BBC response to Countryfile complaint.

[Sans Bateau]

Got this by email yesterday. I'm off out in a minute, but will join in tomorrow, lets hear your views.


Thank you for your emails about the edition of Countryfile on 22 August.

We’re sorry you were unhappy with the film and as such, passed your complaint to the Series Producer for a response. He has now spoken to the director and asked him about the specific issues you raised.

There was no suggestion that anyone mooring their boat in the area was doing anything unreasonable or unlawful, just that there was some debate about whether mooring chains had an effect on the seahorses' habitat. Because of its expertise in the field, I believe it was reasonable to reflect the view of The Seahorse Trust that mooring chains can have an effect on seabed vegetation.

The issue of whether the mooring chains we depicted were permanent or temporary is not necessarily relevant to the effect they might have on the seabed. All mooring chains move with the tides to some degree and thereby can impede the growth of sea grasses.

Having a licence to handle seahorses does, in fact, make the practice legal. We understand that you may disagree with that aspect of the law, but that is a matter between you and the law-makers, not a matter for the BBC. None of the activity we reflected in the film was unlawful.

We respect your view that the tagging of seahorses is not an acceptable activity, but that is an issue between you and the Seahorse Trust. We were simply reflecting an activity which is considered acceptable by many people and is legal.



We hope this reply addresses your concerns and thank you once again for taking the time to contact us.

Yours sincerely



Sarah Greatrex

Complaints Coordinator

BBC Audience Services

 

[Lakesailor]

So, nothing to do with the beeb, then.

 

[Blue5]

I would have been surprised at any other response.

 

[Robin]

I have not yet had a reply to my e-mail.

I have only complained to the BBC once before and that was about coverage of The Open Golf when with live golf on the course they spent 1.5hrs waffling in the studio and not showing it - until surprise surprise Tiger Woods teed off, despite him being way down the leaderboard and below many others on the course. I was told THEY had it right because that was what people wanted, plus if I had digital TV live coverage WAS available on the red button. Well I have digital TV, had watched from the first minute of the broadcast and had the TV programmes in the paper and on Sky listings, none of which mentioned live coverage on the red button. I replied to the BBC to say this, but never had a response.

Anyone who watches Newswatch on BBC will see that ALL complaints always end up the same, BEEB knows best. Bolleaux.

In this case the reply posted below says it all, they are taking the Seahorse Trust view as gospel and consider them experts. Once again bolleaux.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Just for the record I was reading H Alker Tripp's book "The Solent & Southern Waters" last night (& he was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the time of World war two) & on page 165 he talks about anchoring in Studland Bay & seeing sand through 15 feet of water.The first print of the book was 1928 so dos'nt this add to the evidence that many have said about the bay not always being covered in sea grass even then?A wonderful book by the way

 

[jac]

i hope you have followed ths complaints appeals process.

Personlly i think we/re better off compliaing about overall BBC bias. Fair point that SHT might be experts in seahorses. but by that definition don't the SBPA, RYA, Studland parish council have a right to reply. Everytime we sea the BBC peddling SHT press releases / spokesmen without a right of reply for the other side in the debate they are being biased. We have a government that is anti left wing lovey so i'm sure that if complaints to the bbc trust are not succesfull we can find a few anti BBC MPs who would love to stir things up.

We just need to be vigilabt and ensure that every time there is a fresh one sided broadcast that it is followed by a barrage of complaints over bias. Basically we need to ensure that spouting SHT propoganda unchallenged is too hot a potato for the bbc so they either do it properly pr more likely they will go onto less contentious topics.

 

[crazybass]

Personally I hope they do ban people from mooring. You may find out what it is like being a decent person being told you cannot do what you want to. This time for nature.. Not mindless idiots.

Something my sport sees all the time (nature and mindless idiots)

 

[Bosun Higgs]

By golly - a real live wetbiker on YBW. That really is like entering the lions den. You are about as popular here as a Muslim in the USA

 

[BlueSkyNick]

Because of its expertise in the field, I believe it was reasonable to reflect the view of The Seahorse Trust....

A totally one sided report, then. At least she admits it.

 

[Searush]

Personally I hope they do ban people from mooring. You may find out what it is like being a decent person being told you cannot do what you want to. This time for nature.. Not mindless idiots.

Something my sport sees all the time (nature and mindless idiots)

A little background for you; It isn't proposed to ban Mooring. it is anchoring that they want to ban, their proposal is to add extra moorings.

Everyone is told they can't do things all the time - especially if it endangers others or annoys people. Do you also want the right to race through towns in cars, to practice shooting in public parks, to play music really loud all night?

I assume you have a jet-ski or similar. These are great fun, but cause considerable nuisance in busy waters with swimmers or amongst moorings/ anchorages where your wash, fumes & noise are dangerous & annoying.

 

[nathanlee]

Good golly folks. We have thousands and thousands of miles of coast in which to anchor.

I wonder if these Studland folks are the same sort that have an eternal feud with the neighbours over a wrongful trimming of a conifer or two. Life is too short; just get on with it.

 

[Robin]

Good golly folks. We have thousands and thousands of miles of coast in which to anchor.

I wonder if these Studland folks are the same sort that have an eternal feud with the neighbours over a wrongful trimming of a conifer or two. Life is too short; just get on with it.

What a completely ill informed comment. Have you read anything about this at all?

 

[Searush]

Good golly folks. We have thousands and thousands of miles of coast in which to anchor.

I wonder if these Studland folks are the same sort that have an eternal feud with the neighbours over a wrongful trimming of a conifer or two. Life is too short; just get on with it.

Nathan, you have no specific ties to any area - your object is to sail all round the UK - and good luck to you, I enjoy your posts. But many people have their boats at one location that suits them & only get short periods aboard - so anchorages like Studland are both popular & needed. I have never anchored at Studland (too far for me), but the nonsense that is being spouted there by the SHT could lead to my favourite anchorages being banned too.

 

[Ubergeekian]

Got this by email yesterday. I'm off out in a minute, but will join in tomorrow, lets hear your views.



Because of its expertise in the field, I believe it was reasonable to reflect the view of The Seahorse Trust that mooring chains can have an effect on seabed vegetation.

OK, now you stick them with a freedom of information request to ask them what evidence of the Seahorse Trust's expertise on anchoring systems they saw and checked before making the problem. They'll claim that F of E doesn't apply because the creative process is exempt, but will probably answer your question anyway.

 

[Robin]

Nathan, you have no specific ties to any area - your object is to sail all round the UK - and good luck to you, I enjoy your posts. But many people have their boats at one location that suits them & only get short periods aboard - so anchorages like Studland are both popular & needed. I have never anchored at Studland (too far for me), but the nonsense that is being spouted there by the SHT could lead to my favourite anchorages being banned too.

Quite true but Studland is also very important as a passage anchorage. It's location between the tide gates of the Needles or St Catherines point off the IOW and Anvil point and St Albans Head to the west and being sheltered from winds with west in them is most important to boats travelling east/west or vice versa along the coast or setting off for France or the Channel Islands. It is therefore used by many boats from far afield as well as locals and there is no other like it in the area. Swanage being the wrong side of another tide gate and overfalls at Old Harry is nice but no subsitute and even farther from the nearest harbour refuge (Poole) in extremis.

We have several times crossed the Channel in really bad westerly weather, even gales, and been very glad to drop the hook in the shelter of Studland, even if only to wait the tide to get into Poole where the ebb in the entrance can run at up to 5kts.

 

[Searush]

Thanks for that Robin, I understand the value of anchorages for tidal gates sailing around N Wales- but don't know that area well (as you may have guessed)

The case for maritime safety is surely therefore the key to the campaign? Human safety should trump seahorses - especially when the evidence we have so far is that their habitat and numbers continue to increase even as the number of boats increases.

 

[KristiferColumbus]

Good golly folks. We have thousands and thousands of miles of coast in which to anchor.

I wonder if these Studland folks are the same sort that have an eternal feud with the neighbours over a wrongful trimming of a conifer or two. Life is too short; just get on with it.

A silly conceited comment nathan if I may say so.Sure we have thousands of miles of coast line '& thousands of miles of coastline in which seahorses have lived quite happily for thousands of years' so why pick on an area of anchorage that is so crucial to the boating community?

 

[nathanlee]

A silly conceited comment nathan if I may say so.Sure we have thousands of miles of coast line '& thousands of miles of coastline in which seahorses have lived quite happily for thousands of years' so why pick on an area of anchorage that is so crucial to the boating community?

I retract my comment.

 

[Boathook]

Good golly folks. We have thousands and thousands of miles of coast in which to anchor.

I wonder if these Studland folks are the same sort that have an eternal feud with the neighbours over a wrongful trimming of a conifer or two. Life is too short; just get on with it.

Been anchoring at Studland for over 30 years and the eel grass has got worse. Whilst there might be miles of coast to anchor at, it is not where I sail or provide the same shelter.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Been anchoring at Studland for over 30 years and the eel grass has got worse. Whilst there might be miles of coast to anchor at, it is not where I sail or provide the same shelter.

Oh dear, the SHT will not be pleased as your observation of the eel grass spread, is opposite to theirs.