Main Index

First page of this document

(Continued from overleaf)

14. Over the next few days the Claimant corresponded with the ITC on other issues.  On 27 January, upon learning of the appointment a few months earlier of Lord Dubs to the deputy chairmanship of the Commission, the Claimant wrote to him at the ITC to bring to his attention his complaint and various issues arising from it (tab 21; pages 28-30).  Taking account of Lord Dubs's record as a champion of human rights issues, in referring to this matter the Claimant stated from the middle of the penultimate paragraph of the first page:

'You will also see that the ITC is currently denying me the opportunity to scrutinise Granada's response - upon which the ITC will base its adjudication - though I have been completely open and copied my complaint to Granada. 
    This is demonstrably unfair.  I have a basic human right to scrutinise Granada's response.  It may contain factual errors or misleading statements, about which only I am in a position to identify and expose.  By definition if potential errors are left unchecked, the ITC's eventual ruling will stand a grave risk of being flawed.  I therefore call on you to support my request for a copy.'

15. That same day of 27 January the Claimant also wrote to: Ms Hodgson (tab 24 p.33); the Commission's chairman Sir Robin Biggam (tab 23; p.32); and all Commission Members, enclosing certain documentation.  In his letter to the Members, in the final two paragraphs the Claimant addressed the matter thus:

'As I have made clear previously to Ms Hodgson, and now make plain to Lord Dubs, I do not accept the reasoning that has been put forward so far to justify the ITC's current refusal to provide me with Granada's response to my complaint.  In my letter I have therefore asked Lord Dubs to support my request for a copy.  I have also written a short letter to the chairman, Sir Robin Biggam, asking that he supports my request also.
    I have made my complaint against Granada honestly.  I copied my complaint to the Granada board openly.  I can think of no reason why Granada and the ITC should be so fearful that I should obtain a copy of their response, unless it contains false and/or misleading statements that Granada and the ITC would prefer not to have exposed.  I hope that you also agree with my stance and that I can call on your support in this.'

16. On 1 February 2001, after receiving no acknowledgement from Granada's chairman, the Claimant wrote to Mr Allen again, via recorded delivery, sent to both the company's Manchester and London headquarters (tab 25; p. 34).

'As I stated in my previous letter to you of 22 January, the ITC has denied my request for a copy of Granada's response for my review, as this is contrary to their current convention.  I have disputed the ITC's stance on this, for various reasons.  However, the ITC has made clear that I am free to contact Granada directly for permission. 
    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.  To avoid the possibility of any dispute arising on this point, I therefore repeat my 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.'

17. The next day, 2 February, the Claimant wrote to Sir Robin and Ms Hodgson enclosing copies of his letter to Mr Allen.  In his letters to Sir Robin and Ms Hodgson the Claimant requested that, before placing any value upon Granada's submission, the ITC should first take account of whether Granada had decided to open it up to scrutiny (tab 26; p.35). 

18. On 7 February Mr Allen replied to the Claimant, indicating that he had delegated the matter to a certain Mr Stewart Butterfield, who, he stated, dealt with all ITC issues (tab 27; p.36).

19. On 12 February the Claimant put a call in to Mr Butterfield at Granada's London headquarters.  After keeping the Claimant waiting a minute to establish whether her boss was in or not, Mr Butterfield's personal assistant declined to pass on the call, giving as the reason the fact that the matter was being dealt with by Mr Ian McBride (whom Mr Banatvala's assistant, Ms Shanta Thakrar, had disclosed was the person who had prepared Granada's response).  The Claimant made accurate notes of the ensuing conversation, during which Mr McBride opined that the Claimant would not be granted sight of Granada's response but that the responsibility for the decision rested with Mr Butterfield, not himself. 

20. Later that same day of 12 February the Claimant wrote a letter to Ms Hodgson containing an accurate record of his telephone conversations with Mr Butterfield's secretary and Mr McBride and pointing out the apparent confusion (tab 28; p. 37-38).  The Claimant also wrote to Mr Allen pointing out that both Mr Butterfield & Mr McBride seemed unable to take responsibility for the decision and suggesting that he himself should do so (tab 29; p. 39-40).

21. On 14 February Mr Butterfield sent the Claimant a letter of reply, which Mr Butterfield copied to Mr Allen.  In his letter Mr Butterfield declined to accede to the Claimant's request for sight of Granada's response on the ground that it would be unhelpful to do so (tab 31; p.42).  He stated in the third paragraph:

'The regulator, of course, has highly developed processes and well-founded policies to ensure fulfilment of its obligations and functions.  As a broadcasting licensee, Granada subjects itself to those policies and processes, as do complainants.  It can not be helpful to the earliest and proper regulatory resolution of a complaint for Granada to abandon its compliance with the regulator's procedures.  In these circumstances it can not be appropriate to sanction release to you of Granada's response.'

22. The next day of 15 February the Claimant wrote to Mr Allen (tab 32; p.43).  Referring to Mr Butterfield's suggestion that Granada was bound by the ITC's convention, the Claimant stated at the beginning at paragraph three:

'Mr Butterfield suggests that Granada is bound by a convention, currently operated by the ITC, not to furnish complainants with broadcasters' responses.  Notwithstanding my view that the application of this convention is quite wrong in my case, the ITC has made quite clear that Granada is not so bound.  I quote from the ITC's letter to me of 4 January 2001 (dated in error 2000), from Mr Chris Banatvala, ITC Programme Officer, which I enclose:

"Of course, the licensee (in this case Granada) is at liberty to divulge the contents of any reply to the complainant, if they so wish."

I also quote an extract from Ms Patricia Hodgson's letter to Mr Roger Gale MP, of 18 January 2001, which I also enclose:

'...any disclosure by Granada of their submission must remain a matter for them and Mr Boyd Hunt'

Contrary to Mr Butterfield's contention, it is clear that the ITC has no objection to Granada supplying me with whatever it likes.  Mr Butterfield's argument is exposed as specious, cloaked in obfuscation.  It is precisely because I suspect that Granada might have used similar specious, obfuscating argument in its response to my complaint, that I requested sight of it.  Mr Butterfield unwittingly makes my point for me.
As chairman, you are able to authorise the release of Granada's response.  For your information, unless Granada authorises the release of its response by the close of Monday, 19 February, I will ask the ITC to proceed with its adjudication without attaching any value to it.'

previous page

next page