POL00106919
POL00106919
POL00106919
POL00106919
54014108
es)
CONCORD
72199 / J24
721994
POL00106919
POL00106919
Melanie Corfield
> Mark Underwood!
Jane MacLeod
Subject: RE: Update re: BBC Panorama Complaint
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:45:42 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: Letter_to_ECU_-_11_January_2016_-_No_attachments(210882426_1).pdf
Inline-Images: image001.png
Thanks for your input everyone ~ please find attached a copy of the final letter as sent (without the
attachments which accompanied the original).
Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ
rodric, williams @i
From: Mark R Davies
Sent: 11 January 2016 17:01
To: Melanie Corfield
Cc: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Mark Underwood1; Jane MacLeod; Tom Re
Subject: Re: Update re: BBC Panorama Complaint
And me
Best wishes
Mark
Mark Davies
Communications and Corporate Affairs Director
Post Office Ltd
Mobi
POL00106919
POL00106919
On 11 Jan 2016, at 16:51, Melanie Corfiel
wrote:
No further comments from me Rod — happy with it.
Mel
From: Rodric William:
Sent: 11 January 201 5
To: Patrick Bourke; Mark Underwood1;
Ce: Jane MacLeod; Tom Rei
Subject: RE: Update re: BBC Panorama Complaint
i ‘Mark R Davies
Apologies — use this redline please.
Kimage00i.png> Rodric Willlams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 11 January 2016 16:17
To: Patrick Bourke; Mark Uni
Ce: Jane MacLeod; Tom Reld
Subject: RE: Update re: BBI
All—please see revised draft letter of complaint (marked up).
You will see that the general point is made about the biased reporting (expressly referring back to our
previous correspondence), just less stridently given that we want the Editorial Complaints Unit to focus on
breaches of prescribed editorial standards, and not dilute that through issues which ultimately we are not
taking to Stage 2, e.g. the BBC declining to view our confidential disclosure, or could be readily dismissed
as a complaint about the way the finished programme looked.
POL00106919
POL00106919
Insofar as the confidential disclosure is concerned, we do indirectly refer back to this through the reference
to previous correspondence, and CMS’s view is that the way to deal with it is to raise it early ifthe BBC
looks to make any further programme, thus making it harder for them to decline the offer.
Any further comments?
Kimage00i.png> Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
rodric.williamsé
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 11 January 2016 11:22
To: Mark Underwood1; Rodric Williams;.
Cc: Jane MacLeod; Tom Rei
Subject: RE: Update re: BBC Panorama Complaint
Melanie Corfield; Mark R Davies
Hi Rod
We spoke and you fed back on your conversation with Tom.
Tentirely take the point about needing to be specific in our complaint, so as to avoid the risk of being
placed in a "general unhappiness’ basket and disposed of that way by the BBC. Nonetheless, we agreed that
it would make sense to accommodate a flavour of the broader thrust of our beef with the BBC and. over the
weekend, Mel kindly offered to have a crack at some limited additions to the draft to that end.
Tattach this, in the event that you and Tom might find it useful to draw on in finalising an updated draft
which can be sent to the BBC by cop today.
Kind regards and thanks very much indeed
POL00106919
POL00106919
Patrick
From: Patrick Bourke
Sent: 08 January 2016 14:18
To: Mark Underwood1; Rodric \
Cc: Jane Macleod; Tom Reid?
Subject: RE: Update re: BBC PaTidi
GRO
fa Complaint -~
Hi Rod
Lagree that it's a good letter but I do wonder whether we risk losing some of the impact and substance of
our complaint by (arguably) focusing too narrowly on the correct interpretation of specific wording of the
guidelines ?
Uhave no problem (indeed we probably need) getting into the weeds of, eg, the proper meaning of
‘contributor’, but I would be inclined to place a bit of broader and more impactful context around it - the
bottom line being that the programme was a lazy and sensationalist stitch up when, with the assistance and
guidance we provided and would have continued to provide, it could have been genuinely informative,
balanced and fair to all. Instead, it was rather transparently manipulated to serve a specific set of interests,
rather than represent a genuine journalistic endeavour which one might have come to expect from
Panorama and the BBC.
Kind regards
Patrick
From: Mark Underwoodt
Sent: 08/01/2016 13:13
To: Rodric Williams; Patrick Bourke; Melanie Corfield: Mark R Davies
Ce: Jane MacLeod; Tom Rei¢ 4
Subject: RE: Update re: BBC Panorama Complaint
Hi Rod,
Great letter. I have marked up some minor edits in the attached, though please do ignore if irrelevant or.
more simply. incorrect.
My only real comment (as marked up in the attached) is whether we need to land what we intend to do, if
anything (?), with those complaints we are not escalating to stage 2? If we drop them here, could they still
be included in any complaint we may make to the Trust?
T suppose this comes back to what stage we will take this complaint and, similarly, how we will envisage
closing it down - though I recognise this is not a decision we can necessarily make now as it is influenced
by the response we receive back. That said, I think it would be useful to discuss at our fortnightly meetings
with Jane so I will add to the agenda of the next one.
POL00106919
POL00106919
Thanks
Mark
Mark Underwood
Complaint Review and Mediation Scheme
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 08 January 2016 11:20
To: Patrick Bourke; Mark Und
Cc: Jane MacLeod; Tom Rei
Subject: RE: Update re: BBC Panorama Complaint
All— further to my email below, I attach the draft letter from CMS to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit
escalating our complaint to “Stage 2” of the BBC’s complaints procedure. Apologies for only sending this
now as I had missed it when it came into my inbox on Tuesday.
Subject to a couple of minor points, I am happy with the letter and like the way it focusses our complaint
down to two main issues: the BBC not treating us as a “contributor” so as to justify withholding key
material, despite the significant contribution we made; and its retusal to identify the “whistleblower” to us
(which, from my perspective, was the most damaging part of the programme). Both of these issues are, 1
believe, important to how we would want the BBC to treat us in any future reporting.
Please let me have any comments you may have on the draft, which we need to send by this coming
Monday LI January 2016. However, it would be nice if we could get it turned around today so as to have it
land on someone's desk on Friday evening!
Lhave copied Tom Reid from CMS to this email so he can see any responses.
Thanks, Rod
Kimage00i.png> Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services,
Past Office Ltd
26 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ
POL00106919
POL00106919
[ rodric, wiliamse
From: Rodric Williams
Sent: 04 January 2016 16:39
To: Patrick Bourke; Mark Underwood1; Melanie Corfield; Mark R Davies
Cc: Jane MacLeod
Subject: Update re: BBC Panorama Complaint
All —just a quick update on the BBC Panorama Complaint:
CMS are drafting a letter escalating the complaint to the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit, which reviews
the complaint independently of the programme makers (who have provided the BBC’s responses thus far).
J expect to get this draft in the next day or two. The final version will need to be sent to the BBC by close
of business this week.
The letter will focus on the strongest grounds for complaint rather than all issues raised thus far (some of
which have become rather convoluted through the exchange with the BBC programme team).
I believe this escalation is warranted given the high-handed approach the BBC has taken to us to date (e.g. g
that despite the substantial briefings we provided, the rules around fair treatment of contributors do not
apply to us because we did not put up a spokesman,) and the number of issues which could still reported
upon (CCRC investigation; Chairman’s Review; class action etc....).
The Editorial Complaints Unit provides a written “decision” on the complaint. This is provided to us in
draft in the first instance, which should lead to a more considered response from the BBC.
Ifthe complaint is rejected, we can appeal the decision to the BBC Trust if we so choose. The receipt of
the Editorial Unit’s response would therefore also be a convenient place to drop the complaint if we did not
want to pursue matters any further (e.g. we could take the view that although we still feel justifiably
aggrieved, we have better things to get on with).
Vil circulate CMS’s draft for comment as soon as I have it to hand. Any comments in the meantime are, as
ever, welcome,
Kind regards, Rod
<imageOOl.png> Rodric Williams
Solicitor, Corporate Services
Post Office Ltd
20 Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ
pmeenme ees
POL00106919
POL00106919
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. if you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540, Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20
Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
SARRRRRAACHARRAAAARARERAAAARARAARAAARAARARARORARARARARNARABARRREARARER
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named
recipient, you must not use, disclose, reproduce, copy or distribute the contents of this communication. If you have
received this in error, please contact the sender by reply email and then delete this email from your system. Any
views or opinions expressed within this email are solely those of the sender, unless otherwise specifically stated.
POST OFFICE LIMITED is registered in England and Wales no 2154540. Registered Office: Finsbury Dials, 20
Finsbury Street, London EC2Y 9AQ.
POL00106919
POL00106919
pare eee