Main Index

First page of this document

(Para 5 continued from overleaf)

During the remainder of his letter the Claimant set out why he felt that Granada's response might contain false argument.  The claimant summarised these reasons on the second page thus:

'Four weeks ago the ITC's Shanta Thakrar informed me that she was awaiting Granada's response from Mr Ian McBride, of Granada factual programmes.  Mr McBride happens to be a World in Action colleague of [Mr Mark] Hollingsworth & [Mr David] Leigh and a close friend of [Mr Alan] Rusbridger - all of whom have been involved in one or more of the three conspiracies to pervert the course of justice which so far have prevented Neil Hamilton from clearing his name.
  Ergo, there exists the strong likelihood that Mr McBride's response may contain: a) specious argument; b) false statements; or c) defamatory remarks about me - especially given that such remarks about me have already been alleged to have been made by Granada executive Sue Woodward. 
    It follows from these facts that the ITC's adjudication on my complaint runs the risk of being fatally flawed, should I be denied the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on Mr McBride's response.  I therefore request officially that the ITC provides me with the opportunity to review Granada's response to my complaint.'

6. That same day of 16 December the Claimant wrote to the ITC's Chief Executive Ms Patricia Hodgson (tab 8; p. 9).  The Claimant enclosed a copy of his letter to Mr Banatvala, and called upon Ms Hodgson to support his request.  Beginning at paragraph two the Claimant referred to Mr Banatvala's rebuttal of his request:

'I think that this could lead to the ITC into developing a false understanding of the facts of this matter, leading to the possibility of the Commission making a flawed ruling on my complaint. 
  I am advised that there is no impediment to Granada acceding to a request from the ITC to waive its rights under the current convention, and give its consent to my being provided with a copy of its response for my consideration.  Indeed, in this case at least, I suggest that if fairness is to be ensured such provision would be a prerequisite. 
  Given that Granada is more likely to respond positively if this request came from your office, I would be most grateful if you would approach Granada to obtain their permission.'

7. On 3 January 2001 Mr Roger Gale MP wrote to Ms Hodgson supporting the Claimant's request for sight of Granada's response (tab 10, p. 12).  In the second, final paragraph Mr Gale stated:

'It seems to me that Mr Boyd Hunt makes a perfectly reasonable request and I hope that you will be able to assist him.'

8. On 4 January 2001 Mr Banatvala wrote to the Claimant refusing his request (tab 11, p. 13).  In the second paragraph he explained:

'  ..it is ITC policy not to furnish complainants with licensees' responses.  Licensees give us their responses in the knowledge that the details they supply are for the addressee only, i.e. the ITC.  Of course, the licensee (in this case Granada Television) is at liberty to divulge the contents of any reply to the complainant, if they so wish.  It is customary practise for the ITC to quote extracts and evidence from the licensee response in dealing with a complaint, if the ITC so wishes.  The licensee and complainant should give us evidence and a response in the knowledge that this is the system under which the ITC always operates.'

9. On 8 January 2001 the Claimant wrote to Ms Hodgson primarily about a separate issue (tab 12; p. 15).  Within his letter the Claimant also broached the matter of being granted sight of Granada's response.

10. On 18 January 2001 Ms Hodgson replied (tab 13; p. 16).  In her reference to this matter Ms Hodgson stated in Para 3:

'Nonetheless I can only reiterate the points made by Chris Banatvala in his reply of 4 January - specifically, that complainants have the right to submit evidence in private.  This is particularly necessary when third parties are involved.  As the regulator, it is important for the ITC to ensure its complaints procedure is fair, objective and applied consistently, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to either encourage or discourage Granada's disclosure of the evidence submitted in this case.'

11. That same day of 18 January Ms Hodgson also replied to Mr Gale's letter of 3 January (tab 14; p. 18).  Referring to this matter Ms Hodgson stated in the second paragraph:

'The ITC's code of practice for investigating complaints permits licensees to submit evidence in confidence.  This is necessary if, for example, a complaint touches on matters relevant to the reputations of third parties.  The ITC may, of course, use relevant extracts in releasing its decision.  This means that any disclosure by Granada of their submission must remain a matter for them and Mr Boyd Hunt.'

12. Accordingly on 22 January the Claimant wrote to the chairman of Granada Television, Mr Charles Allen, at an address listed in Companies House (tab 15; p. 19).  In the final paragraph the Claimant stated:

'I feel sure that, in pursuit of complete fairness and openness, you would want to afford me with the same opportunity to scrutinise Granada's submission that I afforded Granada with respect to my own. 
  I therefore request that you provide me with the appropriate letter of authorisation, with which I can then approach the ITC and obtain a copy of Granada's response to my complaint.'

13. That same day of 22 January the Claimant also wrote to Ms Hodgson, principally about other issues (tab 16; pages 20-22).  The Claimant enclosed his letter to Mr Allen, and in the second paragraph of the second page referred to these matters thus:

'I am naturally disappointed that you decline to use your influence to obtain from Granada their permission to provide me with a copy of their response.  Regardless of the ITC's conventions, which may well be appropriate when dealing with other cases, I submit that my complaint is sufficiently unusual to warrant special treatment.  I have outlined my reasons once before in my letter to Mr Banatvala of 16 December 2000, and so I will not rehearse them again here. 
    However, I will say this: the facts are, I used to work for the broadcaster whose biased coverage of a political controversy I am complaining about.  The person whom the ITC told me was preparing Granada's response is also a close friend of several of those former Granada political journalists whom I name as being involved in a conspiracy that lies at the heart of the said controversy.  These same journalists have smeared me previously in various publications by ascribing to Granada's Director of Broadcasting defamatory remarks about me that she denies having made. 
    Ergo, from these facts it is logical and reasonable to assume that Granada's response might contain false argument - which only I have sufficient intimate knowledge to be able to identify and expose.
    I therefore reassert firmly that to deny me sight of Granada's response cannot be fair - especially as I have been completely open by copying my complaint to Granada.  Fairness as set down currently by the ITC - that the complainant and the broadcaster shall each have equal rights to submit argument in secret from each other - is surely an absurdity when applied in my case.  Fairness is certainly not the upshot if it means that one party's truthful and valid argument and another party's untruthful and invalid argument can both be submitted, each protected from scrutiny by the opposing party.  Without such openness I cannot see how the ITC, when examining some point, can ascertain whether that point is made truthfully or not.  This being self-evident, I cannot then see how any recommendation can be claimed to be fair, based on such a flawed procedure.'

previous page

next page