Full details of the BBC complaint from Paul Warburton

Index of complaint correspondence

Date	Title
13/04/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
04/05/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
10/05/2011	Letter to BBC Complaints
08/06/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
17/06/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
01/07/2011	Letter to the BBC Trustees
07/07/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
16/07/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
13/08/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
30/08/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
12/09/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
07/11/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
13/12/2011	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
03/01/2012	Letter to the BBC Trust
04/02/2012	Letter to the BBC Trust
08/02/2012	Letter to trustees on the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
16/02/2012	Letter to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit
02/04/2012	Letter to the BBC Trust
16/06/2012	Letter to the BBC Editorial Standards Committee
13/06/2012	Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Warburton (PDF)
13/06/2012	Reply from BBC - Conspiracy Files Annex 2 (PDF)

04/02/2012 - Letter to the BBC Trust

Lucy Tristram
BBC Trust
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ

4th February 2012

Dear Miss Tristram,

I attach a copy of a letter dated 24th January 2012 from BBC Audience Services. May I ask if this is the letter you refer to in your letter dated 9th January when you write "They (ECU) will respond to you directly in due course." ?

From your letter of 9th you said I could expect a letter from the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU). The attached copy is from Audience Services but it does say it is responding to a letter passed to them from the ECU. It is therefore not clear to me where this letter fits into your process. The 24th letter is so scant I cannot believe it deals effectively with my substantial representations and concerns made to the BBC since last Spring amounting to over 10 letters.

If the 24th January letter is the one you refer to in your letter of 9th January then I do appeal the 24th January letter's content on the ground that you have broadcast substantially more and fresher material on 9/11 since 2007 ie Prof Niels Harrit and the dust analysis from Ground Zero issue. Your 2007 analysis could not have covered that. To use arguments and findings from 5 years ago cannot be a reasonable response when you, the BBC, have transmitted newer and more controversial issues which I have highlighted in my letters.

Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,

Paul Warburton

« Previous item

^ Return to index ^

Next item »