they are) will take the time to tell me I should get a life, etc., but cannot be bothered to tell me why. My life is my own, and I shall do with it as I please, thank you, but I would LOVE for somebody to construct a well-reasoned argument that opposes my own views. That would certainly create some interest for me, and hopefully for you too.

So, dear blog readers, while Feltz is standing in I am going to take this week off and there will be no daily 12:00 updates.

Please feel free to leave your comments. I really do read them all!

Thank you.

Friday, 23 March 2012

Today's show 23/03/12

Your last day then ... and the poor listeners of Radio 2 will have to suffer the abominable Ms Feltz next week. What have they done to deserve that? Was Jeremy Clarkson not available? Shame.

Anyway, it looks like we have more of the same today...

1) CHEAP BOOZE - Is the best way to cut down on problem drinkers to make everyone pay a bit more for cheap booze? : Other than the very occasional "try this, you might like it" sip, I have not drunk an alcoholic drink since 1978. I don't have any issues with alchohol, I just don't like it, and I don't know any "problem drinkers" as you so delicately put it. On that basis, I hope you will understand why this discussion is of no interest to me. Next...

2) PENSIONERS - We’re joined by the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls. He’s very concerned that pensioners are going to have to pay more tax – but wasn’t it Labour who once gave pensioners just 75p? : Ah, bless. Ed Balls, darling of the BBC. He'd turn up to the opening of an envelope. I would bet that Cameron counts his blessings every day Balls remains in the Shadow Cabinet as Balls is surely the Tory's best Secret Weapon. It is not very often that I agree with anything Tony Blair says, but I agree with this: Mr Blair refers to him in his memoirs as being “immensely capable intellectually”, but says his analysis of the party was “truly muddled and ultimately very damaging”. (
). Can you tell I'm not a fan? And I'm not a pensioner. Next...

3) TAX AVOIDANCE - We present Radio 2’s guide to how the rich avoid paying tax : And your special studio guests will be, of course, Moira Stewart (
) and John Birt ( I am sure that you can find others within the BBC to tell us how they do it. Next...

4) LITTER - The landowner from Northumberland who wants to stop people littering is told off for putting up a sign saying ‘Don’t be a tosser’ : And well done for finding a News Entertainment story to end the week. Jeremy will be proud of you.

The Jeremy Vine Show - what? no allotment?

Thursday, 22 March 2012

Today's show 22/03/12

A really quick one today because, and to be honest, it is all just so bleugghhhh...

1) NICK CLEGG - We’re joined by the deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Lib Dems Nick Clegg. He will tell us why he’s so proud his party has fought for your tax cut : I've never voted for his party in a general election, but he will be saving me a few quid. Next...

2) CHILDBIRTH - A mother who gave birth to triplets, dies eight days later. Did your mum die during childbirth and how did it affect the rest of your life? : How awful, but my mum is alive and well. Next...

3) BUDGET CALCULATOR - Have you done the Budget calculator? Are you a winner or a loser? And if you’re a winner, are you prepared to give your gain to your granny who’s lost out? : Having listened to Osbourne's speech yesterday, and without the help of experts to tell me what to think, I can confirm that I am both a winner and a loser. Next...

4) HELIUM - Scientists are complaining that we’re running out of helium - a precious resource - and it’s time to ban helium balloons : Banning! Jeremy will be proud of you. I have never inhaled helium and I cannot recall ever having bought a helium balloon.

Wednesday, 21 March 2012

Today's show 21/03/12

Budget day, so no surprises here...

1) ROBIN HOOD BUDGET? - It’s Budget Day and we ask: will it be a Robin Hood Budget? Will the Chancellor take from the rich and give to the poor or will it be the other way round? : I am going to assume that you are dealing with today's four topics in the order shown on your web page, even though this has not occurred in the last few days. If that is the case, can I take it that you will be trying to guess what Osbourne will say at 12:30? How utterley pointless. I have no doubt that you will have two experts and loads of callers saying "He should do this" and "He should do that", but I just have a suspicion that Osbourne has already decided what will happen. Next...

2) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - Dennis Waterman has been criticised for justifying hitting his ex-wife but should we spend a bit more time listening to what he says? Find out more in this article from the Telegraph : I cannot imagine for one moment ANY circumstance when I would consider thumping anybody (except perhaps in desperate self-defence). As for listening to what Waterman says, presumably you mean this from the last paragraph of Telegraph article: The full interview can be seen on Piers Morgan’s Life Stories which airs next month on ITV. Domestic violence and Piers Morgan ... I think I'll give it a miss, thanks. Oh, and I'll be listening to the budget on Radio 4 from 12:30. Next...

3) ASPIRIN - We discuss the wonder drug that is aspirin. It’s a pain killer, it’s good for the heart and now can it really stop cancer? : You must have missed the fourth paragraph from the BBC news page you link to, which says: But experts warn that there is still not enough proof to recommend it to prevent cancer cases and deaths and warn that the drug can cause dangerous side effects like stomach bleeds. I think that makes the answer to your question to be either "No" or "Maybe not". Next...

4) BUDGET REVIEW - And at 1.30, we return to the Budget - has it helped the millions or has it helped the millionaires? : Having listened to the budget broadcast I will be more than happy to form my own opinion, thanks.

Tuesday, 20 March 2012

Today's show 20/03/12

How did it go yesterday then? Did you manage to improve our world and our lives at all? Or did you just do what Jeremy does and change absolutely nothing?

At about 1:54 yesterday you said, "Morag, stay there" - several times but you never went back to her. Is she still hanging on? Poor woman ... lied to and then cut off in full flow. Nice.

The easy ride ends here, and here are some topics you won't be discussing today (which is a shame, because I would listen if you did):
BBC viewers 'very comfortable' with pay download service
Viewers are "very comfortable" with the BBC's plans to launch an iTunes-style download service which would open up thousands of hours of never-before repeated content, according to a senior corporation executive. The BBC's director of archive content Roly Keating said he wanted it to be the "norm, not the exception" that BBC shows were available to buy online soon after transmission.

Very comfortable? I don't think so. I pay £145.50 for my licence fee and then have to pay again to watch the programmes I have already paid for. Bargain!

"As Mark Thompson said in his speech, this is not a second licence-fee by stealth or any reduction in the current public service offering from the BBC".

Oh, silly me. Because, errr, Mark, Mark Thompson, ummm, errr, (see 24th January) says that it must be true. You can fool some of the people...

Talking of Thompson...
BBC director general Mark Thompson announces departure
The BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, has told staff he will leave the corporation this autumn. With nearly eight years in the job, he has been the BBC's longest-serving director general since the 1970s.

Presumably he wants to spend more time with his enormous pension. We can only hope that his successor has the ability to string a coherent sentence together (again, see 24th January).

And what's this in the video at 00:30...? "Relations with the Tory-led government appear cordial now. The Murdoch empire is the new media bogeyman". Really? Whatever the government do you still have Ed Balls on speed-dial to tell us why it was a bad thing, but it is good to see the BBC finally admit that they're gunning for Murdoch. Many of us have known that for a long, long time.

And finally...
TV licence cheats make up a TENTH of all magistrate court cases
More than 3,000 people a week are being prosecuted for not having a TV licence making up a tenth of all magistrate court cases, it has been revealed. Spiralling numbers of prosecutions courts deal with more such cases than any other offence. Two out of three of the defendants are women – thought to be because they are more often at home when enforcement officers call.

Well, Thompson's pension will have to be paid for somehow. TV Licensing have no right of access to our homes, and cannot prosecute without evidence. I need say no more.

Ooohh look, a nice early web page update today (11:25). You see, it can be done!

1) SERIAL KILLER - A serial killer who appears to target Jews and Muslims is still on the run in southwest France. We speak to someone who suggests that France should blame herself : And so we have your first mysterious "someone" of the week. Let's just hope that the killer is caught soon, but I fail to see what your discussion today will achieve. Next...

2) RESTORATIVE JUSTICE - If someone in your family was murdered, would you ever be able to forgive the killer? We talk to Tanya Byron about the power of restorative justice : I haven't forgiven other people for far less than murder, so the answer to your question is "No". How is it that Tanya Byron is not just another "somebody"? Next...

3) TAX - The Chancellor says, in the interests of transparency, he will tell us exactly what our taxes are spent on. Critics say that will help the government justify spending cuts : I hope this happens, as I would like to know. Now, if only the BBC would do the same and learn what the word "transparency" means. Next...

4) FABRICE MUAMBA - Why are we being asked to pray for the Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba - when surely it’s the doctors and nurses who will make him better? Find out more in this article from the Mirror : Are we? A friend and neighbour of mine was seriously injured in an accident at work two weeks ago. We don't know for sure what happened to him, but there is a suspicion that he had a heart attack which then made him fall and caused his subsequent injuries. He died yesterday. My heart goes out to his wife, son, daughter and young grandchild that he has left behind. If I do any praying I think I'll pray for them instead, if you don't mind.

Monday, 19 March 2012

Today's show 19/03/12


According to Twitter, Jeremy is away recording Eggheads, so welcome Assmah for your first stint standing in for The Great One.

A quick introduction: I write to Jeremy every day and explain why the four topics for discussion are largely irrelevant to me, together with relevant topics that I would like him to discuss - and which he completely ignores with almost 100% reliability. You can read my past communications here:

So, what are you discussing today? Let's see, and I'll be easy on you...

1) FABRICE MUAMBA - The Bolton footballer Fabrice Muamba is still lying critically ill in hospital after suffering a cardiac arrest on the football pitch on Saturday. How could it happen that an incredibly fit young footballer suffers such a catastrophic attack? : I'll be honest and say that I had never heard of him or this unfortunate incident until yesterday evening. Let us hope that he makes a full recovery. Next...

2) WELFARE REFORMS - The government wants to reform the welfare system so it’s better to work than receive benefit. But we speak to a very worried single mum who says that she will lose tax credits and be so poor she’ll barely be able to feed her son : I am not a single mother, I don't receive any benefits, I don't have any children and I work for what I earn. Next...

3) ORKNEY AND SHETLAND - And finally, as the debate rages over Scottish independence, we speak to someone from Orkney and Shetland who says that even if Scotland goes independent, these islands should remain part of the UK. Findd out more from this article in the Aberdeen Press and Journal : I'm not sure why item number 3 starts with "And finally..." (or includes the word "Findd"), but I have promised the BBC Trust that I won't complain about poor updating of your web page in future. As a resident of Wales, I hope that I will be able to vote on whether Scotland goes independent. After all, it will affect us all - not just the residents of Scotland. Next...

4) PRIVATISING ROADS - The government wants to bring in a form of privatisation for our roads. Will this result in a fast lane for rich people only? : The first paragraph of the BBC news page you link to tells me all I need to know: David Cameron is expected to call for much more private investment in England's road network. I rarely visit England, and often choose to use the M6 Toll in preference to slogging through Birmingham. However, I would not class myself as "rich". Please do not do as Jeremy does and ignore the middle ground.

You see? That's how it goes. I'll be listening to 6 Music instead. More tomorrow!

The Jeremy Vine Show - but not for the next two weeks

Friday, 16 March 2012

Today's show 16/03/12

Later than normal but earlier than expected...

1) VICARS - What happens when churches fall out with their vicar? A reverend reportedly sacks two members of the choir for rejecting a request to undergo a CRB check. Find out more in this article from the Western Gazette in Yeovil : Yawn... wake up at the back. Don't you know that Jeremy is trying to do a serious radio programme here? Listen, he's going to play "Storm In A Tea Cup" by The Fortunes as today's (in)appropriate record. Next...

2) CUSTOMER SERVICE - Which style of customer service is worse - over-attentive or pretending you don’t even exist? : I am a customer of the BBC, so will you be discussing that august monolith today? Upset the BBC and you are put very firmly in the "pretending you don't exist" category, otherwise known as the Expedited Complaints Handling Procedure and which I find myself subject to at the moment.  The only way I could attract the BBC's attention again is to write a long and detailed letter about how crap I consider your programme to be, and within a deadline set by the BBC and in a method (printed and posted paper) set by the BBC. As they police themselves, the BBC decided that my letter wasn't good enough and "invited" me to have another go, and again within a deadline set by them. I have accepted their invitation and written that letter, but I remain pessimistic that the BBC Trust will find in my favour. After all, why should they? I would have ended my involvement with any other organisation who treated me - as a customer - with such derision and distain, but the because of "the unique way the BBC is funded" I am left with choice of putting up and shutting up, or taking on the mythical wrath of TV Licensing. The temptation gets stronger every day, but you won't be discussing that, will you? Next...

3) FAT POLICE OFFICERS - A review suggests that police officers could be disciplined for failing fitness tests. Are fat coppers hampering the fight against crime? : I need to think about that, and while doing so I'll watch these:

4) DEPRESSED DADS - After 1 in Your Money and Your Life, we discuss dads with depression - the fathers who carry the family, the job and the world on their shoulders : Thankfully, that does not describe me.

The Jeremy Vine Show - don't you dare complain about our customer service!

Thursday, 15 March 2012

Today's show 15/03/12

I have been writing my second appeal letter to the BBC Trust this morning, which I will publish on my blog in due course. Suffice to say, I am giving you a hammering - particularly on the whole Twitter thing. Because I have spent some time on the letter this is going to be a very quick review of the issues that allegedly affect me today...

1) CITY STATUS - 3 new cities had been created to celebrate the Diamond Jubilee. Tell us why your town should have won : I don't live in a town. The nearest one has a population of less than 2000 people. I think it is quite happy being a town, actually. Next...

2) EXTRADITION - Gary McKinnon, Christopher Tappin and Richard O’Dwyer are all caught up in being extradited to the US. Is it right they should face justice there? Or is the government being too hasty in giving in to the American authorities? : I have no idea, and I have no idea. So, what are you going to do about it? Let me guess: Absolutely Bloomin' Nothing, as usual. Go on Jeremy, start a campaign to get something changed. I dare you! Next...

3) SCHOOL TRIPS - 22 Belgian children were killed returning from a school ski trip. We talk to somebody who says: “It’s made me rethink sending my child on such a holiday.” : That is completely understandable, but we still have no children. Next...

4) PUBLIC PHONE BOXES - They’re dirty, they’re smelly and nobody uses them. Is it time to scrap all public telephone boxes? : Dirty and smelly? Nothing like a massive generalisation, is there? BT removed the phone box in our village. A vigorous campaign was launched and it was reinstated a few months later. I think that makes my answer to your question to be "No".
The Jeremy Vine Show - in need of extradition to somewhere other than Radio 2

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

Today's show 14/03/12

I'm busy today, so just a quick one...
1) ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS - Scientists are angry that a campaign aimed at airlines and ferry companies by animal rights activists has succeeded in stopping much of the importation of mice needed for medical experiments : I listened to you talking to Ken when you described this as "an incredible story". Really? Am I missing something? And perhaps somebody learnt something today when you said the mice were "delivered on ferries and on planes, that's how you post stuff". BBC journalism at its best there! Our cats provide us with all the mice we need, thanks. Next...

2) COACH CRASH - A coach crash in a tunnel in Switzerland kills 28 people, 22 of them children. How dangerous are those long continental motorway tunnels? : This is a tragedy, but I have only ever travelled through long continental tunnels on a train. I am puzzled why you think the road tunnels have to be "continental" to be dangerous. Are the Dartford, Blackwall, Conwy, Hindhead, Medway, Saltash and Tyne tunnels all so perfect that it is impossible to hit something in them? I think not. Even more dangerous, in my opinion, are the overbridges on the M5 south west of Birmingham where the motorway was widened but the original bridges were left in place, resulting in the sudden narrowing of the carriageway and disappearance of the hard shoulder. You last discussed a major coach crash on 20th February when you suggested that it was the coach driver's fault that the crash occurred. Surely it has to be the driver or a mechanical failure with the coach that is to blame in the Swiss crash, and I am puzzled why you are singling out the construction of the tunnel to be at fault here. But then your programme would not be what it is without somebody or something to blame, would it? Next...

3) COMMUTER RAGE - A man found guilty of attacking a fellow train passenger, because his laptop was occupying a seat, has said all he was doing was standing up for middle class commuters who have a right to use a seat they’ve paid a lot for : And the Daily Mail makes its first appearance this week ... fantastic! Presumably this is what that particular rag counts as "news", so no wonder it is appearing on your programme today. I commuted from Hertfordshire in to London by train for 10 years in the 1970s and 1980s but I don't do it any more. Next...

4) ENCYCLOPAEDIA - The Encyclopaedia Britannica is to pulp its final edition after 244 years. Will you miss the joy of flicking through a proper encyclopaedia? : I've not used an encyclopaedia since I was at school a long time ago, so the answer to your question is "No".
The Jeremy Vine Show - what should it be filed under?

Tuesday, 13 March 2012

Today's show 13/03/12

Twitter is a wonderful thing, but my concerns over its use by the BBC continue with particular regard to "personal" and "official" Twitter accounts used by BBC staff. My own view is that somebody in your position Jeremy should have two accounts: one for interaction with their eponymously named radio programme, and one for their personal life. I would choose to follow the former as I wish to be able to interact with you as a broadcaster and to be able to comment on the topics you raise. Not having any interest in football, other sports, your cycling in London experiences, etc., I would have no wish to follow your personal account - if you had one. After all why would I want to know when you may be going to an athletics event, who you may be buying the tickets from and how much (how much!?!?!?!) you would be paying for them? Again, perhaps I should mention this in my letter to the BBC Trust.

Before we move on to today's programme, here is the latest news from the BBC:
BBC spends thousands giving staff lucrative pay-offs... then re-hires them with full range of perks and pensions on top of new salaries
The BBC has re-hired six members of staff less than two years after they were given lucrative redundancy pay-offs. The six are among more than 1,000 employees who received severance packages worth up to hundreds of thousands of pounds after being made redundant in the past two years. But they are now back at the BBC on a full-time basis, enjoying a full range of perks and pension benefits on top of their new salaries.

I'm sure that somebody at the BBC thinks this is a good use of my money. I, of course, beg to differ.

Earlier this month you discussed the suicide of David Rathband, and in January you discussed the suicide of Gary Speed. This topic is bound to come up again, so perhaps you would like to include this tragedy in your next discussion:
BBC killed my husband: Brides' shop owner says consumer affairs show investigation led to his suicide
Devoted husband Alan Edwards was devastated after his wife Carolyn’s struggling bridal wear company was featured on a BBC consumer affairs show. Mrs Edwards told the inquest: 'When X-ray called I told them I was dealing with it and didn’t want to talk about it. Next thing I knew I was woken at 8am by a hammering on the door. It was a huge shock - I thought something was really wrong". Carmarthenshire Coroner Mark Layton recorded a suicide verdict and said the programme may have led to the tragedy. After the hearing in Llanelli, Mr Edward's daughter Kirsty said her family had been 'bullied' by the BBC and her father had been unable to live with the shame of appearing on the show. 'One day I’m going to have children and I’m going to have to tell them why they haven’t got a granddad. And it’s all because my dad was bullied by the BBC and the people working on this show.'

A quick scan of today's news (sic) menu shows that there is nothing of interest for me today - again - so let me explain why...
1) HOSEPIPE BAN - As hosepipe bans are brought into large parts of the south and east of the country, we ask: how will the ban affect you? : Ahhhh, London and the South East. I remember them well. It was all a long time ago though as I moved to the West Midlands in 1984 and have rarely returned to the South East since. There is no hosepipe ban here in North Wales and so my answer to your question is: It won't. You said on Ken's show, "Somebody said it rains less here than it does in Dallas, but I wouldn't want to repeat that". Was that just deliberate misinformation then? Next...

2) DIVORCE - After you divorced, did you take care in exposing your children to your relationships? : I don't have any children from my first or current (second) marriages. Next...

3) HIP REPLACEMENTS - Medical experts warn against metal on metal hip replacements. Did your hip replacement go wrong? : I've never had a hip replacement. Next...

4) MY LAI MASSACRE - Following the killings in Afghanistan, how many people remember the My Lai massacre in Vietnam where America lost the battle for hearts and minds? : How many? Lots, probably. Unfortunately I am not one of them. I know of it, but I don't remember it. The massacre occurred in March 1968, and I was less than 10 years old at the time. You would have been approaching your third birthday.
Some days you make my life so easy!
The Jeremy Vine Show - perfect for divorced Londoners aged over 60 with children and knackered hips

Monday, 12 March 2012

Today's show 12/03/12

Just for a change it is me that is late today. I had to go out on an errand and with no DAB radio in my car I had the opportunity, if that is what it was, of listening to the first 45 minutes of your programme. I was again reminded why I don't listen every day.
The last item on the 12:00 news concerned the libel payment given to BBC EastEnders actor Steve McFadden by the News Of The World. No surprise that the perfect storm of a BBC employee and NOTW was mentioned, especially in that context, and no surprise either that your first words after the news were "Remind me, who published the News Of The World?". Any opportunity to have a dig at Murdoch is not to be missed, is it Jeremy?
The programme then proceeded in to the first discussion item:
1) US SOLDIERS - An American soldier shoots dead 16 Afghans, including 9 children. We talk to someone who asks: why do we ally ourselves to the US when they continually bring shame on themselves, and us as well? : Another "someone", and this time it was Peter Oborne who is the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator, apparently, or otherwise known as a "journalist". You also spoke to another "someone" and that was ex-RAF navigator and military commentator John Nichol. It was a reasonably interesting discussion, but I cannot honestly say that my life was enriched by it and I was left feeling that one of your guests knew what he was talking about and the other one did not. I'll leave you to work out which was which. The discussion included yet another "let's play the most (in)appropriate song we can" moment when you went straight from this discussion in to Bruce Springsteen's "Wherever this flag's flown we take care of our own". Do you do it deliberately? Next...

We then moved on to this:
2) GAY MARRIAGE - The Catholic Church calls on their congregation to oppose gay marriage. But did you attend a civil partnership ceremony and change your mind about gay marriage? : I have never attended a gay marriage, but it will almost certainly happen one day. I'll admit that my patience got the better of me about 10 minutes in and I switched over to Heart FM to satisfy my craving for "entertainment". Next...

3) RAPE - A Mumsnet survey suggest that 80% of rapes and sexual assaults are not reported. Why do so many women not report rape? Find out more in this artcile from the Telegraph : Errr... Next...

4) INTERVIEW QUESTIONS - We talk about the job interview questions designed to catch you out, such as “If you were a dinosaur, which one would you be?” and “Try to sell me your biro.” : In all honesty, I cannot ever see me being involved in another job interview, either as an employee or as an employer.
In the 40-odd minutes that I listened you invited three times to "follow me on Twitter" or "message me on Twitter". Thanks for the invitation, but you'll need to unblock me first. And I notice that you have changed your Twitter profile from "All views personal of course" to "All views are my mum's". I must remember to mention that in my letter to the BBC Trust as I am sure they will be interested.
The Jeremy Vine Show - making you feel like you need a shower

Friday, 9 March 2012

Today's show 09/03/12

I owe you an apology Jeremy. For years I have been saying that your programme does not change anything, but yesterday I think it did, and I thank valued blog reader Stonyground for bringing this to my attention. You DID try to make a difference yesterday when you highlighted the case of the terminally-ill father looking for his son, and your tweet yesterday (Regarding Jason Protano on today's show @BBCRadio2, he has made contact with his dying father and has asked for privacy now for them all) confirms that you were successful. Well done!

I apologise sincerely for my oversight and congratulate you on a successful outcome to this particular story. I hope that it gives you great satisfaction, and rightly so. Please do not let this be a one-off occurrence.

As a result of this story, my blog had a lot of hits yesterday and a number of comments were left. A number of these were of the "Get a life" and "Haven't you got anything better to do?" type, but I publish these anyway and attempt to answer the commenter as best I can. I did delete one comment yesterday but only because it contained offensive language. I hope that these comments do not reflect the type of listener that your show attracts, but I find it interesting that not one person has ever taken me to task for my ramblings and said "No, you are wrong, the Jeremy Vine Show is great because...". I would love that to happen and would happily make the necessary arrangements for any subsequent discussion and reasoned argument to take place, provided it does not just descend in to a personalised exchange of insults.

And on today's menu...
1) HOSTAGES - Two engineers taken hostage in Nigeria die as a rescue attempt led by the British military fails. We look at the special forces operation and the risks contractors face when they work in certain parts of the world : This is a real shame, and my sympathy goes to the families and friends of the two engineers. I also have some sympathy for those who had to take the "should we/shouldn't we" decision over the rescue operation. It cannot have been easy, and the consequences of their decision must be weighing heavily today. I am reminded of Operation Eagle Claw back in 1980 when President Carter authorised an attempt to rescue 50-odd Amercan hostages from the US Embassy in Tehran, and which resulted in the deaths of several US servicemen. Again, not an easy decision to take, and even harder when it goes horribly wrong, although the hostages were released eventually. A good friend of mine is a marine security officer whose job it is to protect ships from attack by Somalian pirates. He doesn't talk about it much but he has told me that he fully understands the risks involved and realises that he could be kidnapped - or worse - during an attack. I admire what he does and the way he handles the threats, but I think I'll stay in North Wales. Next...

2) STEALING - A woman steals more than two thousand pounds from the charity shop where she was a volunteer. Find out more in this article from the Warrington Guardian : Convicted by her own stupidity. Good. Next...

3) SACKING - A special on how a sacking should be carried out? Was yours a textbook operation or did it make a bad situation even worse? : I've never been sacked. Next...
4) TERRY - And we catch up with Terry Walton on the programme allotment : You asked on Ken's show, "Does he really need a barrel full of soil to grow potatoes?". Yes Jeremy, he does. My wife is the gardener in this household and she does exactly this.
Have a great weekend!

Thursday, 8 March 2012

Today's show 08/03/12

Congratulations on a new record! Yesterday's web page update was the latest EVER in all of the years that I have been sending these messages to you. I can normally expect to find the page updated by late afternoon, but at 19:15 last night it had still not been done. It was, however, updated by 10:15 this morning, so perhaps the Jeremy Vine Show nightshift did it. However, we must all remember that "the programme holds the right to publish website content at a time convenient to it" and that we - the TV Licence Tax payers - have no right to complain about this, and anybody who does will end up on the BBC's Naughty Step with me.

So while we wait oh, so patiently for somebody get their finger out of their backside and do the job for which I pay them, let's look at some other BBC news that you won't be discussing today. Let's start with this, but note that the Telegraph's headline may be misconstrued so let me clarify: This is toast as in drinks, not toast as in with butter and marmalade:
BBC expenses: Radio 2 boss billed for toast to cost-cutters
A senior BBC executive, Bob Shennan, billed the corporation £220 for drinks as a thank you to staff charged with cutting costs, according to newly published expense bills. The Radio 2 controller made the claim in June last year for drinks for eight colleagues who helped implement ways to cut spending at the public broadcaster by £700million. The reason for the drinks bill submitted by the former controller of BBC Radio 5 Live, whose total remuneration package is £218,800, was given as “DGF thank you drinks for journalism”.

I am sure that somebody at the BBC thinks that this was money well spent, but I don't.
BBC boss says Sky does not give CBBC and CBeebies prominence on EPG
A senior BBC executive has accused BSkyB of reneging on its obligation to give public service channels such as CBeebies and CBBC "due prominence" on its electronic programme guide. BBC director of policy and strategy, John Tate, said CBeebies, the BBC's pre-school service, is now 13th on the EPG list of children's channels on Sky, with CBBC in 14th. Above it are channels such as Nicktoons, Boomerang and six Disney services.

BSkyB ... that'll be part of the Murdoch Empire - the same Murdoch Empire that the BBC has attacked on every possible occasion over the past year or so. No connection, surely? Isn't all fair in love, war and journalism?

Note that both articles start with "A senior BBC executive...". Is there any other kind?

11:55, here we go:

1) REMPLOY - 36 out of 54 of special Remploy factories, where disabled people have traditionally been given secure jobs, are to close. The government says they’re losing huge amounts of money and that money would be better spent helping far more disabled people find jobs in the open jobs market : I note the sentence "Labour called the decision "the wrong plan at the wrong time" from the BBC news page, but this is not the first time that Remploy's factories have been under threat unfortunately. Take a look at which dates from August 2007 and says "Workers are to hold a month of marches and meetings aimed at keeping open 43 factories which employ disabled staff. The campaign will start in Aberdeen and end outside the Labour Party annual conference in Bournemouth next month.". This was followed by from November 2007 which says "Twenty-eight of Remploy's 83 factories employing disabled workers are to close, Work and Pensions Secretary Peter Hain has said.". From the BBC's coverage I can only come to the conclusion that Labour thought they had the right plan at the right time back in 2007. Will you be asking Peter Hain about this today? Just for some balance, you understand. I thought not. Next...

2) OVERWEIGHT - Should a mother ever tell her daughter (or son for that matter) that they are overweight? Find out more in this article from the Daily Mail : The Daily Mail returns! Hooray! I am over 50, my mother is in her 80s and she still tells me I'm overweight. Unfortunately she thinks you are rude so she doesn't listen to your programme. Next...

3) RESPECT - Finally, how should people show respect for soldiers who die in Afghanistan if they don’t agree with the war? : I manage, and I can only hope that none of your listeners will be waiting for instructions on how to do this. Next...

4) LOST - Do you remember the old SOS messages before the news on Radio 4? A Manchester man who’s dangerously ill is desperately trying to trace his long lost son. Find out more in this article from the Manchester Evening News : No, I don't remember them. And I am not the chap you are looking for. Sorry.

The Jeremy Vine Show - escaping the BBC cuts, unfortunately

Wednesday, 7 March 2012

Today's show 07/03/12

You will remember that my complaints about your programme are subject to the BBC's draconian "expedited complaints handling procedure", and it was back in January that I was invited to appeal against this decision. Yesterday I finally received the response to my appeal to the BBC Trust Unit, which consisted of an 11-page PDF file sent by email. I mentioned double standards a few days ago, and this only confirms what I said then: That I was required to send a printed and posted paper letter within a set deadline, yet the BBC can reply when they wish and using whatever media they wish. The full correspondence can be read here:

You will see that vast swathes of text have been lifted almost word-for-word from my letter and copied in to the response, but with a few significant omissions that either change the meaning to the BBC's advantage or miss the point that I made - sometimes both! Editting by omission must be part of the BBC's current culture as very often I read, see or hear BBC news reports that completely omit significant information that is provided by other news outlets.

I have been invited to appeal again, and which I will do, and at the moment I am still digesting the BBC's response and considering what to put in my next letter. But rest assured, I have not finished with this yet!

This video was brought to my attention yesterday:

It is an interesting review of the requirement to purchase a TV Licence, the BBC's threatening tactics used to extract money with menaces from the UK population, and what to do should any of us be unhappy with that situation. I say again that I consider this to be suitable topic for discussion on your programme, and perhaps you could get Noel Edmonds (featured in the video) to take part in the discussion. However, I know that in your own particular BBC-sponsored version of reality such nastiness would never occur, so I will have to make do with those same pigs preparing for take-off again. However, you would do well to remember that News International or any other part of the Murdoch news empire has ever sent a threatening letter to a member of the public demanding they pay money for their broadcast services with a threat of legal action. If you don't pay your Sky subsciption they just cut off the signal!

'Unambitious' BBC had to have its arm twisted to save YOUR money, say MPs on the Public Accounts Committee

MPs today accuse the BBC of being ‘unambitious’ about saving money and criticise the Corporation’s lack of ‘openness’. It was only when the BBC was put under pressure to reach a licence fee settlement that it was forced into annual efficiencies of £560million, the Public Accounts Committee says. It adds that by underestimating the ‘scope for efficiency improvements’, the BBC risked undermining public trust in its financial management, openness and ability to deliver value for money.

The BBC? Openness? If the Public Accounts Committee had to use their might to put the BBC under pressure, what chance have the rest of us got to obtain information? I can submit as many Freedom of Information requests as I like, but until the BBC's freedom to keep secrets is removed not much information is ever forthcoming.

And I thank valued blog reader Gill for this one:
BBC hit by a Humper ding-dong as it's swamped with complaints over UK’s Eurovision entry

The BBC has been swamped with complaints after picking Engelbert Humperdinck to sing Britain’s entry at the Eurovision Song Contest.
A BBC spokesman said the choice of Humperdinck ‘has been the subject of much heated debate’, but added: ‘We are delighted by the overwhelming and largely positive response.’

Ah yes, that will be the BBC looking what it has done, and being happy with its own decision - as usual. Gill adds: "Personally i would prefer Jimmy Young!!". Jimmy Young ... whatever happened to him? He did a good radio show too as he ACTUALLY USED TO GET THINGS CHANGED!

11:45, and no web page update yet. It has been updated promptly for the last few weeks, so well done for that, but what has gone wrong today? I have been told by the BBC that updates to your web page will be done when convenient to you (and not me, the potential listener) so I will just have to wait as the administrative leviathan that is your web page updater manages to type four titles, a few sentences and hit "Post"...

11:55 ... perhaps you have been watching Northern Ireland Questions on BBC Parliament?

12:00 and still nothing. I remember from your chat with Ken that you are talking about the deaths of the soldiers in Afghanistan and the death of a man killed while working on the railway network. My sympathies go out to the family and friends concerned, and also to those of the innocent people who have and will be killed on Britain's roads today. There was also something about Brazil's economy, and something else.

I'll come back later and update this page for completeness.

The Jimmy Young Show - it has not been as good since that other chap took over

19:16 ... and apparently they could not be bothered to update the web page at all today. Your BBC, working for you.

The following had appeared by 10:20am today:
Jeremy discusses soldiers dying in action, Brazil overtaking Britain as the 6th biggest world economy, amputations and the young woman who married at 26 and was widowed at 27.

WIDOWED - Finally, a young woman who fell in love and married at 26 tells us what it’s like to be widowed at 27.

KILLED IN ACTION - 6 British soldiers are believed to have been killed in an explosion in Afghanistan. We hear the latest, and speak to a mother who tells us about how the pain of hearing the news is unbearable.

BRAZIL - Brazil has overtaken Britain to become the 6th biggest economy in the world. We speak to a Brazilian who tells us why Brazil is booming.

Tuesday, 6 March 2012

My appeal letter to the BBC Trust

I finally received a reply (in the form of an emailed 11-page PDF file) from the BBC Trust Unit today, so perhaps this is the time to "go public" with all of this. I apologise for the length of this posting and please, dear blog readers, do not feel compelled to read it all!

This was the contents of my letter to the BBC Trust Unit:

Ladies and Gentlemen of the BBC Trust, 

I have been invited to write to you by Mr Lee Rogers of the BBC Complaints Department. Mr Rogers sent me an email (ref. CAS-1260999-XXXXXX) on 25th January informing me that I was subject to the “BBC’s expedited complaints handling procedure” for a period of two years following “dozens of complaints” that I have allegedly submitted over the past 17 months concerning Radio 2’s Jeremy Vine Show.

I wish to appeal against Mr Rogers’ decision, and hence my letter to you today.

I am a 50-something-year-old married English man living in North Wales. I started my own business in 2002 which I run from home as a sole trader. My wife is in full-time employment and so I am alone at home for most of the day. BBC Radio, and Radio 2 in particular, provides me with good music, entertainment, news and companionship during that time.

Mr Vine’s programme has always struck me as something of an anomaly and, in my opinion, does not sit well with the rest of Radio 2’s programming. However, Mr Vine’s programme does cover newsworthy stories and sometimes these may be of interest to me. On these occasions I do make a point of listening to his discussions but I rely on the BBC to provide me with well-researched facts about any particular topic, and not misinformed speculation and conjecture.

In order to determine if the programme is going to be of interest to me on any particular day I check the Jeremy Vine Show web page where all four discussion topics are listed. For each topic, the page usually includes a link to BBC or other news media web pages that give some useful background information. I often read these other pages in order to form my own opinion before any discussion takes place.

Mr Vine is always asking his listeners to “Tell us what you think” as part of the necessary audience interaction with his programme, and so I do. His views and mine rarely agree but I would hope that we have a respect of each other’s viewpoint. To this end, we have exchanged several personal emails and Mr Vine has phoned me twice to discuss aspects of his programme, and with the same mutual respect and cordiality. On 17th March 2011 Mr Vine sent me a personal email saying “We’d love to meet you” and we exchanged further emails and spoke (11th May 2011) about how this might happen.

At no point did I ever consider any emails sent direct to Mr Vine or to his programme to be anything other than the expressing of my opinion in a discussion-based programme, and it was never my intention that they should be treated as any kind of official complaint. Every email I have sent has included my full name and phone number.

Mr Vine’s introduction to the realms of Twitter caused me to sign-up too and I became a “follower”. However, within a few days of this Mr Vine chose to “block” me from following his tweets for reasons that remain unknown to me.

I do not have records for the complaints that I sent in 2010, but my records show that I sent a total of 19 for the 13 months January 2011 to January 2012 inclusive. I immediately asked for clarification as to how and why these have been calculated to be “dozens” but I have yet to receive a reply from the BBC Complaints Department or the Editorial Complaints Unit. I am assuming that I will not receive one.

Bearing in mind the background information provided above, here are brief details of the 19 complaints for which I have records:

7th January 2011: Mr Vine attacked ITV for their criticism of police in Bristol, yet chose to ignore the EastEnders cot-death story that was dominating all of the news headlines that day. I considered that his attack on ITV was unjust while he ignored an important story and the subsequent controversy surrounding the BBC.

28th February: In a discussion about thefts from oil-fired central heating systems Mr Vine gave all of the information (equipment needed, how to find, etc.) that any potential thief would need and turned it in to a master class in oil theft. I considered this to be irresponsible.

2nd March: A referendum concerning links to the Westminster Parliament was to be held by the Welsh Assembly the next day, and this was an important issue for those of us living in Wales. Mr Vine did not discuss this and instead covered other topics, at least one of which was not time critical. I considered this to be unfair to his listeners in Wales as English-only (and in particular London-only) politics is often discussed. In their response, the BBC Complaints Department told me “our audience feedback shows that their editorial team’s story selection is not of huge concern to the vast majority of Jeremy Vine listeners”, which I find absolutely incredulous and makes me wonder what the purpose of the programme may be.

3rd March: The Jeremy Vine Show web page showed an item relating to Wales that had not been discussed after a last-minute change, and I asked for this to be corrected. Following my complaint the correction was made and I was thanked for my input.

3rd March: Mr Vine discussed “Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation has been given government approval for its controversial takeover of BSkyB”. I considered that use of the word “controversial” and the absence of a News Corporation representative in the discussion showed some anti-Murdoch bias.

14th March: Mr Vine discussed the Fukushima power station and made many technical errors. He admitted at the very end of the item, quote, "I think perhaps we should speak to an expert on nuclear energy and get the facts.”. This was an important and emotive topic and I considered that he should not have attempted the discussion without such an expert present.

15th March: In a follow-up discussion on Fukushima, Mr Vine said, "Somebody got upset yesterday when I said the reactor contained plutonium". I considered this remark to be disrespectful and dismissive to those listeners who know about nuclear power generation and who had attempted to correct Mr Vine’s errors the previous day.

16th March: Fukushima again, and an interview with Jeremy Browne MP. I considered that Mr Vine gave Mr Browne an unjustified hard time and did not listen to and fully comprehend the answers that Mr Browne gave.

17th March: Mr Vine discussed a bullying video that appeared on YouTube but which had been removed before the programme started. I considered it impossible to form my own opinion on the video when I was unable to see it, and I did not want to rely solely on Mr Vine’s description.

21st June: 2DAY, and Mr Vine took part in a morning documentary programme. As 2DAY was meant to show the range of Radio 2’s output to listeners who would not normally listen at a particular time of day, I considered that dropping the normal programme style failed to do that and deprived other listeners of the chance to listen to Radio 2’s unique and premier news and current affairs output.

3rd August: Since Mr Vine’s introduction to Twitter, the daily update to the show web page was becoming later and later. Mr Vine would tweet a four-word teaser before 10am each morning, so it was clear that the programme’s topics were known by this time. I considered that non-Twitter users should have the same timely access to this information and that every effort should be made to update the show web page before the programme started.

26th September: Mr Vine’s Twitter page states “All views personal of course” but he uses his Twitter account in a far more interactive way with specific regard to his Radio 2 programme than any other BBC presenter of which I am aware. Following my “blocking”, I considered that Mr Vine appeared reluctant to accept challenging or critical comments yet provided no alternative method for passing on such comments with the ease that Twitter provides. I also considered that the distinction between a personal Twitter account and one that actively promoted a BBC programme and encouraged discussion on that same BBC programme had become blurred and needed to be clarified. I made a comparison with Mr Vine’s personal and unpublicised BBC email address and the publicised email address used specifically for his programme.

29th September:  Mr Vine published a photo of his programme script on Twitter that read "Martin McGuiness is standing to be IRISH PRESIDENT. Should he first admit how many people he has killed?". I considered that Mr Vine’s public statement that assumed Mr McGuiness to be guilty of murder without any evidence to support such an accusation was unfair.

30th September: I had noticed that a large number of links on Mr Vine’s show web page would be to web pages belonging to various newspapers, but that these were no longer being used and only links to BBC web pages were included. While I was happy to read the BBC's view of events it was also good to read the alternative viewpoints expressed elsewhere in the media, and I considered that I was being deprived of this useful background information. Following my complaint the links to newspaper web pages were reinstated.

11th October: Ref. 6th October programme: Following the unfortunate death of Steve Jobs, Mr Vine chose to devote 30 minutes of his programme to his death and his technical innovations. It was described thus on his web page: "How did Apple change your world? Can you remember the first time you marvelled at an Apple product?". I considered that the death of Mr Jobs was only of secondary importance in a segment that turned in to a promotion for Apple products of all kinds, and without mention of "other similar products are available from other manufacturers".

13th December: This was a repeat of my 3rd August complaint as web page updates were still getting later and later, and sometimes not occurring until some hours after the programme had finished. Mr Roger’s email of 25th January 2012 informed me “that the programme holds the right to publish website content at a time convenient to it”. I consider this to be unacceptable.

4th January: I read two BBC documents that gave instruction for staff on how to use social networking media, and Twitter in particular. I found no mention of when a Twitter follower should be “blocked”, and no mention of any reason why this should occur. I considered that Mr Vine was using a so-called personal Twitter account in an official capacity and which was promoted heavily in connection with his programme. I also considered that his many suggestions of “You can follow me on Twitter” were unfair to those of us who he had chosen to “block”. I was asked to write to the Editorial Complaints Unit on this matter, which I did on 21st January 2012, but I have yet to receive a reply. Again, I am assuming that I will not receive one.

19th January 2012: Mr Vine discussed the Costa Concordia capsize on five days (2.5 hours of air time, less music) yet chose to ignore other concurrent news stories that I considered to be of more importance and interest. While I accept that the accident was certainly worthy of discussion, I considered that it had had too much coverage.

19th January: Mr Vine discussed a video featuring an altercation between a policeman and a cyclist and that had appeared on YouTube. The actual incident occurred before June 2011 but no mention was made of this, and I considered this to be misleading. In addition, there was no mention of the subsequent action taken by the police and the cyclist which had been well-publicised elsewhere. Mr Vine also showed a poor knowledge of the law in such incidents and went on to doubt the information given by an expert in the studio, which I considered to be disrespectful and dismissive.

Mr Rogers makes the assertion that the BBC Complaints Department has “explained on countless occasions, why the programme choses (sic) to cover the topics it does, that the programme holds the right to publish website content at a time convenient to it, and the BBC’s view on staff use of social media websites such as Twitter”. Like his use of “dozens”, I am unsure of how Mr Rogers defines “countless”. My experience of the BBC Complaints Department is that my messages to them are often misunderstood and I receive a reply that completely misses the point I was making, despite my attempt to give the clearest description I possibly can.

I respectfully request that my complaints are no longer subject to the expedited complaints handling procedure and that normal handling of any complaints I may wish to make about Mr Vine’s programme is reinstated immediately.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this letter, and please feel free to contact me should you require any further information.

I look forward to receiving your response at your earliest convenience.

This was the reply I received today. Note the huge quantity of text that has been copied from my letter, but also note that in many cases they have fully or partially ignored the point I was making. Also note that they go to great lengths to tell me what I have done - which I already know!:

I am responding to your appeal of 1 February 2012 to the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC) regarding BBC Audience Services’ decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure to your complaints concerning the Jeremy Vine radio show, its website and his Twitter feed.

Firstly, I should explain that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of the role of the BBC Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. You can find full details of the Complaints Framework and Trust appeals procedure’s here:

I am therefore writing this response on behalf of Francesca O’Brien, the BBC Trust’s Head of Editorial Standards, who has given me her decision.

A member of the Trust Unit has read the relevant correspondence and the Head of Editorial Standards does not consider that your appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and should proceed to the ESC. I would like to explain why.

The Trust's Editorial Appeals procedure states that:

Your appeal must raise a matter of substance – in particular, that, in the opinion of the Trust, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to answer. Consideration will also be given to whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost effective for the Trust to address an appeal.

Before giving the reasons for the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, I have summarised your complaints and the BBC Executive’s responses.

Stage 1

You raised a number of different complaints about the Jeremy Vine show, details of which are set out below:

1. You wrote to the BBC on 7 January 2011, arguing that the Jeremy Vine programme had again ignored an important news story which cast the BBC in a poor light, the Eastenders cot death storyline, while berating a rival broadcaster during a discussion of an ITV programme. You said this complaint mirrored an earlier one you had made to which you had not received a satisfactory answer.
BBC Audience Services replied on 28 February 2001, apologising for the delay in responding. They said that the Radio 2 Jeremy Vine team had considered covering the cot death story but had decided not to do so. The story had, however, been widely covered elsewhere on the BBC. The letter said that it was the editorial responsibility of the team to decide the mix of topics and that it was inevitable that some listeners would not agree with its final choice of subjects.
You replied to the BBC on 28 February 2011 saying that this response had missed the essential point of your complaint i.e. that the cot death controversy had been deliberately swept under the carpet while another broadcaster’s controversial output had been chosen for discussion instead.
BBC Audience Services replied on 3 March 2011 saying that there nothing they could usefully add to their earlier response and that if you remained unhappy with this you could escalate your complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. Details were provided as to how you could do this.

2. On 28 January 2011 you wrote to the BBC primarily complaining about a Jeremy Vine show the treatment of an item on the theft of domestic heating oil. You argued that the presenter had provided extensive information on how potential thieves could do just this, and that this was extremely irresponsible.
BBC Audience Services replied on 3 February 2011 saying that it was never the programme’s intention to provide useful information for criminals and that part of the item’s remit was to provide information on how listeners could prevent such thefts. This reply said that a lot of the detail, about which you were complaining, had been supplied by an NFU spokesman and listeners themselves.

3. On 2 March 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining about the absence of a discussion on the referendum in Wales on the Jeremy Vine show, which was taking place the following day. You said that several of the items covered were, by comparison, trivial non-news topics, and that this was becoming a common feature of a programme you described as merely ‘News Entertainment’ rather than ‘News’.
BBC Audience Services replied on 11 March 2011 saying that the choice of items involved a number of factors such as immediacy and likely national interest in the subject matter. They said that there was an element of subjective judgment in the final decision on the editorial mix of all programmes and in this context they understood that not all listeners would agree with their judgment call on a particular day.
You replied to the BBC on 16 March 2011 saying you were unhappy with this response. In particular you cited a number of non-news topics featured on recent Jeremy Vine programmes such as ‘Breast milk ice cream’ and ‘Fried Chicken Shops’ and asked how these met the criteria laid out in the BBC’s response letter.
BBC Audience Services replied on 29 March 2011 saying that the Jeremy Vine team was responsible for the judgment calls about what was the right editorial mix for its programme. It accepted that you clearly disagreed with its selections on numerous occasions but said that the audience feedback from listeners did not indicate a general dissatisfaction along the lines you articulated.

4. On 3 March you wrote to the BBC regarding the Jeremy Vine web page showing an item relating to Wales incorrectly, and asked for this to be changed. The change was made and you were thanked for your input.

5. On 3 March 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining about the Jeremy Vine show’s coverage of the proposed News Corporation takeover of BskyB. You believed that the tone adopted by Mr Vine, the language used and the decision to cover the story itself all reflected an inappropriate obsession with Rupert Murdoch, and a desire to attack him to the extent that no-one from his organisation was invited to put a counter view.
BBC Audience Services replied on 10 March 2011 saying that the BBC and its journalists were committed to impartial reporting, and to put their own views aside when discussing topics. The letter said that it was not essential to have a spokesman from a particular organisation on every occasion a relevant subject was discussed; rather that the BBC’s guidelines required it to provide balance and a range of views across its overall output. It explained that your views would be circulated to programme makers and senior staff via the daily audience feedback log.

6. On 14 March 2011 you wrote to BBC Audience Services saying you were unhappy with the lack of research behind the item on the Jeremy Vine show discussing nuclear plant explosions in Japan which, you said, was extremely short on hard facts. You said that this item epitomised a general failure by Mr Vine to research topics adequately prior to discussing them on air.
BBC Audience Services replied on 28 March 2011 saying that while they acknowledged your concerns, they believed the BBC’s coverage of this incident and its aftermath had been accurate and extensive.

7. On 15 March 2011 you wrote to the BBC saying that Jeremy Vine’s comment on air that ‘Somebody got upset yesterday when I said the reactor contained plutonium’ was disrespectful to listeners. In fact, you said, he should have said that a listener had ‘corrected him’ when he mistakenly said the reactor contained plutonium.
BBC Audience Services replied on 20 March 2011 saying that no harm or offence had been intended by this choice of words and that the BBC aimed for the highest standards across its output.

8. On 16 March 2011 you wrote to the BBC saying that Jeremy Vine had treated the MP Jeremy Browne poorly by haranguing him with a repeated question which he had in fact answered appropriately. You also said that the failure to research the topic adequately in advance had made the interview itself far from satisfactory as the crucial information from the British rescue team had only been garnered after the interview was finished.
BBC Audience Services replied on 21 March 2011 saying that the interviewer’s job was to ask the questions the listeners would want posed, and to press interviewees with firmness and politeness. Politicians, in particular, were well prepared for such encounters and it was on occasion necessary to be very persistent to pursue answers that the audience would want and expect.
You wrote to the BBC on 22 March 2011 saying you were unhappy with this response. You pointed out that had Mr Vine had the information about the rescue team’s request prior to the interview then a much more useful line of questioning could have been pursued. As it was the grilling by Mr Vine was laboured and unnecessary.
BBC Audience Services replied on 28 March 2011 addressing your point about why Jeremy Vine had persisted in pursuing a point you felt had been adequately answered by Mr Browne. They said that the question Mr Vine repeatedly posed concerned the British Embassy’s apparent failure to provide the correct paperwork for the British rescue team, and that Mr Browne had repeatedly avoided answering this direct question which was why Mr Vine pursued the point. This letter argued that the comments from the rescue team at the end of the programme confirmed that Mr Vine had been pursuing an important journalistic question.

9. On 17 March 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining that the discussion on the Jeremy Vine show about a bullying video on YouTube had been pointless and frustrating as many listeners had not been able to see this video as it had been withdrawn, and therefore could not contribute or consider their own position on the issue.
BBC Audience Services replied on 24 March 2011 saying that the video had been withdrawn from YouTube after the item had been prepared but before the broadcast in question. Nevertheless the BBC felt the general issues raised by it were of broad interest.

10. On 21 June 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining that the Jeremy Vine should not have been dropped as part of Radio 2’s 2DAY celebratory output as the programme itself was part of what Radio 2 should be celebrating.
BBC Audience Services replied on 25 June 2011 saying that a day-long celebration of Radio 2, packing in everything about the station into a 12 hour time slot, inevitably meant dropping some regular programmes.

11. On 3 August 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining that the billings of the day’s topics for discussion on the Jeremy Vine show website were becoming increasingly late. You contrasted this Jeremy Vine’s own Twitter feed which seemed to take precedence lately despite many listeners not choosing to access this.
BBC Audience Services replied on 4 August 2011 saying your comments had been forwarded to the team responsible for the website in question.

12. On 26 September 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining that Jeremy Vine was spending a considerable amount of time in the immediate run-up to his radio show posting messages on his Twitter site. You thought this was an inappropriate use of his time as he was being paid by the BBC to prepare for his licence payer-funded radio show. You also said his Twitter feed was highly personal and partisan and damaged the BBC’s reputation for impartiality. You said that there was a serious issue here concerning the distinction between what the BBC was responsible for as opposed to the content and comments broadcast by the presenter of its radio show on Twitter.

13. On 3 August 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining about a Twitter comment from Jeremy Vine publicising that day’s Radio 2 show in which he implied that Martin McGuiness was a murderer when he had never been convicted of such as offence.
BBC Audience Services replied on 2 October 2011 saying that Jeremy Vine made it clear on his Twitter account that all the views expressed were his personal ones.
You replied to the BBC on 2 October 2011 saying that the distinction between the BBC and its commitment to impartiality and its undertaking that its presenters would follow this philosophy, was compromised by Jeremy Vine regularly posting his views on his Twitter account. This problem was exacerbated, in your view, by him using BBC copyright material on his Twitter account, discussing his Radio 2 show and using that show to publicise his Twitter feeds. His comments about Martin McGuiness illustrated all these concerns.
BBC Audience Services replied on 12 October 2011 saying that they were satisfied that the time spent on his Twitter feeds did not affect Jeremy Vine’s commitment to the Radio 2 programme. They also said that the copyright material you referred to was in the public domain. In relation to your comment about labelling Martin McGuiness a murderer, the BBC said that the issue was posed as a question rather than a statement of fact, and given that he was the former Chief of Staff of the IRA it was a perfectly reasonable question to pose.

14. On 30 September 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining that the BBC’s Jeremy Vine show website no longer provided links to relevant newspaper articles which you had found interesting and helpful.
BBC Audience Services replied on 6 October 2011 saying that your comment, that more newspaper website should be included on the site, had been forward to the relevant website team.
You replied to the BBC on 6 October 2011 saying that you had specifically asked why the previous policy of supplying external links had been changed.
BBC Audience Services replied on 12 October 2011 apologising for the misunderstanding, saying that this point had been forward to the relevant team.

15. On 11 October 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining about the increasing number of references to commercial products appearing on Radio 2 programmes. You believed these were little short of product placement. You said that the discussion on the Jeremy Vine show about Apple’s importance in the world had been, effectively, a simple advert for their products - with no consideration of any rivals’ products. You were also unhappy with Chris Evans talking about Red Bull in uncritically glowing terms in relation to their Formula One achievements for the same reason
BBC Audience Services replied on 15 October 2011 saying the Charter specifically prohibited the BBC from advertising or gaining financially from any commercial sponsorship. This letter said that it was both editorially justified and practically necessary to refer to commercial organisations as part of its editorial remit and quoted from the BBC’s guidelines which state that the BBC must be able to refer to commercial products, brands and logos to report on and reflect the world today.

16. On 14 December 2011 you wrote to the BBC saying that the Jeremy Vine show website was being updated later and later, and that this prevented you finding out what topics were to be discussed each day.
BBC Audience Services replied on 21 December 2011 saying that while they were sorry for the inconvenience caused, it was not always possible to update websites as quickly as some viewers or listeners would like.
You replied to the BBC on 21 December 2011 providing further examples of the inconsistent updating of the Jeremy Vine website, including days when it has not been updated until after the programme had been broadcast.
BBC Audience Services sent an automated logging of your complaint on 21 December 2011. You replied to the BBC on 3 January 2012 saying you were still awaiting a response. BBC Audience Services sent a further automated response. You wrote again to the BBC on 13 January 2012 chasing a response.

17. On 4 January 2012 you wrote to the BBC complaining that you had been blocked from Jeremy Vine’s Twitter account, this despite him regularly announcing on BBC Radio that ‘you can follow me on Twitter’ etc. You said that you had checked the BBC guidelines on Twitter and could find no reference to BBC staff being permitted to do this.
BBC Audience Services replied on 9 January saying that the BBC was not responsible for Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feed which was entirely his own preserve.
You replied on 9 January 2011 saying that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feed was regularly publicised by him on BBC Radio, was featured on the programme’s website and was thus inextricably linked with the BBC and the radio programme bearing his name. You contrasted this with Vanessa Feltz’s situation in which she had two clearly delineated Twitter accounts, one for her personal life and one relating to her BBC talk show.
BBC Audience Services replied on 20 January 2012 saying that they disagreed with this interpretation of the situation. They argued that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feed was consistent with the BBC’s policy on this issue, and that it was acceptable under the guidelines for him to discuss and promoter his Twitter feed on the radio and vice versa. They said that you could now escalate this complaint to stage 2 if you remained dissatisfied with this response.

18. On 19 January 2012 you wrote to the BBC saying that the Jeremy Vine show had given far too much coverage of the Costa Concordia disaster at the expense of other stories.
BBC Audience Services responded on 20 January 2012 saying that the question of the choice of stories and their length was invariably a difficult editorial matter with which some viewers were bound to disagree.

19. On 19 January 2011 you wrote to the BBC complaining about the cyclist/policeman item on the Jeremy Vine show arguing this was a very dated story and did not warrant airtime; you said the failure to reference the date when the incident had occurred was itself telling. You also questioned the research behind the item.
BBC Audience Services replied on 23 January 2012 saying that the item in question was topical because it had recently become a YouTube sensation, and was being reported on and discussed in the British press.
You replied on 23 January 2012 arguing that the programme should not be deciding what is significant and topical on the basis of whether a newspaper had chosen to publish a piece on the subject. You also took issue with what you saw as the poorly-researched nature of the item broadcast, providing some detailed examples.

Application of expedited procedure

BBC Audience Services replied on 25 January 2012 saying that you had submitted dozens of complaints over the past 17 months about the Jeremy Vine show, its output, the website and Mr Vine’s own Twitter account, and that these complaints revolved around three reoccurring themes: your disagreement with the selection of items on the show and alleged bias by Jeremy Vine, the website updates and Jeremy Vine’s right to use his Twitter feeds in the way he chose.

On each of these issues the BBC had provided you with a clear explanation of their policy, the letter said, and that they could not continue to devote such a disproportionate amount of scarce time and resources to responding to these same complaints. In this context they had applied the expedited complaints procedure. This meant that for the next two years they would not be replying to complaints from you submitted directly to production teams or via the central BBC Complaints Unit which relate to the Jeremy Vine show unless new and substantive issues raising questions of serious editorial breaches are raised. This letter advised you that you could appeal to the BBC Trust over this decision, and provided the relevant information.

You replied to the BBC on 26 January 2012 seeking clarification about the alleged ‘dozens’ of complaints you had submitted over the past 17 months. You said your records only covered 12 months so you asked the BBC explain to the ‘dozens’ reference. You asked what constituted a complaint – did this include emails to the show directly, to Jeremy Vine at his BBC email address and/or his Twitter account? You also asked if you would now be getting a response to your stage 2 complaint sent to the ECU on 21 January 2012.

Stage 2

You wrote to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit on 21 January 2012 to escalate your complaint about being blocked from Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feed. You said this breached the BBC’s guidelines on Twitter accounts, and ran contrary to the spirit of his repeated offers to ’follow me on Twitter’ broadcast on his radio show.

The Head of the Editorial Complaints Unit for the BBC replied to you on 6 February 2012 confirming that the expedited complaints procedure also applied to your complaint recently submitted to them, and that this would therefore not be investigated.

Your appeal

You wrote to the BBC Trust on 1 February 2012 to appeal against the decision to subject your complaints to the expedited complaints procedure. Firstly, you said that you had sent 19 complaints during the past 13 months, and therefore had sought clarification as to how the BBC had concluded that you had submitted ‘dozens’ but that you had not had an answer to this point. You questioned what constituted a complaint.

You then provided a brief resume of the 19 complaints submitted to BBC Audience Services over the past 13 months. As set out above, these included several complaints about the editorial choices of the programme and, on occasion, the treatment of the item in question, raising issues such as alleged bias and poor research. You also explained why the failure to update the programme’s website in a consistent and timely manner was highly problematic for you as a listener. In a series of letters you outlined your argument that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feeds ran contrary to BBC guidelines, particularly his decision to block you from accessing his account. Finally, in response to the BBC’s claim that they had provided countless explanations of their policy on these key issues you said that the responses from the BBC frequently missed the point of your complaints.

The Head of Editorial Standards’ decision

For the BBC Trust to consider an appeal there has to be a reasonable prospect of success. In the light of all the correspondence in question, the Head of Editorial Standards does not feel the BBC has a case to answer concerning its decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure in relation to your complaints about the Jeremy Vine show.

Firstly, I would like to quote directly from the BBC’s Complaints Framework, and then seek to explain the Head of Editorial Standards’ reasoning. The Complaints Framework Annex B, Expedited Complaints Handling procedure1 states:

The BBC needs to be able to ensure that its complaints procedures are not abused by vexatious complainants or otherwise by persons making repeated complaints which are without substance.

There are a number of criteria which may be relevant but the Head of Editorial Standards’ view is that that the following two are the most significant:

The complaint recipients should consider whether to make use of the expedited procedure where a complainant has a history of persistently and/or repeatedly making complaints which:
(a) Are repetitions of substantively identical complaints that have already been resolved; and/or
(b) Although within their remit, are shown on investigation to have no reasonable prospect of success.

The majority of your complaints concerned the editorial choice of subjects and the treatment of them on the Jeremy Vine Show, and it is clear from the BBC’s guidelines that this is a matter for the BBC and its creative teams.

In this context BBC Audience Services were necessarily eventually supplying you with near-identical responses irrespective of the specific complaint about choice of item as these issues are a matter for the BBC staff concerned.

In this context the Head of Editorial Standards does believe it is reasonable to view your complaints as falling within the terms of the procedure as set out above.

Your second major recurring complaint about the inconsistent updating of the website is also a case where the Head of Editorial Standards cannot see how the BBC could have responded differently or is likely to do so in future to a similar complaint. They said that they could not guarantee that every website would always be updated at a specific time, priorities and resources necessarily dictating these matters. Again this is clearly a matter for the BBC to exercise its judgment over its priorities. The Head of Editorial Standards therefore does not believe an appeal against the application of the expedited procedure on this matter has a reasonable prospect of success.

The Head of Editorial Standards notes that the BBC has repeatedly said that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter account is a personal one, and that they are happy with its relationship to the show, and that he is not in breach of the appropriate BBC guidelines. Here too the Head of Editorial Standards cannot see their response changing, or that there are grounds to consider a breach in the guidelines. In this context in seems to the Head of Editorial Standards to be reasonable to conclude that your main complaints have become ‘repetitions of substantially identical complaints’ with ‘no reasonable prospect of success’ as the guidelines covering this procedure require. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards can see no reasonable chance of success if this complaint was pursued to appeal.

The Head of Editorial Standards notes that one of your complaints (3 March) led to a change to the web page. Please be assured that under the expedited procedure your complaints will still be read and if there is a matter of substance then the complaint will be handled as normal including acceptance of a need for a clarification or correction if necessary. It will not be ignored.

Finally the Head of Editorial Standards notes that the BBC suggested that there had been dozens of complaints over 17 months and you noted that you had made 19 complaints during the past 13 months. I appreciate that this difference concerns you however it does not seem to the Head of Editorial Standards to make a material difference to the essential issue which is that the BBC is expending resource on replying to similar complaints on which you have already had an answer and know the BBC’s position and on which you have no reasonable prospect of success.

If you wish the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision, please reply with your reasons by 5pm on Tuesday 20 March 2012 to Lucy Tristram, Complaints Advisor, at the above address or If exceptionally you need more time please write giving your reasons as soon as possible.

If you do ask the Trustees to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision I will then place your letter, this letter, the Stage 2 decision and your original letter of appeal to the Trust before the ESC. I anticipate that they will consider your request at their 29 March meeting. Their decision is likely to be ratified at their May meeting and you will be given their decision shortly afterwards.

If the Trustees consider that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then your case will close. If the Trustees disagree with the Head of Editorial Standards’ view then your case will be given to an Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate and we will contact you with an updated time line.

Yours sincerely
Natalie Rose
Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser, Trust Unit

So, I have been given another invitation to take this further, coupled with another deadline. I will publish my reply to the BBC Trust Unit in due course.