BBC Trust
British Broadcasting Corporation
180 Great Portland Street
London W1W 5QZ
T. 020 3214 4994
bbc.co.uk/bbctrust
Ms Debbie Kennett
Via email: debbiekennett@aol.com
Our Ref: 2939512
19 November 2014
Dear Ms Kennett
The Mark Forrest Show – BBC Radio Leeds – 6 March 2014
Thank you for writing to the BBC Trust about The Mark Forrest Show. I am very
sorry that you were unhappy about elements of this programme and I’m sorry too
that you feel the BBC has not given you a proper response to your complaints.
The Trust is the last stage of the complaints process and everyone who works within
the Trust Unit is outside the day-to-day operations of the BBC. We review the
complaints that come to us to assess whether they should be put before the BBC’s
Trustees for them to reach a final decision. If you want to find out more about how
the complaints system works – and in particular about how the BBC Trust fits in –
this is the web link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/complaints_framework/
I should explain that the Trust does not take every appeal that comes to it. In
deciding which ones should be considered by the Trustees, we look at the merits of
the complaint and only those which stand a reasonable chance of success are
passed to Trustees. The Trust acts in the interests of all licence fee payers and it
would not be proportionate to spend a good deal of time and money on cases that
do not stand a realistic prospect of success. The link that I have given above gives
more information about this.
I am sorry to send a disappointing response, but I do not believe your appeal should
be put in front of Trustees. The BBC’s journalists and programme-makers are
expected to work to a high standard; those standards are set out in the BBC’s
Editorial Guidelines1 which underpin all BBC output. I have looked at your appeal in
relation to those Guidelines. This means I have assessed if the points you have
raised can be judged against the standards set down in the Guidelines. I have
attached a summary of your appeal as well as the reasons behind my decision with
this letter. As this Annex may be drawn on when the Committee minutes are
written, the writing style is formal. While I regret the impersonal feel of this, I hope
you will appreciate it allows the Trust to work efficiently.
1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/guidelines/
If you disagree with my decision and would like the Trustees to review it, please
reply with your reasons by 4 December 2014 to the Complaints Advisor, at the
above address or trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. Please send your reasons by this
deadline in one document if possible.
Correspondence that is received after this date may not be considered as part of
your request for a review of the decision. If, exceptionally, you need more time
please write giving your reasons as soon as possible.
If you do ask the Trustees to review this decision, I will place that letter as well as
your original letter of appeal and this letter before Trustees. Your previous
correspondence will also be available to them. They will look at that request in either
their December or January meeting. Their decision is likely to be finalised at the
following meeting and will be given to you shortly afterwards.
If the Trustees agree that your case has no reasonable prospect of success then it
will close. If the Trustees disagree with my decision, then your case will be given to
an Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate and we will contact you with an
updated time line.
Yours sincerely
Leanne Buckle
Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser
Annex
The Mark Forrest Show – BBC Radio Leeds – 6 March 2014
The Trust’s Editorial Appeals procedure states that:
The Trust will only consider an appeal if it raises “a matter of
substance”.2 This will ordinarily mean that in the opinion of the Trust there
is a reasonable prospect that the appeal will be upheld as amounting to a
breach of the Editorial Guidelines. In deciding whether an appeal raises a
matter of substance, the Trust may consider (in fairness to the interests of all
licence fee payers in general) whether it is appropriate, proportionate and
cost-effective to consider the appeal.3
Complaint
The complainant contacted the BBC on 24 March 2014 to express her concern that
an interview with Alistair Moffat, MD of BritainsDNA, was inaccurate and misleading.
She felt that an academic geneticist should have been invited onto the programme
for the sake of balance and to challenge the claims made by Mr Moffat, whose
research she said had not been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journals.
She also had concerns that Mr Moffat disguised the commercial nature of the
company he represented and she considered that his research seemed to be
“nothing more than a PR stunt to advertise BritainsDNA.”
The BBC accepted at stage 1 that the claims made by the interviewee should have
been more rigorously tested. The response stated:
…we do accept that Mr Moffatt should have been challenged more rigorously
during his interview on The Mark Forrest Show and certainly – had the team
been aware of the controversy surrounding his claims – he would have been.
We are sorry that he was not and we thank you for making us aware of your
concerns.
The complainant remained dissatisfied and renewed her complaint. The complaint
was escalated to Stage 2 and was investigated by the Editorial Complaints Unit
(ECU). The ECU found that the programme did not breach Guidelines on Product
Prominence. In relation to Accuracy, the ECU accepted that the item gave the
impression that greater certainty attached to the results of genetic ancestry testing
than was the case. However, the Executive Producer had accepted that point in his
correspondence with the complainant. Accordingly, because the BBC had recognised
that there had been a breach of editorial standards in terms of Accuracy and as this
2
Under the Charter and Agreement, the Trust has a role as final arbiter in appropriate cases, and
must provide a right of appeal in cases that raise a matter of substance.
3
For example, if an appeal raises a relatively minor issue that would be complicated, time-consuming
or expensive to resolve, the Trust may decide that the appeal does not raise a matter of substance,
and decline to consider it.
was to be put into the public domain by the ECU publishing a summary of the
complaint on the complaints pages of bbc.co.uk on 29 October 2014, the ECU
considered this had been resolved. The summary stated:
The Mark Forrest Show, BBC Radio Leeds, 6 March 2014: Finding by
the Editorial Complaints Unit
Complaint
The programme included an interview with a representative of the company
BritainsDNA, about genetic evidence of Viking ancestry in the population of
the UK. A listener, noting that an earlier interview with the same contributor
in Radio 4’s Today programme had been the subject of an upheld finding,
complained that this item had again been inaccurate in relation to genetic
ancestry testing and inappropriately promotional in character.
Outcome
In the ECU’s view, the impression given on this occasion had not been unduly
promotional, and the programme-makers’ previous acknowledgement that the
interview had not been challenging enough sufficed to resolve the complaint
in relation to accuracy.
Resolved
It can also be found at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/comp-reports/ecu/themarkforrestshow06032014
Appeal
The complainant appealed to the BBC Trust on 26 September 2014. She said that
the ECU had dealt with some of the points she had raised to her satisfaction but
there were additional issues which fell outside their remit and which she would like
the Trust to consider. These were:

The complainant wanted the Trust to investigate why Alistair Moffat was
originally selected to be interviewed by the BBC on the subject of Viking DNA,
given that he did not have a specialist knowledge of the subject, and his
claims had already been the subject of a prior complaint which was upheld by
the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/compreports/ecu/today9july2012radio4)

The complainant noted the BBC’s response that Mr Moffat had been selected
because he was an engaging speaker on the subject of DNA but she did not
consider that being an ‘engaging speaker’ meant that he was sufficiently
expert in the field. She accepted that the production team were unaware of
the previously upheld complaint about Mr Moffat, but she was disappointed
that there was no apparent attempt to find more suitably qualified speaker on
the subject.

The complainant was also disappointed that Mr Moffat was “given free rein to

The complainant referred to the ECU’s Stage 2 finding which explained that
“the BBC should show “due impartiality over time.” The complainant
considered that the BBC’s coverage of genetic ancestry had been unbalanced
over time, and that one company had been singled out for disproportionate
attention.

The complainant also asked the Trust to investigate how Mr Moffat had been
granted a disproportionate amount of coverage on the BBC in the past few
years to promote his genetic ancestry company. She noted that the ECU had
stated an investigation into this aspect of her complaint to be outside its remit
and she hoped it would fall within the remit of the BBC Trust.

With regard to Product Prominence, the complainant stated that “it would
appear that on a number of occasions BBC presenters were provided with
free DNA tests from Mr Moffat’s company and they subsequently discussed
the results on air.” She believed this to be in breach of clause 14.4.9 of the
BBC’s guidelines on Product Prominence.
promote his pseudoscientific views without any other qualified scientists being
given the right of reply”.
Decision of the Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser
The Senior Editorial Complaints Adviser (the Adviser) carefully read the
correspondence that had passed between the complainant and the BBC and listened
to the relevant output. She acknowledged the strength of the complainant’s feelings
about this matter but she did not consider the appeal had a reasonable prospect of
success.
The Adviser noted that the complainant accepted the ECU Stage 2 finding on the
specific points of Accuracy and Product Placement raised in her original complaint
about The Mark Forrest Show. However, she noted that the complainant had raised
concerns in her appeal about Mr Moffat’s appearances on the BBC over a period of
some years, and how they might breach the BBC Guideline requirements for due
accuracy and due impartiality over time.
The Adviser noted that, under the procedure for editorial complaints, complainants
were required to raise complaints within thirty working days of broadcast or
publication. She considered this time limit was set for good reason – as it became
increasingly difficult to address complaints fairly or accurately as time passed. She
noted that only ‘exceptionally’ were complaints considered outside this timeframe.
She noted that the complainant had sought a response to her query about: “…how
Mr Moffat has been granted a disproportionate amount of coverage on the BBC in
the past few years to promote his genetic ancestry company”. However, she
considered it would not be appropriate for Trustees to consider this aspect of the
appeal as it called for a review out of output that was well outside the time frame
set out in the complaints process. Similarly, the Adviser noted that the complainant
considered the output raised issues about impartiality. However, she considered it
was beyond the remit of the Trust Unit to investigate within the parameters of this
appeal whether Mr Moffat’s appearances over an extended period of time had an
impact on BBC impartiality on the subject of genetic ancestry in its overall coverage.
She noted that the complainant had sought further information about the
circumstances around the decision to invite Mr Moffatt to be interviewed. However,
she considered this point had been addressed already at stage 1 – and the BBC had
explained that Mr Moffat had been approached by the production team:
…the BBC approached him, rather than the other way round. A member of
the team heard an interview with him on BBC Radio York last year. They felt
that he was an engaging speaker on the subject of DNA and noted that he
might be an interesting guest for the programme.
The Adviser acknowledged that the complainant considered there were better
qualified speakers who could have addressed this subject. However, she noted that
the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State
and the BBC drew a distinction between the role of the BBC Trust and that of the
BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. “The direction of the BBC’s
editorial and creative output” was specifically defined in the Charter (article 38, (1)
(b)) as a duty that was the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which
the Trust did not get involved.
The Adviser considered that decisions about who should be invited to contribute to a
programme were editorial ones which rested with the BBC. The Adviser noted that
the Executive had addressed the choice of Mr Moffat as a guest at Stage 1, and had
apologised for the fact that Mr Moffat was not challenged more rigorously during the
programme – as he should have been under the Editorial Guidelines for Accuracy.
The Adviser considered that, although the BBC had not met the requirements of the
Editorial Guidelines for Accuracy because they had not sufficiently challenged the
claims made by Mr Moffat, it nonetheless remained a matter of the Executive’s
editorial and creative decision making in terms of who was invited to participate in a
broadcast.
The Adviser noted too that the complainant considered scientists with a specialist
knowledge of this field, should have been invited to have a “right of reply” to the
claims made by Mr Moffatt. However, she noted that a “right of reply” was
appropriate if an individual or company was subject to criticism – where the right of
reply was a matter of fairness. In this situation, she considered there was no
requirement for scientists to be invited to contest the claims that were made –
instead, she noted that the BBC had accepted that it had a responsibility to
challenge Mr Moffatt more rigorously and that it had failed to do this. She therefore
considered this element of the appeal related to the part of the complaint which had
been resolved.
With regard to Mr Moffat’s appearance on The Mark Forrest Show, which was the
subject of the original complaint, the Adviser noted that the complainant still had
concerns about this matter and had stated:
“…it would appear that on a number of occasions BBC presenters were
provided with free DNA tests from Mr Moffat’s company and they
subsequently discussed the results on air.”
She believed this to be in breach of clause 14.4.9 of the BBC’s guidelines on Product
Prominence, which stated:
Under no circumstances should anyone working for the BBC receive personal
benefits from suppliers, or accept goods or services as inducements.
The Adviser noted that during the interview with Mark Forrest, there was no
indication that the presenter had had DNA testing and the complainant had not
referred to any specific output where she understood this had occurred. The Adviser
therefore did not consider it was appropriate for Trustees to consider this element of
the appeal.
The Adviser believed Trustees would be likely to agree that the interviewee had not
been sufficiently challenged and that this had resulted in the programme failing to
meet the requirements of the Editorial Guidelines in relation to Accuracy. She noted
this had been the subject of the complainant’s initial contact with the BBC and
considered that it was the principal point of the complaint. She noted that the BBC
had accepted this at stage 1, and this had been recorded through the ECU’s
publication of its summary of the matter. The Adviser considered Trustees would be
likely to conclude that the central point of the complaint had been resolved. For the
reasons set out above, the Adviser considered the other elements of complaint
raised in the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success and she did not
propose to put them before Trustees.