BBC Trust: correction

I posted a comment on 16 June on this blog about the BBC Trust’s handling of an complaint by my friend Stan Rosenthal about the Secret Iraq documentary.

I suggested that it was unfair that one of the Trustees, Lord Williams of Baglan, should have judged the appeal, because of his known views about the Iraq war. However, the BBC Trust says:

It is not correct that Lord Williams was one of the Trustees who judged this appeal. While he was present for the meeting, Lord Williams was not provided with the paperwork relating to the appeal and he did not participate in the discussion or the decision.

I am happy to make this clear and to apologise to Lord Williams for the error. I must also note that the BBC Trust did not say any of this to Rosenthal when it rejected his complaint.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• The Fiction of Gatsby
• Why "build more houses" is not The Answer
• Cameron on Gay Marriage Should Make Us Proud
• What Focus Groups Say About Ed Miliband
• Cameron's possibly winning position

• JohnJustice

  I really cannot see the need for an apology here, JR. As I recall your blogpost you were simply observing the absurdity of the Trust saying that there was no conflict of interest because no one declared an interest, as if that alone obviates the need for an investigation.

  Anyway it now looks like there may well have been a conflict of interest since Lord Williams seems to have been excluded from consideration of this case.

• Kugelschreiber

  I have only ever written to the BBC once in my life. This was back in the 70’s. It was to ask them:

  1) When they were having some more Jeanette McDonald & Nelson Eddy movies on the telly.

  2) What the music was that they played during a series on geology & mountains etc(they kindly wrote back and told me that it was something by Vaughan Williams, the Greensleeves Fantasia or something)

• Kugelschreiber

  Yes , the BBC SHOULD have mentioned this when they rejected the complaint really, shouldn’t they.

  If someone’s decisions are open to misinterpretation, then we are always entitled to an explanation..