I sent a complaint to the BBC a few months ago attacking their bias. I requested a reply and didn't get one, so I complained about this last week.
The exact text of my complaint:
A few months ago I sent a complaint opposing your left of centre thinking, and requested a reply. I have not received a reply. Why?
The BBC's response:
Dear Mr Pearson
Thanks for your e-mail.
I understand you'd like to know why your complaint sent on 19 May 2009 wasn't given a response.
Whilst we aim to issue a response to everyone who requests a reply to their complaint, we will not reply to emails that are of an abusive nature.
Unfortunately, your complaint was deemed abusive as it displayed an extremely aggressive tone and therefore was considered inappropriate and harmful towards members of staff.
I realise you may disagree however we must take a firm stance on hurtful and aggressive emails and all correspondence containing these traits will not be tolerated.
In reply to your original complaint, I can assure you that we're well aware of our commitment to fair, balanced and impartial reporting. We don't seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. We seek rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.
I hope this clarifies the situation for and would like to take you again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Gerald McCuskerBBC Complaints
Thanks for your e-mail.
I understand you'd like to know why your complaint sent on 19 May 2009 wasn't given a response.
Whilst we aim to issue a response to everyone who requests a reply to their complaint, we will not reply to emails that are of an abusive nature.
Unfortunately, your complaint was deemed abusive as it displayed an extremely aggressive tone and therefore was considered inappropriate and harmful towards members of staff.
I realise you may disagree however we must take a firm stance on hurtful and aggressive emails and all correspondence containing these traits will not be tolerated.
In reply to your original complaint, I can assure you that we're well aware of our commitment to fair, balanced and impartial reporting. We don't seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. We seek rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.
I hope this clarifies the situation for and would like to take you again for taking the time to contact us.
Regards
Gerald McCuskerBBC Complaints
WHAT THE FUCKETY FUCK?! NO. WHAT THE FUCKETY FUCKING FUCK IS GOING ON HERE?! WHAT THE FRIGGIN FUCKETY SHITTY FUCK DO WE PAY THESE TWATS FOR?!
Compared to how I normally act (and that's in every day life, not just complaints) my complaint was far from far from far from far from even a tiny, teensy, little bit aggressive. Maybe.
It seems to me they aren't providing the service I pay them for because they feel I am too 'harsh'. WELL THEN LIGHTEN UP AND GET A GRIP OF HOW THINGS WORK IN THE REAL WORLD YOU BUNCH OF PATHETIC, ARSE-LICKING, DILDO-SHOVING, TROUSER-STUFFING, GORDON BROWN-LOVING, TOTALITARIAN, CLIMATE CHANGE-BELIEVING CUNTING ARSEHOLES!
It seems to me they aren't providing the service I pay them for because they feel I am too 'harsh'. WELL THEN LIGHTEN UP AND GET A GRIP OF HOW THINGS WORK IN THE REAL WORLD YOU BUNCH OF PATHETIC, ARSE-LICKING, DILDO-SHOVING, TROUSER-STUFFING, GORDON BROWN-LOVING, TOTALITARIAN, CLIMATE CHANGE-BELIEVING CUNTING ARSEHOLES!
SHOVE IT!!!!!! HOW'S THAT FOR ANGER?!
I think we might all be able to agree I'm a tad pissed off.
"Harmful towards staff" is the bit that gets me though. Well, I'm gladly calling on any member of the BBC staff (who's salary we pay) who can honsestly say they put down their Guardian for a bit to read my complaint and thought to themselves (or even expressed it at a power meeting): "Oh dear, Mr Pearson just asked me why I didn't do my job. I'm so offended I may cancel my eco-class tonight and stay in my house with some fairtrade crisps and cry non-polluted tears."
Go on. Who felt this way?
26 comments:
This seems to be becoming a more frequent weasel way for public servants and services to get out of responding to complaints. It also has the plus side for them that once you have been labelled 'Abusive ' or 'Offensive' by their 'oh so sensitive standards' they can ignore any future complaints from you on whatever subject. As complaints tend to be just that 'complaints' I would think any of these shrinking violets could find something to be afeared of.
Just think yourself lucky you weren't labelled 'Potentially Violent' like this poor lady 'Only the people of Slough lose' who fortunately won in the end.
One of the other sites on my RSS feed is this one. I'm amused to note that I got them confused on reading this particular insane rant...
Or, more constructively, if you're writing a letter of complaint to an organisation, or indeed making any sort of complaint in any context, stating the facts as you believe them in a calm and collected way usually gets you what you want.
Meanwhile, screaming that the person in question is an idiot will generally get you written off as a screaming loony. And screaming that the person in question is an idiot and you'll fucking belt them will generally get you arrested.
Perhaps if you listed the original complaint, it would make it clearer whether you have a point...
"...it displayed an extremely aggressive tone and therefore was considered inappropriate and harmful towards members of staff."
Oh, poor darlings! Do they need therapy, on learning that everyone doesn't love them after all?
"This seems to be becoming a more frequent weasel way for public servants and services to get out of responding to complaints."
Indeed. Once upon a time, every organisation as its 'crank callers/writers' who unleashed a stream of filth at their imagined slightds or kooky theme of the day and could safely be ignored.
Now, it seems that description covers 'utters mild dissatisfaction with the status quo and doesn't tell us how wonder ful we are'.
"...if you're writing a letter of complaint to an organisation, or indeed making any sort of complaint in any context, stating the facts as you believe them in a calm and collected way usually gets you what you want.
Meanwhile, screaming that the person in question is an idiot will generally get you written off as a screaming loony."
Love the way johnb immediately jumps to the conclusion that you must have written your missive in 34 point red text peppered with obscenities.
Because whet else would justify such a dismissive response from the Beeb..?
"This seems to be becoming a more frequent weasel way for public servants and services to get out of responding to complaints"
Yep. I wrapped a guy at the DVLA up in knots for nearly 30 minutes about their procedures for changing the classification of vehicles on the log book. The rules were/are remarkably incoherent and he was getting audibly embarrassed at having to defend something so startlingly ludicrous.
At one point I calmly mentioned that their rules were "nuts".
Sorry sir, you are being abusive *click*
Now all you have to do to finish it off is to pledge never again to pay your license fee.
It's called, "The Money Shot"
Perhaps we should all get together and complain about their "left of centre" bias at the same time.. make it a team effort and see where that gets us!
They have far too much power. They needn't worry about 'customers' - we have to pay the license fee regardless.
Break the damned thing up!
Commiserations, Mark.
@ Fausty, this was posted by JP, not me! If I were ever to take on the BBC, I'd adopt the slightly more subtle DP approach. And get nowhere either.
Can we have sight of the offending email?
Mark I aggree with Sue give us a template and I will send it too them as well.
Ben
The 'offending' e-mail is in the text. I'll cut n paste!
"A few months ago I sent a complaint opposing your left of centre thinking, and requested a reply. I have not received a reply. Why?"
Perhaps the use of the Queen's English got their dander up?
I have the very original email (the complaint) on file on another computer, but won't get there for a few weeks. Until then, I shall post it.
Seconded.
@JP: no, it's clear from their response the *offending* email was the first one, which you haven't posted.
Maybe JP is biased?
I note the bit about "we aim to issue a response to everyone who requests a reply to their complaint" & will have to include a specific request in future. My experience is that out of dozens of occasions only once have the BBC replied. In that case they denied that the BBC censor to promote racial genocide & asked me to give an example. When I did (the Dragodan Massacre of 210 unarmed civilians outside the British military HQ in Kosovo) they did not then reply.
"Unfortunately, your complaint was deemed abusive as it displayed an extremely aggressive tone and therefore was considered inappropriate and harmful towards members of staff.
I realise you may disagree however we must take a firm stance on hurtful and aggressive emails and all correspondence containing these traits will not be tolerated.
In reply to your original complaint, I can assure you that we're well aware of our commitment to fair, balanced and impartial reporting. We don't seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. We seek rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience.
I hope this clarifies the situation for and would like to take you again for taking the time to contact us."
If you look at the language, they "will not reply to abusive complaints".
Then they go on to say "in response to your original email", and tell us that they are "well aware of our commitment to fair, balanced and impartial reporting."
It is therefore clear that the 'abusive' email was the one I posted here.
It is therefore clear that the 'abusive' email was the one I posted here
Well, to you, maybe, but to me it just looks confused. The object of your statement was the email which "hadn't been replied to", not the email asking why an earlier email hadn't been replied to.
The fact that it's their policy to reply to non-abusive complaints and not to reply to abusive ones, and that they didn't reply to your first complaint but did reply to your second one, makes it entirely clear to anyone with more than brain/2 that they deemed your first complaint abusive and not your second one.
The interesting question is whether your first complaint could reasonably be called 'abusive' or not. I look forward to its posting when you finally reach your other computer...
(and yes, according to their stated policy they should *just* have sent you a response to your second email saying "we didn't respond to your first email because we don't respond to abusive emails", rather than then going on to answer the questions that your first email posed - but I imagine that would have annoyed you more rather than less...)
I shall complain again to them saying that their use of language prevented me from understanding their message. Then I shall ask them which email was 'abusive'.
How's that John?
Wait til the man at American Express receives my letter
Incredible that you got any reply. I have complained repeatedly about inaccuracies on the Radio 3 website pages and sought an answer. Nothing.
Gosh - what a colourful posting . . . I must pop in more often.
Post a Comment