The result of my second appeal...

Just received by email, and with no indication of where it has come from or who sent it.


Application of the expedited handling procedure at Stage 1

The complainant appealed to the Editorial Standards Committee following the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards that the complainant’s appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration by the Committee.

The complaint
Stage 1

The complainant wrote to the BBC regarding BBC Audience Services’ decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure to his complaints concerning the Jeremy Vine radio show, its website and Mr Vine’s Twitter feed.

The complainant wrote on numerous occasions between January 2011 and January 2012 complaining about various aspects of the Jeremy Vine show, the website and the Twitter Feed. BBC Audience Services replied to each of these complaints.

BBC Audience Services then wrote saying that the complainant 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 recurring themes: his 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 the complainant with a clear explanation of their policy and they could not continue to devote such a disproportionate amount of scarce time and resources to responding to these same complaints.

BBC Audience Services said that, in this context, they had applied the expedited complaints procedure. This meant that for the next two years they would not reply to complaints from the complainant submitted directly to production teams or via the central BBC Complaints Unit which related to the Jeremy Vine show unless new and substantive issues raising questions of serious editorial breaches were raised.

The complainant replied seeking clarification about the alleged “dozens” of complaints he had submitted over the past 17 months. He said his records only covered 12 months so he asked the BBC to explain the “dozens” reference. He also 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?

Appeal to the BBC Trust

The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC Trust saying that he wished to appeal against the decision to subject his complaints to the expedited complaints procedure.

The complainant said that he had sent 19 complaints during the past 13 months, and therefore had sought clarification as to how the BBC concluded that he had submitted “dozens” but had not received an answer to this point. He also questioned what constituted a complaint and explained why the failure to update the programme’s website in a consistent and timely manner was highly problematic for him as a listener. In a series of letters he outlined his argument that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter feeds ran contrary to BBC guidelines, particularly his decision to block him 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, he said that the responses from the BBC frequently missed the point of his complaints.

The Trust’s Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser replied on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards.

She explained that the Trust did not adjudicate on every appeal that was brought to it, and part of her role was to check that appeals qualified for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. The Head of Editorial Standards had read the relevant correspondence and considered that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and should not proceed to the Trust’s Editorial Standards Committee.

The Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser said that the Head of Editorial Standards did not feel the BBC had a case to answer concerning its decision to apply the expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints about the Jeremy Vine show.

She said that the Complaints Framework Annex B, Expedited Complaints Handling procedure, 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 were a number of criteria which may be relevant but the Head of Editorial Standards’ view was that the following two were 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 Head of Editorial Standards noted that the majority of the complaints submitted by the complainant concerned the editorial choice of subjects and the treatment of them on the Jeremy Vine show, and it was clear from the BBC’s guidelines that this was a matter for the BBC and its creative teams. In this context, BBC Audience Services were necessarily eventually supplying the complainant with near-identical responses irrespective of the specific complaint about choice of item as these issues were a matter for the BBC staff concerned. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards believed it was reasonable to view the complaints as falling within the terms of the procedure as set out above.

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

The Head of Editorial Standards had noted that the BBC had repeatedly said that Jeremy Vine’s Twitter account was a personal one, and that they were happy with its relationship to the show, and that he was not in breach of the appropriate BBC guidelines. Here too the Head of Editorial Standards could not see their response changing, or that there were grounds to consider that there had been a breach of the guidelines. In this context in seemed to the Head of Editorial Standards reasonable to conclude that the complainant’s main complaints had become “repetitions of substantially identical complaints” with “no reasonable prospect of success” as the guidelines covering this procedure required. In this context the Head of Editorial Standards could see no reasonable chance of success if this complaint was pursued to appeal.

The Head of Editorial Standards noted that one of the complainant’s complaints had led to a change to the web page and she assured the complainant that under the expedited procedure his complaints would still be read and if there was a matter of substance then the complaint would be handled as normal, including acceptance of a need for a clarification or correction if necessary. It would not be ignored.

Finally the Head of Editorial Standards noted that the BBC had suggested that there had been dozens of complaints over 17 months and the complainant had said that he had made 19 complaints during the past 13 months. She appreciated that this difference concerned the complainant but it did not seem to her to make a material difference to the essential issue which was that the BBC were expending resources on replying to similar complaints on which the complainant had already had an answer and knew the BBC’s position, and on which he had no reasonable prospect of success.

The complainant requested that the Committee review the decision of the Head of Editorial Standards not to proceed with the appeal. He said that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category which the Head of Editorial Standards had ignored (factually inaccurate, speculative and biased reporting) and made further comments on those categories of complaints which she had identified. He concluded by requesting that his complaints should no longer be subject to the expedited complaints procedure.

The Committee’s decision

The Committee was provided with the complainant’s appeal to the Trust, the response from the Senior Editorial Strategy Adviser on behalf of the Head of Editorial Standards and the complainant’s letter asking the Committee to review the Head of Editorial Standards’ decision. The Committee was also provided with the Stage 2 response from the Editorial Complaints Unit.

The Committee noted the complainant’s contention that some of his complaints fell into a fourth category, that of allegations of factually incorrect, speculative or biased reporting. The Committee agreed that, however the various complaints were categorised, the fact was that they were largely repetitive with no reasonable prospect of success.

The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.

Taking into account the nature and frequency of the complaints made by the complainant, the Committee was satisfied that the decision not to accept his appeal against the application of the expedited procedure was correct.

The Committee therefore decided this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.





So, I’m still on the naughty step then.
My appeal has been beautifully cherry-picked, in particular when they wrote:
The Committee also noted the complainant’s statement that he would not make any further complaints relating to “late web page updates” if the appeal against the application of the expedited procedure were allowed.
I also stated that I would not complain about the programme’s editorial decisions if my appeal was allowed, but they missed that. Should have gone to SpecSavers, perhaps.
I’ll stew on this for a while and decide what to do.

More Twittering...

I have had an interesting exchange of emails today with Paul Smith of BBC Audio and Music concerning my old mate Jeremy Vine’s use of Twitter. Mr Smith has chosen to engage with me and is ignoring my placing on the “expedited complaints handling procedure” list, which is very good of him. For that reason alone I have been careful with my words as I do not wish to destroy this particular link in to the inner workings of our beloved BBC as it may prove of use in the future should he continue to respond in a like manner. Mr Smith’s BBC biography can be read here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/managementstructure/biographies/smith_paul/
Our email exchange went like this:

Dear Mr Smith,

There follows a transcript of a recent Twitter exchange between Jeremy Vine and Tom Watson MP. This brief exchange tells me more about Mr Vine and his personal views than any other source I have ever found. It could be argued that having such an apparently cosy relationship shows bias on his part, and following this exchange it came as no surprise at all to hear that Mr Watson was to be a guest on Vine’s programme today.
tom_watson ‏ @tom_watson : If you worked at NoTW and don’t believe @rupertmurdoch’s account, please contact me: “Rupert Murdoch betrayed us”:http://gu.com/p/377yx/tf
Jeremy Vine ‏ @theJeremyVine : @tom_watson Your book title is best so far this year, T. We’re ready for you in the studio whenever you want to come on @BBCRadio2
tom_watson ‏ @tom_watson : @theJeremyVine thank you. I’d be delighted.
Jeremy Vine ‏ @theJeremyVine : @tom_watson Have emailed producer to remind him to fix date. Know you’re busy. Have good weekend.
Chuck Finlay ‏ @ChuckFinlay : @theJeremyVine @tom_watson Jeremy, get a room…this snivelling in public is embarrassing!
However, I am unable to respond or comment because Vine has blocked me from following his feed. At least I would not have suggested that they “get a room”.

The following tweet came from former MP Lembit Opik in which he almost begs to be a guest on the programme to discuss his new book. Mr Opik appeared to do exactly that a few days later (5th March).
@theJeremyVine Jeremy, hope you’re well. My book on future of Lib Dems and its leadership is out tomorrow. Your listeners may be interested?

I find the details of Mr Vine’s relationships with his programme guests fascinating!

Your comments on this and my other recent email would be appreciated.
Many thanks!

I received the following reply 3 hours later:

Hi there,

Thank you for your note. Although I don’t think this exchange is ideal, it is worth pointing out that no guest can be booked by the presenter without the express permission of the editor. I have spoken to the editor, and although Jeremy, as a journalist can, and does make suggestions, the editor turns down the idea as often as he accepts it. Tom Watson may have wanted to appear to talk about his book, but the programme also wanted him to appear following the select committee report of yesterday. Tom Watson had been sought by several BBC and non-BBC outlets, and I am satisfied that it was the correct item to carry, and there was no undue prominence of the book.

I didn’t hear the Lembit Opik item, but the editor tells me he received offers of Lembit from several sources…not principally Jeremy, and decided that he would be an interesting guest for one of the programmes.

The exchanges you have sent are public, and I think if anyone had anything to hide here, they would not use twitter.

Paul Smith

I responded straight away:

Hi,

Many and sincere thanks for your prompt reply. It is very much appreciated.

Both today’s and my email of 26th April are nothing more than illustrations of the reasons why I would like to fully follow and engage with Mr Vine’s so-called “personal” Twitter account, which I am still blocked from doing so.

Your explanation of the procedures in place to book guests is gratefully received, and I take it from this that when Mr Vine wrote “We’re ready for you in the studio whenever you want to come on” on 28th April (last Saturday, four days before the report was published) that this was NOT necessarily a “done deal” and the offer of air time was not guaranteed. If that is indeed the case then I hope you understand why I, and presumably others, have misinterpreted an apparently open invitation to attend at Mr Watson’s convenience.

For balance, I would hope that similar invitations were sent to other members of the select committee, Louise Mensch for example, but these have not appeared on Mr Vine’s Twitter feed.

Again, I would ask for your comments on my email sent on 24th April, with particular reference to the BBC’s definition of word “personal” and the use of a personal Twitter account by somebody (the producer) other than the account owner.

I remain extremely grateful for your responses to my emails.

Only 20 minutes later came this:

Louise Mensch has appeared on several other BBC outlets and another member of the committee was on Today this morning. But Tom Watson has been driving forward the phone hacking aspect of the story, so I would expect him to be prioritised, although today would be the appropriate day for him to appear rather than any of his choosing.

‘Personal’ is what JVs account is…it’s not controlled or set up by the BBC. But sometimes material from it is interesting, and Jeremy is happy for us to use the comments sent to him directly. Twitter is about personal engagement, and Jeremy likes to indulge in public debate with some people which he is in control of.

As I said, we are moving to a position where we will use BBC accounts for comments, but that is taking time to achieve as the audience find presenters own personal accounts more attractive. 

I had the last word though:

Hi,

Quote: As I said, we are moving to a position where we will use BBC accounts for comments, but that is taking time to achieve as the audience find presenters own personal accounts more attractive.

Please be aware that this particular member of your audience absolutely disagrees with the latter part of that statement for the reasons that I have outlined previously.

Again, many thanks for your responses. I shall now await the outcome of my appeal to the BBC Trust.

And that was that. The definition of the word “personal” I learnt many years ago is obviously completely wrong, and I also seem to have completely misunderstood everything to do with the BBC and its use of Twitter.

Silly me.

The Twitter plot thickens...

I received an interesting follow-up email from BBC Audio & Music today in response to my query concerning Jeremy Vine's use of Twitter sent a couple of weeks ago. This is what it said (my emphasis):

 

Sorry for my slow response, I wanted to check a few things with the JV programme.

Like a number of freelance presenters and journalists, Jeremy Vine does run a personal, non BBC, twitter account.  People do tweet directly back to him, text the studio, phone the studio, email the studio and tweet to BBC owned accounts.

The comments you hear on air are selected by a producer and passed to Jeremy, based on their content. It’s not true that the responses back to Jeremy’s account play a major part in the show…by far the biggest response is by email and text.

Sometimes the producer (not JV) will judge a comment via twitter is useful in the debate and pass it through to the studio.
Jeremy is aware of our guidance on personal use of social media, and his comments on twitter are within that guidance, and I, and others, will advise him from time to time about twitter.
Twitter is a new phenomenon, and adapting guidelines etc. does take time and often leaves a few grey areas. You’ll have noticed BBC news people like Robert Peston have tweet accounts too…and many of those are ‘BBC’ owned. But, the way the accounts are labelled and who owns them does, I admit, vary across the corporation. We are tidying this up  bit by bit, but it is taking a little time.
I hope this explains the situation.

 

The writer has obviously gone to some trouble to get his facts straight, but I feel that he has been given misinformation by the JV program staff. Old habits die hard!

I am pleased to have it confirmed that Vine is freelance and not a BBC employee. I always suspected that this was the case, but had no proof.

This was my response to the email:

Very many thanks for your reply, and for taking the time and trouble to investigate further - it is very much appreciated. Unfortunately, it does not explain the situation!

The only Twitter account that I know Jeremy Vine has is @theJeremyVine. I can only assume that the BBC-owned Twitter account that you refer to is @BBCRadio2, which I have never heard mentioned in connection with Mr Vine's programme.

Mr Vine uses his "personal" account to tweet about his favourite football team, cycling in London and a whole host of non-BBC related topics, but this is also the same Twitter account that he promotes heavily in connection with his Radio 2 programme. For example, this is what he said yesterday (25th April):

 - During his daily promotion on the Ken Bruce show at 11:30 : "Phone number 0500 288291, you can email vine@bbc.co.uk, we're both on Twitter @R2KenBruce and @theJeremyVine"
 - At the start of his programme at 11:59 : "The phone number is 0500 288291, you can also email vine@bbc.co.uk and if you have an account on Twitter I'm there as @theJeremyVine"

You will note that in both of these promotions there was no mention of texting, and based on previous experience I have absolutely no doubt that other similar promotions of @theJeremyVine were made during the programme. You will also note his promotion of Ken Bruce's Twitter account, which has as its description: The official twitter account of the real Ken Bruce. You'll find my words here typed by my own fingers . On air weekdays 0930-1200 BBC Radio 2. Despite his claims to the contrary, am I to take it that Mr Bruce's account is "personal" too?

You kindly wrote: Sometimes the producer (not JV) will judge a comment via twitter is useful in the debate and pass it through to the studio.

So, just to be clear, Mr Vine's "personal" account is monitored by a BBC producer and cherry-picked for good comments - is that correct? If that is the case, perhaps you would be good enough to explain the BBC's definition of the word "personal", as I am now completely baffled..

Mr Vine reads and attributes comments from Twitter on air, and a quick check of tweets to his account (by searching for @theJeremyVine in Twitter) reveals Twitter to indeed be the source, almost word for word.

As you have mentioned, I could choose to communicate with his programme by email or text, but both of these mediums are relatively cumbersome and lack the immediacy and convenience that Twitter provides to me.

I have no issue, or interest, with the comments that Mr Vine makes on Twitter. We live in a land of free speech and he is entitled to his opinions. However, that same free speech is denied to me simply because he has chosen to block me from being able to respond to his invitations to contact his programme (not Mr Vine himself). This amounts to nothing less than censorship on Mr Vine's part.

All I want is to be able to communicate with a BBC radio programme that I fund by buying a TV Licence every year.

Again, I thank you sincerely for your email, but I cannot help thinking that whoever you spoke to at the JV programme has not been entirely accurate with their responses.

As well as defining "personal", would you care to comment further?

Left hand, meet right hand...

I've just received the following email from the powers-that-be at our beloved BBC which relates to another email I received from the Editorial Complaints Unit on 6th February (http://lunchtimeloather.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/friendly-message-from-bbcs-editorial.html). It has only taken them two and a half months to notice...

On reviewing the correspondence between you and the Editorial Complaints Unit from earlier this year, it has been pointed out to me that  your complaint about Jeremy Vine’s use of Twitter should have reached me. However, I have now read all the correspondence, and your concerns, and I have nothing more to add to what has already been said.

I note that the expedited complaints process has been applied, and the programme/audience services will only respond to you in future if there is a serious or substantial matter which should be taken further.

I wanted to make you aware that if you wish to take your complaint about Jeremy Vine blocking you on twitter further, or if you wish to appeal against the application of the expedited complaints procedure you  can ask the BBC Trust (who act as Stage 3 in the complaints process) to consider an appeal within 20 working days of receipt of my letter.

You can write to the BBC Trust at 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ. Full details of the complaints and appeals processes are on the BBC Trust website. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/)

Paul Smith
Head Editorial Standards, BBC Audio & Music


My response:

Dear Mr Smith,

Many thanks for your email. I have already been in contact with the BBC Trust and I am currently awaiting their second response.

Just to be clear in my own mind, and in case I have completely misunderstood something, would you be good enough to explain to me how a Twitter account that is described as "personal" by the BBC itself (and so completely uncontrolled by the BBC) can be so described when that same account forms such a major part of a radio programme that relies on audience participation for a large proportion of its content? It is this issue and the double-standards involved, or my complete misunderstanding, that is at the crux of my complaint.

I won't hold my breath...

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 6^th 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?
 - 29th March: HAS SUPERGLUE LOST ITS MAGICAL POWERS?
 - 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 (www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/07/bbc_social_media_guidance.html)

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 jeremy.vine@bbc.co.uk, and for his programme vine@bbc.co.uk) 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.

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 25^th 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 17^th March 2011 Mr Vine sent me a personal email saying “We’d love to meet you” and we exchanged further emails and spoke (11^th 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:

7^th 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.

28^th 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.

2^nd 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.

3^rd 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.

3^rd 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.

14^th 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.

15^th 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.

16^th 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.

17^th 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.

21^st 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.

3^rd 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.

26^th 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.

29^th 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.

30^th 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.

11^th 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".

13^th December: This was a repeat of my 3^rd 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 25^th 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.

4^th 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 21^st January 2012, but I have yet to receive a reply. Again, I am assuming that I will not receive one.

19^th 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.

19^th 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: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how_we_govern/protocols_policy/compliance_oversight.shtml

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 trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. 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.