The BBC Response to a Complaint

I complained about the language used by the host on the Nolan Show on BBC Radio Ulster. My son also wrote a complaint through their channels.

Here are the responses we received.

To Me

Dear Mr  McKane 

Editorial Complaint – BBC Radio Ulster

I’m replying to your recent complaint about The Stephen Nolan Show (01 March).

As you know, we were discussing initial local reaction to the Windsor Framework, picking up on what the Prime Minister had said about it during his visit to Lisburn.

We understand that there are differing views about the Framework, including how best questions about its operation/effects should be addressed. And there seems to be general acceptance that it is detailed, complex and requires careful consideration.

We reflected some of these divergences at the start of our programme, summarising what the PM and others had said about the Framework and using music for illustrative effect. None of this was leading or pejorative.

We asked whether the Framework may have been ‘over sold’ or ‘sugar-coated’ by the Prime Minister (as has been suggested by some unionist politicians) and explored what had been said about the so-called ‘Stormont Brake’ mechanism and how it will work – something about which local politicians from across the spectrum have sought clarification on from the UK government.

We spoke with a range of contributors and callers, including Peter Hain MP (a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland), Chris Donnelly and Ben Lowry. Most of those taking part expressed broad support for the Framework, suggesting (inter alia) that it was: ‘a big advance’; ‘the best possible outcome given the context of Brexit’; and ‘as good as it gets’. Other callers suggested that current Protocol arrangements had been ‘brutal for the small guys’ and that the Framework would deliver important (and practical) benefits for them, placing Northern Ireland in a ‘unique and privileged situation’ and that unionist politicians needed to ‘listen to the business sector’.

We asked if the Framework was something ‘too good to turn down?’ referencing what the PM had said about dual access to the EU and wider UK single markets and about how/if Stormont could function without the involvement of the DUP (in the event of the party not supporting the UK/EU agreement and remaining outside the Executive) and whether ‘our whole system of government should be… ground to a halt by one party?’ Our conversation also touched on the role and symbolism of customs posts, differentials in Corporation tax between the UK and Ireland and also how and when the ECJ might become involved in the adjudication of trade-related disputes.

We think that our programme included people with different viewpoints and that all of them were treated equitably and with respect. It summarised the position of the UK government in headline terms and invited reaction to it, acknowledging the criticisms that had been made by some unionist politicians but also wider questions (from other politicians and commentators) about the specifics of the Windsor Framework and the interpretative gloss that had been placed upon it. And we engaged directly with callers who suggested that we had been ‘negative’ in our account of what the PM had said and that we had mis-represented how the Stormont Brake will operate – something that we don’t accept and which the programme itself demonstrates.

We seek to provide an inclusive forum for debate – allowing people to express and encounter different (and sometimes strongly divergent) views and with appropriate challenge and counterpoint from the presenter.

We accept that not every contribution, discussion topic and/or their handling and approach (including the use of musical and other devices/accompaniments) will appeal to everyone. All of this feedback matters, and we take all of it seriously.

Details of your complaint have been shared with my team and senior BBC colleagues in Belfast.

Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch.

Yours sincerely

Ross Carson
Editor – The Stephen Nolan Show
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

To Jack

Dear Mr  McKane 

Editorial Complaint – BBC Radio Ulster

I’m replying to your recent complaint about The Stephen Nolan Show (01 March).

As you know, we were discussing initial local reaction to the Windsor Framework, picking up on what the Prime Minister had said about it during his visit to Lisburn.

We understand that there are differing views about the Framework, including how best questions about its operation/effects should be addressed. And there seems to be general acceptance that it is detailed, complex and requires careful consideration.

We reflected some of these divergences at the start of our programme, summarising what the PM and others had said about the Framework and using music for illustrative effect. None of this was leading or pejorative.

We asked whether the Framework may have been ‘over sold’ or ‘sugar-coated’ by the Prime Minister (as has been suggested by some unionist politicians) and explored what had been said about the so-called ‘Stormont Brake’ mechanism and how it will work – something about which local politicians from across the spectrum have sought clarification on from the UK government.

We spoke with a range of contributors and callers, including Peter Hain MP (a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland), Chris Donnelly and Ben Lowry. Most of those taking part expressed broad support for the Framework, suggesting (inter alia) that it was: ‘a big advance’; ‘the best possible outcome given the context of Brexit’; and ‘as good as it gets’. Other callers suggested that current Protocol arrangements had been ‘brutal for the small guys’ and that the Framework would deliver important (and practical) benefits for them, placing Northern Ireland in a ‘unique and privileged situation’ and that unionist politicians needed to ‘listen to the business sector’.

We asked if the Framework was something ‘too good to turn down?’ referencing what the PM had said about dual access to the EU and wider UK single markets and about how/if Stormont could function without the involvement of the DUP (in the event of the party not supporting the UK/EU agreement and remaining outside the Executive) and whether ‘our whole system of government should be… ground to a halt by one party?’ Our conversation also touched on the role and symbolism of customs posts, differentials in Corporation tax between the UK and Ireland and also how and when the ECJ might become involved in the adjudication of trade-related disputes.

We think that our programme included people with different viewpoints and that all of them were treated equitably and with respect. It summarised the position of the UK government in headline terms and invited reaction to it, acknowledging the criticisms that had been made by some unionist politicians but also wider questions (from other politicians and commentators) about the specifics of the Windsor Framework and the interpretative gloss that had been placed upon it. And we engaged directly with callers who suggested that we had been ‘negative’ in our account of what the PM had said and that we had mis-represented how the Stormont Brake will operate – something that we don’t accept and which the programme itself demonstrates.

We seek to provide an inclusive forum for debate – allowing people to express and encounter different (and sometimes strongly divergent) views and with appropriate challenge and counterpoint from the presenter.

We accept that not every contribution, discussion topic and/or their handling and approach (including the use of musical and other devices/accompaniments) will appeal to everyone. All of this feedback matters, and we take all of it seriously.

Details of your complaint have been shared with my team and senior BBC colleagues in Belfast.

Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch.

Yours sincerely

Ross Carson
Editor – The Stephen Nolan Show
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints