Download BBC Editorial Complaints Unit BBC Room 5170, White City 201

BBC Editorial Complaints Unit
BBC Room 5170, White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS
[email protected]
15 June 2011
Mrs Deborah Houlding
3 Avondale Bungalows
Sherwood Hall Road
Mansfield, Notts., NG18 2NJ
[email protected]
CAS-675055-9ZT1MY | Lack of accuracy and impartiality within offensively
misrepresentative remarks about astrology | Stargazing Live; BBC2, 3rd January 2011
Dear Mr Hutt
Thank you for your letter to me dated 14 June 2011, in response to my letter dated 6 May
2011 (not 16 May 2011 as quoted by you).
Having written in my letter to you a very clear account of my complaint, I am concerned at
the degree to which your response failed to connect to the points raised for attention. I note
that your letter was submitted to me by email after receiving my email of the same date,
reminding you that your promised date of response (14 June 2011) had been reached. I
sincerely hope that the reading of my complaint was not rushed, in order for to issue a
response within the set time. You appear to have confused the basis of my complaint with
that of an earlier complaint made by the Astrological Association of Great Britain, regarding
a wholly different situation in a completely separate programme. I did not complain about
that earlier programme myself, nor feel the need to create a complaint about it. I accept, and
personally endorse, the BBC’s perspective that science reporters should be allowed free
expression of their own scientific views; that is, of course, providing that the reporting of
those views does not ignore the BBC’s policy on accuracy and impartiality, so that they
become offensive and misrepresentative, as was the case with this programme.
You ended your response to me by saying you would be happy to consider any further
points I wish to make; and that it is also open to me to make an appeal to the BBC Trust
within four weeks of the date of your letter (14 June 2011). I am confused by this and would
appreciate clarification. As there are further points to be made in response to your letter –
based mainly on the need to clarify your misunderstanding of the purpose of my complaint,
am I to assume that the ECU’s final decision has not yet been reached, and remains subject
to revision after due consideration of my further points? If this is the case, then presumably
my four week opportunity to appeal to the BBC Trust will commence from the period in
which your investigation and review has concluded, and not from the date of a letter (14
June 2011) in which your review of my complaint is still active? (Such would suggest that
1
your unit has cast its final decision, and so present a bizarre situation in which you would be
willing to consider further points, but unwilling to reconsider in light of them).
Please clarify this position (that is, whether you are considering my complaint as ‘still under
investigation’ in light of these further comments) at your earliest opportunity; preferably by
email, so that I can have appropriate notice of the time frame I need to adhere to, and the
current status of my complaint.
With regard to my further points, an initial request is for you to check more carefully your
reported transcript of the discussion which acts as the focus of this complaint. Your
transcript differs from mine, not only in emphasis, but also in content. I have checked the
details extremely carefully to make sure that my complaint (which concerns the matter of
accuracy) is accurate in its own details. The dialogue ran as reported in my earlier letter to
you, and as transcribed below. I have followed my rendering with an account of your own,
pointing out the differences of your account in red. Some of the word changes are highly
significant, since your account fails to demonstrate the insisted relevance of the ‘fact’ that
“only” the Earth goes round [the Sun], and it fails to convey the full extent of the offensive
and unnecessary repeated emphasis on the phrase “absolute nonsense”. Note in particular
the inaccuracy of your report concerning the final remark of Dara Ó Briain, the effect of
which implies that Dara was being simply dismissive of the dialogue, rather than insistently
repeating the supposed veracity of it.
Transcript, as recorded (areas of difference from your account are underlined):
Dara Ó Briain: Very rare for this kind of thing to happen, it is, because all of them
have a different, different orbital length; this is, you know, only, only the Earth goes
round in one year and comes back to the same spot. Horoscopes: that’s all nonsense.
We’re happy to say this now, once and for all, that’s all rubbish, right, astrology –
because the planets are in different places at different times.
Brian Cox: In the interests of balance, because we’re on the BBC, I should say that,
indeed, Dara is right: astrology is … [gesticulates to support the last word given to Dara].
Dara Ó Briain: It’s nonsense, it’s absolute(ly?) nonsense; right.
Your account of the transcript (red text highlights omissions and inaccuracies):
Dara O’Briain: Very rare for this kind of thing to happen. -- Because all of them have a
different -- orbital length. -- Only the Earth goes around in one year and comes back to
the same spot. Horoscopes – that’s all nonsense. We are happy to say this now, once
and for all – that’s all rubbish, right, astrology, because the planets are in different
places at different times.
Brian Cox: In the interests of balance, because we’re on the BBC, I should say that,
indeed, Dara is right: astrology is …
Dara O’Briain: It’s nuts, that’s enough.
2
Superficially, attention to such small details might be mistaken for minor matters of
significance, but the idea that you have presented in your characterisation of Dara Ó Briain
(as a comedian jovially describing the subject as “nuts”) imagines a very different experience
to the viewer impact that was actually delivered, where a popular presenter, whose presence
on the programme was justified on account of him being “a trained physicist with a noted
interest in science and astronomy”1 was given unequivocal endorsement by a renowned
scientist, in order to exaggerate (and so offensively) dismiss an entire body of knowledge as
‘nonsense’, ‘rubbish’ ‘nonsense’ and ‘absolute nonsense’.
You have been similarly inaccurate in your summary of the basis of my complaint,
proposing in your letter to me (p.1) a definition and phrase that I have never used myself,
suggesting:
“You have said that these comments were misleading, and factually incorrect, as
they misrepresented the true basis for astrology”
I was extremely clear in the clarification of my complaint, in the letter I submitted to you of
the 6 May 2011, to make sure that there could be no doubt that my complaint addressed the
point that the comments were misleading and factually incorrect, because they
misrepresented (to an offensive level) the astronomical and technical basis of astrology. I
quote from my letter with emboldening on some comments of particular importance, to
demonstrate how your investigation has completely overlooked the points I asked you to
consider, and has responded instead with the defence of an argument that I have not chosen
to pursue.
“The broadcast remarks implied that astrologers do not understand even the most
elementary principles of basic astronomy and do not account for the fact that the
planets in our solar system orbit the Sun at different speeds and distances. This is
defamatory to myself and other astrologers and couldn’t be further from the truth;
as an astrologer I need to have an excellent understanding of the planetary cycles
according to various systems of measurement, and I also need to keep a constant
familiarity of the ongoing and future planetary cycles (I would certainly not need
script notes to refer to, when asked about the length of the planetary cycles). I ask
you to consider how such an uninformed and nonsensical rebuttal is experienced
and perceived by astrological viewers such as myself, who naturally welcome and
support exactly these kinds of programmes and look forward with great
anticipation to the BBC’s live coverage of astronomical events.
In my original letter of complaint (dated 19th January 2011) I provided a technical
explanation of why Dara Ó Briain’s comments on astrological measurement were
uninformed and incorrect, and missed the salient points of interest through his
desire to present an unfair and disrespectful presentation of professional
1
I quote Mark Roberts of the BBC Complaints Department, as detailed in my letter of 19 January, 2011, p.3.
3
astrological technique. I refer you to that letter for the details, and would simply
reassert the relevant fact: the demonstration broadcast to your viewers about how
astrologers work is completely false and has no basis of truth, historically or
currently, to support it. The BBC’s presenters introduced the subject without
necessity and then used irrelevant arguments and contrived inaccuracies to
promote their own bias and eliminate any prospect of the subject being treated
with any kind of respect “once and for all”.
Whilst I appreciate that the topic of the agreed limits of astrology’s objective
reliability is a highly controversial one, which has always been subject to detailed
argument and philosophical debate, the matter of inaccuracy and
misrepresentation contained within the comments broadcast in this programme
is not something that constitutes a matter of opinion, but is very easily
established by fact: what was said was intentionally extreme and derogatory,
given the appearance of being supported by reason, but actually based upon
prejudice, lack of subject-knowledge or deliberately misrepresentative reporting.
Because I am aware that astrology is a controversial subject, which is rarely exposed
to the public without some form of emotive prejudice or intellectual bias attached to
it (in favour as well as against) I would ask the Editorial Complaints Unit to keep
in mind that the argument about the veracity of astrology is not the basis of this
complaint, since the dismissive treatment of astrology given in the programme
did not involve reasoned argument or scientific exploration, but simply
promoted the idea that astrology is illogical nonsense because the most
fundamental principle that it rests upon – awareness of planetary movement and
the assessment of its meaning – is so flawed and unreliable that it bears no
resemblance to astronomical reality.
I am not at all opposed to the notion of fair criticism and intellectual debate of
astrology’s claims. My complaint is: when coverage is given to astrology within the
context of a factual programme the facts presented should be pertinent and
balanced, and not deliberately misrepresentative or exaggerated to the point of
absurdity. “
As you will see, I have struck through the words “and balanced” in the last sentence, because
you have failed to give your attention to all the other points of my letter, and instead have
used this word to digress into a defence of an irrelevant argument that is not the focus of my
complaint. I do accept that there need not be equal degrees of air time or attention towards a
non-science subject within a science program, or even balance in the representation of it
when it is raised; I also fully accept (and have never had a problem) with the fact that the
program did not present an alternative view, nor did it (quite rightly) show a commitment
to impartial assessment of a controversial subject within a scientific programme. What I
object to is the complete lack of accuracy and deliberate impartiality that was delivered to
the audience, by which the audience were emphatically informed that astrology is nonsense
(etc) because its astronomical basis is supposed to be a patently ridiculous one:
4
Dara Ó Briain: We’re happy to say this now, once and for all, that’s all rubbish, right,
astrology – because the planets are in different places at different times.
Brian Cox: In the interests of balance, because we’re on the BBC, I should say that,
indeed, Dara is right:
Such a false and disingenuous statement is beyond inaccurate, being defamatory against the
reputations of professional astrologers because of the emphatic nature of the declaration,
and because the context of the program was one which gave the appearance of this
statement being a clear, researched, indisputable fact.
Since the inaccuracy within the comments complained about is so obvious and transparent,
may I suggest that future time is saved by not entering into arguments about the validity of
astrology in science, your account of which could be argued subjectively until the end of
time. I would like this investigation to limit its remit to my complaint of inaccuracy within
the comments that were broadcast in the program. If you consider there is a valid defence as
to why the above comments should not be defined as inaccurate and in need of correction, I
would like to understand the justification of your position. Are you suggesting that this is
not a clear case of inaccurate information being emphatically presented as if it were a fact,
and delivered in such as way as to put the weight of the whole BBC behind it?
Eliminating the non-relevant elements of your response, I have interspersed your comments
regarding your position on this point, to bring the focus back to the pertinent matters of my
complaint. You say:
As you will h a v e noted from my earlier letter, the BBC's guidelines refer to "due"
accuracy - that is accuracy as appropriate to the subject and nature of the output. I
therefore judged the accuracy of what was said in the context of the programme.
This was a science programme, presented by a scientist and a comedian who is an amateur
astronomer. The programme made clear its focus at the outset, as Brian Cox, introducing the
programme, said that astronomy was important because it was "the father of modern science"
from which all scientific advancements had flowed. I think it follows that audiences would have
expected the programme to offer a scientific perspective on the matters discussed.
I agree – my complaint concerns the fact that the astronomical basis of astrology was
seriously misrepresented and highly inaccurate. Astronomy is a science and astrology rests
upon knowledge of that science; therefore your audience would have expected that the
account of the astronomical principles of astrology were correctly reported – which is why
the misrepresentation of astrology in this particular programme is more significant than it
would have been were this not a science programme. Had the remarks been made in a
comedic panel show, the audience would not expect that they should be taken seriously.
Within the context of this programme, which was scientific and focussed upon explaining
astronomy, there is a much heightened expectation that comments which draw attention
through the emphatic nature by which they purport to offer clarification, are reliable and
accurate in their astronomical details. Clearly this was not the case.
5
The BBC’s policy on accuracy states:
3.2.1 We must do all we can to ensure due accuracy in all our output.
Did the presenters and programme producers do all they could to ensure that this sequence
of transmitted information was duly accurate? My complaint is that they significantly failed
to do so.
I think the requirements for "due" accuracy in a science programme should be understood in
that context - that of a programme presenting an account of what science knows to be true.
Again, agreed. But what was presented in the comments complained about does not have
any relevance to what science knows to be true.
Astrology has not been proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of the scientific
community, who would hold that it is a question of belief, and is not supported by evidence.
I do not therefore believe that audiences would have been surprised to see it discussed in a
sceptical manner. It seems to me that they would have judged those comments accordingly.
I doubt that anyone would disagree, or have a problem with the notion of astrology
receiving sceptical discussion in a scientific program. Sceptical discussion looks objectively
at the evidence but this is not what happened here. There was no relevance to what science
knows to be true. Your comment would hold if the sceptical remarks concerning the
technicalities of astrology were well sourced and based on sound evidence, but again,
clearly, this is not the case. The BBC’s policy with regard to accuracy also states:
3.2.2 All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced,
based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language.
We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded
speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be
corroborated should normally be attributed.
What was broadcast, being inaccurate in its astronomical allegations, was not appropriate to
the programme’s subject and nature; it was not well sourced; it was not based on sound
evidence (being an invented argument whose transmission appears to have been motivated
by emotive bias); it was not tested or presented clearly. In addition the information was
completely unfounded and delivered with a deceptive assumption of authority. There was
a complete lack of honesty in the astrological criticisms set forward, which rested on
astrology being “nonsense” because “only the Earth goes round …”
I would accept that there is a disparity between what astrologists hold to be the case for
astrology and the basis for it as described by Dara O'Briain. I do not believe however that
the disparity was such that the programme would have materially misled viewers.
This is the remark that is crucial to my complaint, and so I will ask you to reconsider what
you have written above, and reconfirm your position in the light of my comments. Or please
explain to me clearly (as preparation for my appeal to the BBC Trust) why you consider that
6
such an unfounded and dishonest remark, so patently inaccurate and bogus in its argument,
should be allowed to misrepresent the astronomical basis of astrology so seriously that it
could be used to justify such an offensively exaggerated rebuttal, based on unfounded
allegations concerning the astronomical awareness of astrologers.
Again, to save the prospect of time being wasted in the future; let us agree to remove from
the argument the relevancy of the BBC Trust’s comment in response to a completely
different complaint concerning a completely different program. You quote them as saying:
There was no requirement for a programme based on known science to provide
information or a response on "the non-scientific view of astrological planetary
influence on our lives"
I also see the logic of this, but this of course also fails to apply to the situation at the heart of
my complaint. The programme did not present the scientific view of astrology. The
programme presented false and inaccurate information. I am not arguing the need for the
BBC to incorporate non-scientific views – I am reminding the BBC that when views are
presented within a science programme as if they are accurate and based in fact, but are in
reality seriously inaccurate and grossly misrepresentative, being based upon dishonest
information, purely to give air time to the presenters’ prejudicial bias; then (as is the case
here) the BBC becomes accountable for serious factual errors. And in this case the BBC’s
policy on Accuracy is:
3.2.4 We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct them quickly,
clearly and appropriately.
The history of my complaint also highlights the failure to apply this policy effectively. I
accept in good faith your apology for failing to deliver on your promise of including a
response to my concerns about the way that my complaint has been handled. However, I
would like the ECU to endeavour to arrange a response to this aspect of my complaint, as
part of your process of compiling a final statement on the ECU’s standing on my complaint
as a whole, including the way that it is has been handled. I am prepared to give the ECU
whatever reasonable amount of time is necessary for this to happen, without prejudicing the
time available to me to take my complaint to the BBC Trust in appeal, if necessary.
In any case, it seemed clear to me that while many of the topics covered in the programme were
of a serious and scientific nature, the approach of the presenters as a whole was light-hearted
and humorous. This was certainly true of the exchanges which preceded this comment, which
included jokes at the expense of the Mayan civilisation, the alignment of the planets and the
forthcoming end of the world. I think audiences would have judged his particular exchange
accordingly- as light-hearted banter poking fun at what the presenters considered to be a belief
not founded in science. It is hard therefore to conclude that they would have been materially
misled as a result of that exchange.
Your audience certainly were misled on the point that forms the basis of my complaint: the
dishonest and emphatic account of how astrology is ‘absolute nonsense’ because its
astronomical basis is flawed. This again suggests that your department has not applied
7
attention to the details in my letter of complaint of 6 May 2011, where I raised this point and
demonstrated why the comments cannot be dismissed as content that was not emphatic, nor
intended to be taken seriously. I will quote again and ask that if you wish to raise this point
in reference to the seriousness of the inaccuracy, you should offer me a justified reason why
you do or do not accept the critical points I have presented on this matter:
I hope it would not be necessary to have to persuade the BBC of the astrological
argument, in order to pursue this complaint that the astrological argument [for
whatever value we put upon it] does exist and was subject to inaccuracy and a lack
of impartiality in the presentation of the programme complained about. Even
though the producer of the programme suggested that the comments would have
been perceived as light hearted in tone, following as they did the earlier references
to the end of the world in 2012, it should also be considered that Professor Cox
clearly realised that even such a far-fetched and jokey suggestion as the impeding
end of the world needed to be clarified, so that he looked concerned when he
interrupted Dara Ó Briain’s presentation to make the statement to viewers: “can I
just be clear about that – it’s not going to happen in 2012!”, upon which both
presenters shook their arms in denial to give an obvious dismissal in their tone and
gestures, to indicate that they had introduced a joke which was not to be taken
seriously. Nothing of this sort happened with the astrology references. Dara Ó
Briain took his time to repeat the comments with a raised volume in his voice and
sweeping arm gestures to indicate that the only dismissal to be made was the idea
that astrology was anything more than absolute nonsense. He looked straight into
the camera to give a heightened sense of presenting a factual correction of a point of
idiocy, so that the ‘fact’ of the matter can be cleared up “once and for all”.
The BBC’s policy on Accuracy also states:
3.2.3 The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences. We should not
distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our
audiences' trust in our content.
I have previously set forward the evidence to demonstrate that the sequence was
deliberately engineered to be misrepresentative (reproduced on p.10 of this letter), and why
it must have had the foreknowledge and approval of the producer and editorial team. You
appear to have evaded entirely my complaint on this point by entering instead into the
irrelevant suggestion that presenters and producers were entitled to discuss the subject in a
“sceptical manner“; and by raising points of ambiguity regarding how the word “due”
ought to be interpreted within the BBC’s policy of ensuring “due accuracy”. The word ‘due’
means two things: it refers to something that is owed, (as, for example, an admission of
inaccuracy is owed in this situation), and it also means appropriate and fitting to the
circumstances. Since my complaint of inaccuracy is obvious and easily proven, I would ask
that you please avoid debate regarding the meaning of an ambiguous word, which might be
seen as a tactic designed to give the superficial appearance of adhering to policy, when there
is no other defence for a situation where policy has failed to be applied in principle and practice.
8
In summary, with regard to the ‘accuracy’ complaint, the focus of my complaint has not
been correctly recognised in your response, and so I request that you reconsider this with
reference only to the pertinency of the broadcast remarks, and avoiding all digression into
irrelevant matters of how you would define the science community’s relationship with
science (this is what allows the focus of my genuine and legitimate complaint to become lost
and unattended to). If one of your presenters had said “astrology; that is just absolute
rubbish” without any attempt to qualify the remark, then I would not have instigated this
complaint: the remark would clearly have been seen for what it was – an expression of the
presenter’s own personal opinion. Or if a presenter had said “astrology; from the scientific
point of view that is absolute nonsense”; I would have viewed the remark as controversial
but not in need to correction in a situation where there was no development or attention to
the arguments: again, this would have demonstrated a general opinion that many scientists
feel they are entitled to hold and express. It is the attempt to qualify the remark by
introducing false argument that makes this complaint serious, though its implication that
astrologers are not educated upon the scientific and technical principles of astronomy.
The second agreed aspect of my complaint concerns the criticism of impartiality. I raised this
with consideration of the BBC’s published commitment which states: “Impartiality lies at the
heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences.”
Here it has also been the case that the focus of your scrutiny has not been applied to the
matters of concern that I identified. Instead you quote policy 4.4.2 which reads:
Impartiality does not necessarily require the range of perspectives or opinions to be
covered in equal proportions either across our output as a whole, or within a single
programme, web page or item. Instead, we should seek to achieve ‘due weight'. For
example, minority views should not necessarily be given equal weight to the prevailing
consensus.
I will accept this, having mentioned in my letter that I consider it to be a ‘red herring’ to the
particulars of my complaint. My complaint of impartiality does not hinge upon the criticism
of ‘lack of balance’ in the division of time afforded to opposing sides of an argument, or the
suggestion that every point raised must be answered by a counter-point. It is important that
you realise that my complaint only concerns the offensiveness of the exaggerated level of
criticism which rests for its justification upon factually incorrect and deliberately
misrepresentative remarks.
This is where the issue of impartiality is significant in my complaint: that the presenters
were allowed to broadcast inaccuracies, purely to create an opportunity which would allow
them to exercise their own well known, and well reported prejudice to astrology as a subject.
As support of this I have submitted to you reports of how the presenters’ bias against the
subject is so notable, that they have engaged in highly questionable, highly public activities,
which have served to prevent members of the astrological community from exercising their
right of democratic expression. I consider there is a serious cause of complaint regarding
9
conflict of interest when presenters use their BBC profiles to endorse malicious activity
against members of the public who happen to be members of the astrological community.
The extreme and exaggerated level of inaccuracy in the broadcast remarks raises the
question of why the producer of a science programme would allow them to be transmitted,
and I have previously argued that the comments cannot be dismissed as off-the-cuff, lighthearted mistakes, when I wrote in my letter:
Dara Ó Briain’s unequivocal declaration “We’re happy to say this now, once and
for all” shows that he was speaking for the production team and therefore the BBC
itself. It also reveals that the inflammatory exchange was pre-planned and
deliberately engineered for inclusion with the agreement of others, since Dara Ó
Briain made this remark on behalf of himself and others after making a very sudden
and unnecessary reference to astrology, which had no previous development in the
preceding commentary. I consider it difficult therefore, to accept a justification that
the audience was expected to interpret the comments as being just the presenters’
own personal views rather than those of the BBC as a corporation which has
obligations towards accuracy and impartiality. Professor Cox’s reference to BBC
policy and Dara Ó Briain’s indication that he was speaking on behalf of a teamview make it clear that was not the case.
The submission of my report which presented reference to the use of public Twitter feed
activity, demonstrated how three of the programme presenters engaged in disruption of
astrological-community concerns, and publication of highly offensive and prejudicial insults
of astrologers, down to the level of comparing them to paedophiles. Although I have not
chosen to pursue this as significantly as I might have done, it does play an extremely relevant
role in my complaint of underlying impartiality being allowed to express itself through the
broadcasting of deliberately inaccurate information. You do not appear to have taken the
significance of any of this into consideration. The presenters’ use of their public profiles as
BBC presenters, and their media involvement in propagating hostility and criticism towards
astrologers, has constituted a campaign of raising intolerance towards the astrological
industry, and so calls for examination under the BBC’s Impartiality guidelines (15.4.20) which
state that BBC representatives: “taking a public position on an issue of public policy, political
or industrial controversy, or any other ‘controversial subject’ is likely to be incompatible with
some BBC roles, especially in news, current affairs and, sometimes, in general factual
programmes”. This type of conduct and behaviour effectively stigmatises astrologers.
Section 4 of the BBC charter also states “The external activities of staff, presenters and others
who contribute to our output can also affect the BBC’s reputation for impartiality”. I have
provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the presenters have done this,
demonstrating that they have introduced prejudice and impartiality into their role of science
communicators because they are biased towards an emotive hostility of the subject. It is for
this reason that I have raised reference to the complaint under the policy of impartiality; on
the basis that such prejudice motivated the dishonest broadcast which was deceptive and
10
inaccurate in its details, and deliberately based upon unfounded speculation, irrational
argument and invented criticism, resulting in an abuse of audience faith in the BBC’s
published pledge to keep impartiality at the core of its commitments.
Since your response addressed inconsequential points on the matter of impartiality, and has
not addressed the pertinent points, I would ask you to consider these matters with the
attention they deserve, so that your final response indicates that you have investigated these
matters appropriately, and shows that you have taken a well considered judicial decision,
having given due consideration to all matters of significance.
Finally, you refer to my “strength of feeling over these matters”. I would like to reassure you
that my complaint is not based upon the experience of my feelings, and that I have sought to
remove all points of subjectivity from my complaint, so that they are not allowed to create
unnecessary points of confusion. I have persisted with this complaint against a great deal of
obfuscation because I recognise that there are important principles at stake here; about the
BBC being honest and accountable, and prepared to accept the responsibility that comes
with the reputation of being a trusted broadcaster. To essentially push aside all the valid
points of my complaint, with what basically amounts to an excuse that “science knows that
astrology is rubbish” (and thus implying that BBC programmes are therefore at liberty to
report any false or prejudicial remark they choose, regardless of the accuracy of fact) does
not affect my feelings; but it does concern me as a right-minded individual who strives to be
led by good conscience.
Thank you again for your time and attention.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Deborah Houlding
CC:-
Sir Alan Meale
Wendy Stacey
Sharon Knight
Joyce Lampert
Member of Parliament, Mansfield Constituency
Chair, Astrological Association of Great Britain
Chair, Association of Professional Astrologers International
Secretary, Advisory Panel on Astrological Education
11