STUDLAND - How much do they want???

[Seajet]

Folks, may I respectfully suggest we conduct ourselves rather better than those who blindly seek to restrict us; let's see what the programme has to say.

The omens don't look good, but let's give it a chance.

Then if faults appear, give those responsible both barrels !

If complaints seem required, please rest assured we will publish places to send one's comments, and as Grumpy O G says, not just the BBC 'File 13' complaints system.

 

[oldharry]

I was going to ask if there's somewhere other to complain to (assuming there is something to complain about of course) that's more effective than the BBC wastepaper bin. Does OfCom cover this sort of thing?

BBC have a formal 'complaints site, which afaik simply records statistics, tho they promise to respond. Not even sure if it reaches the programme makers other than x00 complaints.

The Broadcasting Standards Commission will only take complaints from those directly involved:
"Only those people with a direct interest in a broadcast can complain of unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy. The Commissioners always study written exchanges of evidence and may hold a hearing with both the complainant and broadcaster present."

OFCOM will take complaints about impartiality under section 5 of the Broadcasting Code: predictably there are strict rules as detailed here from their website:

"To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.

To ensure that the special impartiality requirements of the Act are complied with.

Rules

Meaning of "due impartiality":
"Due" is an important qualification to the concept of impartiality. Impartiality itself means not favouring one side over another. "Due" means adequate or appropriate to the subject and nature of the programme. So "due impartiality" does not mean an equal division of time has to be given to every view, or that every argument and every facet of every argument has to be represented. The approach to due impartiality may vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of programme and channel, the likely expectation of the audience as to content, and the extent to which the content and approach is signalled to the audience. Context, as defined in Section Two: Harm and Offence of the Code, is important. "

IF there are grounds for a formal complaint against these programmes they are, on past performance of the programme makers, likely to be on grounds of unfair bias, and we need to ensure that if there are grounds for complaint we give them clearly and fairly, and based on solid evidence rather than 'mud slinging' at the Beeb, or the Conservationists.

Finally, if it is the perception that anyone licensed by MMO to handle seahorses and other protected species appears to be doing so unnecessarily, gratuitously or harmfully, this can be raised with the Marine Management Organisation (The MMO) who take such complaints seriously and will investigate if they believe a breach of their license conditions has occurred.

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

Easy to do...

To oldharry's point, the BBC on-line complaint form can be found here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

It would take about 45 seconds to lodge any complaints that you have regarding bias in the broadcasted programme. Please feel free to leave a post in this thread should you do so...

Cheers,
SailBob

 

[oldharry]

Well, 1st programme has gone out with the expected spin about anchors and moorings "destroying the bay". Not even Dr Collins report says anything as radical as that. They also ducked out of mentioning the 'illegal moorings' mentioned on the website flyer for the programme, which is good. But as expected although the fishing community had a chance to put their views, there was no chance for us to balance the comments about Studland, on air. Wonder what they will serve up for us next week?

 

[reginaldon]

The omens are not good - I noticed yesterday that swmbo had a 'top' on which sported three seahorses embroidered on it, with her on side what chance have mere yachties?

 

[oldharry]

Studland - BBC having another go at us.

Hang on to your seats, while you take a look at the BBC preview of mondays programme, (The Truth About Wildlife, BBC One 1930 BST on Monday 6 June) with Chris Packham, with the Seahorse Trust taking their usual ' boats are destroying the Bay/ habitat' , with Chris Packham concluding 'mooring should not be allowed here at all'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13617522

Compare it with the more much reasonable line taken by Dorset Wildlife Trust, which is very much in line with the Natural England point of view and not so far from the view taken by us and the RYA - "The Studland Seagrass & Seahorse Study Group (part of DWT) would
like to see seahorses and their habitat continue to thrive whilst maintaining recreational enjoyment of Studland Bay." That is what we all want. The only real difference is that BORG and RYA do not believe boats are posing any serious threat to the habitat in the frist place.

http://www.dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk/c2/uploads/seagrass project leaflet.pdf

http://www.dorsetwildlifetrust.org.uk/ssssg.html

 

[Seajet]

As Old Harry says,

keep an eye on tomorrow's programme at 7.30 PM - if it's as biased and bogus as the gen' leads one to believe, the Director General of the BBC will be getting a bit of flack ( go to him not the complaints dept where it seems anything awkward goes to File 13 ! ).

Wartime photo's show the Eelgrass very scarce compared to now; it and the Seahorses have thrived during the post-war boom in leisure boating, the thing we object to is people trying to equally thrive on charity from misguided folk, and trying to make a career out of it while prohibiting everyone else from their playground, even though 'everyone else' were there first - why not let everyone enjoy the place, anchors are doing no harm and it's an essential place of refuge in heavy weather...

It's quite telling that the local residents, who one would expect to be protective of a rather expensive, beautiful place to live, are actually 100% behind we boat users, and against the Sea Horse Trust - which may I point out consists of one bloke living rather well on charity donations.

 

[Clammer]

Although I agree with what Old Harry and Seajet say in their Posts above I would like to point out that although The Dorset Wildlife Trust has a more moderate and sensible approach to the issue their SSSSGroup is now disbanded. The MMO have taken over the reins and continue to have, every 6 months or so, meetings where up to 30 persons from the various agencies air their views. Nothing was decided at the last meeting! One of the main stumbling blocks is that nobody can produce evidence as to the extent of the eelgrass beds. We believe that there are at least 250 acres and the various aerial photos of the Bay show how thick it is around the shoreline but no photos show it's spread out into the centre of The Bay. The fresh water runs which affect the growth and density of the eelgras are clearly shown on Google earth photos.
The small area of the beds affected by mooring chain scouring is a tiny fraction of the area of the beds. The claim that anchoring is destroying the marine habitat is a complete red herring...

 

[KristiferColumbus]

As Old Harry says,

keep an eye on tomorrow's programme at 7.30 PM - if it's as biased and bogus as the gen' leads one to believe, the Director General of the BBC will be getting a bit of flack ( go to him not the complaints dept where it seems anything awkward goes to File 13 ! ).

Wartime photo's show the Eelgrass very scarce compared to now; it and the Seahorses have thrived during the post-war boom in leisure boating, the thing we object to is people trying to equally thrive on charity from misguided folk, and trying to make a career out of it while prohibiting everyone else from their playground, even though 'everyone else' were there first - why not let everyone enjoy the place, anchors are doing no harm and it's an essential place of refuge in heavy weather...

It's quite telling that the local residents, who one would expect to be protective of a rather expensive, beautiful place to live, are actually 100% behind we boat users, and against the Sea Horse Trust - which may I point out consists of one bloke living rather well on charity donations.

I was just about to bang in a complaint using bob's link until I read the latest contributions to this thread & particularly your summery above which pretty much says all I want to say probably a lot better than I could have put it.
Would it be worth posting the link to the Director General himself & using a standard letter incorporating your summery seajet in order to make it easier for people?
Regards KC

 

[yesod]

complaint sent to the bcc about the secret sea's programme got this:

Thanks for contacting us regarding ‘Britain's Secret Seas’ which was broadcast on 29 May.

I understand you felt the programme was biased when presenting the issue of Studland Bay.

It is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting.

Nevertheless I appreciate that this is a matter you feel strongly about, therefore please be assured that I've registered your comments on our audience log. This is a daily report of audience feedback that's made available to all BBC staff, including all programme makers, channel controllers and BBC senior management.The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.Thanks again for contacting us.

Kind Regards
Jonathan Dunlop
BBC Complaint

so where's the balance they claim the must ensure?

 

[KristiferColumbus]

complaint sent to the bcc about the secret sea's programme got this:



so where's the balance they claim the must ensure?

Create your own balance by telling them that you ar'nt going to pay the tv licence to subsidize their activity's......you can still watch the telly providing you ar'nt watching them as they're being broadcast.
That's the only consolation I can find short of shooting a few of them

 

[Seajet]

Battle Stations !

Well, let's watch tonight's programme, 'The Truth About Wildlife', 7.30 BBC1, and see.

IF it does prove bogus & biased, try this link;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/

BBC One (Channel Islands, Oxfordshire, South, South West, West only)

sj

 

[KristiferColumbus]

I can't stand to watch any more of that dosh but I have sent a complaint about that first program that I did watch.

 

[oldharry]

Well, was that biased or was that biased? That the BBC with its long tradition of superlative Nature programmes should stoop so low as to broadcast this rubbish beggars belief. Complaints will of course go in - did YOU appreciate being condemned as a sunday afternoon G&T sailor? - but the damage is done, and we are all tarred with the Packham brush in the viewing publics mind.

Some of my colleagues embarassed me mightily earlier in this thread by praising the work I have done - and perhaps this programme serves to highlight some of the arrogance I and RYA representatives encounter in varying shades amongst the conservationists as we fight the corner for the sailing fraternity. Packhams views are fairly representative of the kind of attitude many conservationists have towards us, and the level of ignorance we encounter. RYA had already made a huge difference long before any of us were aware of what was happening, and in the 6 months of our existence, BORG has played its part in ensuring that the decision makers are properly informed about leisure boaters needs and wishes. thank you all who have posted on these boards. Your views have enabled us to present a much more coherent and informed front in the discussions and planning meetings. Some of you have even been quoted ....

However, when presented with such arrant nonsense on TV, I want to encourage you to make your feelings known to the BBC. we really havea right to expect that our national broadcasting Body would support the efforts being made to secure the future of places like Studland - and Studland is not alone as a threatened anchorage - rather than just using them to make political capital for conservation extremists.

 

[Robin]

To keep things in this 'sticky' thread I'm reposting what I said in another, with the complaint I sent to the BBC. Packam's comments on leisure sailors there was as incredible as the content was innacurate and totally one sided.

I have just sent the following complaint. That was the most biased piece of reporting I have ever seen and the snotty closing remarks about leisure boaters really sucks.

This programme in relation to Studland Bay seahorses appeared to be written and scripted by Neil Garrick-Maidment and Steve Trewhella of the seahorse trust. At no time did they put the case for boats anchoring (and note anchoring and laying fixed moorings are NOT the same), yet Studland has been used extensively as an important safe passage anchorage for centuries. The reported damage to eel grass from moorings (of which there are very few, 50 licensed and only 30 or so used) and from boats anchoring for a few hours or a few days is grossly exaggerated. Eel grass in Studland has INCREASED greatly over the last 40 years to my personal knowledge and can even be seen by comparison with wartime aerial photographs. The BBC should have involved the other sides of this discussion and had comment from Crown Estates (who license the moorings), Natural England and also the RYA (Royal Yachting Association) representing leisure users. The Seahorse Trust is basically a one man band outfit, with a publicity machine that relies on the cuddly nature of seahorses. The BBC should be very careful about simply passing on the Seahorse Trust press handouts unchallenged. Positively the most biased programme I have seen and a trend that is all too common, go with the press handouts and don't do your own research

 

[alahol2]

Just complained...

Mr Packham is a patron of the Seahorse Trust. When reporting on the controversy surrounding Studland Bay sea grass and seahorses he trotted out the Trust's line on damage to the sea bed with no attempt whatsoever to include the scientific studies that have and are being carried out. The two representatives of the Trust are NOT practising scientists, they are interested amateurs; as is Mr Packham. This is the second program within a week (Britain's Secret Seas) to give the non-scientifically based conservationist viewpoint with no attempt at balance. A practising scientist's view on the state of the eel grass was given by Dr Clifford (BBC Open Country 18/12/10) when he stated that the beds were in good condition. Finally to be branded a Sunday afternoon, G&T swilling moron by Packham I find very highly offensive.

I'm still fuming, even after sleeping on it.

 

[robertj]

Posted a complaintto BBC.
Maybe if we start to Question Packham on his views and also find out how much he is paid by us through the BBC to attack us boaters?
I believe we can find out his pay from the BBC?

 

[oldharry]

BORGs version of 'the complaint' re Packhams program:

"Chris Packham's report on Studland falls way below the BBC's long tradition of knowledgeable and factual reporting on the natural world. The facts as far as they are known about the bay were completely ignored and the arguments presented do not even reflect the general view of those seeking to conserve the Bay. Firstly there is no actual evidence that anchoring and mooring activities are causing serious problems in the Eelgrass beds. The two amateur divers interviewed - neither of whom have any training or qualifications in this field - have observed unusual growth patterns, and have assumed that this is caused by human interference. This is not the view held by qualified Marine Biologists studying the Bay, who believe there are 'external influences of unknown origin' (Jamie Davies, MCZ Project Leader, Natural England). Secondly: Boat Owners are generally very aware of the marine environment, and most of us seek actively to minimise any disturbance to wildlife and the environment in our sport. The RYA has been deeply involved in advising the government on the legislation behind the MCZ programme, and helping set it up. More recently as a direct result of the issues at Studland, Boat Owners have organised themselves to work alongside the RYA and to get involved in conservation issues here and elsewhere. The gratuitous offensive and derogatory remarks made on air about 'G&T Sunday sailors' are doubly objectionable. This programme far from mobilising support for the conservation of Studland Bay will only serve to anger both local Residents and Boat Owners. Packham has taken colloquial hearsay and assumption and built on it to present a sensationalist and completely false view of the Bay which has no foundation in reality and does great disservice to all concerned. Local Studland Residents, Boat Owners Response Group, and the RYA are working with conservation scientists to establish the facts about the Bay, to define conservation needs, and to decide whether visitor management controls are needed to support the wildlife in the Bay. Both BORG and RYA support the proposal for a Marine Conservation Zone in Studland, and have been closely involved in planning it. The two divers interviewed have not been involved in this. Finally, we believe that Packham is using his program to achieve political gain in seeking to have law changed. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 was designed in part to bring a coherent network of Marine Protected Areas, and Marine Plans for the UK coast. MCZs are a key part of this and work is well ahead on implementing the first stage. We believe Packham is using his position as a broadcaster to unfairly influence the discussions currently taking place to implement this part of the Act, and the BBC has a duty to ensure that opposing views should be given equal air time.

We would have expected the BBC with its long tradition of superlative Natural History Broadcasting to be supportive of this combined effort to ensure wildlife thrives in one of the nations prime marine leisure areas. Instead we continue to be served inflammatory and derogatory sensationalism which can only endanger genuine efforts to preserve the Bay for future generations.

 

[SailBobSquarePants]

My complaint...

My complaint went something like...

"If the BBC wishes to take my license money, as a "leisure boater" I am shocked that you can broadcast such a one-sided view on anchoring in Studland Bay. The bay is one of the only protected anchorages on the South Coast for many, many miles, and as such has been used by shipping and leisure boaters for centuries. That is a function of geography - few other anchorages are protected from southerlies and easterlies but the south portion of Studland Bay. And none of them are within a day's journey by boat. As such, Studland is unique - a safe haven for boaters and shipping in most Channel storms. Your programme only showed the conservationist viewpoint, totally ignoring the legitimate uses of Studland as a safe anchorage, as it has been used for centuries. How the BBC can contemplate interviewing self-proclaimed "conservationist" without debating the other side of the coin - people that have used the bay for centuries - beggars belief. There has been serious research by Southhampton University professors on the eelgrass issues - and even they remain unconvinced as to the damage anchoring is doing to the eelgrass. Even they cannot explain how the eelgrass has been regrowing since WWII according to aerial photographs taken over decades, which document it's recovery. And that recovery has transpired during the largest use of Studland as an anchorage, as the post-war boating boom has taken many boaters into Studland. In short, the Secret Seas programme was not only one sided, and flew in the face of academic research (sponsored by the conservationists!), but also flew in the face of an actual lack of problem. And it totally ignored that the two conservationists interviewed make a living as both conservationists, and professional divers that lead paid-for tourism dives into Studland Bay. When will the BBC allow the other side to be heard?"

 

[oldharry]

Balanced Seas coming up with some nasties.

Balanced Seas have produced as reported elsewhere their Draft final report. Not quite as legthy as the Finding Sanctuary report, but equally unreadable unless you know the jargon!

Three proposed reference areas pop up in the Solent. Alum Bay anchorage is on the edge of a reference area, and it is not clear whether the anchorage may be closed. Newtown Rover is designated everywhere inside the river entrance, to conserve the Native Oyster beds. It MAY be that the actual reference ZOnes will be the eastern and Southern branches whjere anchoring is already prohibited, but that isnt what the report says. Eslsewhere the River is described as 'well managed', so it may be that the anchorage can remain open. But thats just my guess.

The other real pain will be Osborne Bay where our old frineds, Eelgrass and Seahorses live. The Eelgrass bed in the main anchroage is designated for a Reference Area. An MCZ is proposed out to the main shipping channel between Osborne Point to a point east of Ryde.

These three areas arew designated as requiring 'recovery' which means action should be taken to reduce or stop human activity - in this case bottom disturbance by anchoring.

BORG is seeking clarification about the proposals for Newtown, from Balanced Seas, as the report is far from clear what they are suggesting.

Bembridge is as expected likely to have a number of activities limited, because of the richness of biodiversity in the area. Eelgrass exits around the waiting anchroage off St Helens and a number of rare and protected species exist on the Ledges along the shoreline East of the harbour, and in the harbour itself.

On all these sites, discussions are ONGOING, so changes may still occur.

As soon as I have completed it, I will produce a full guide to the latest proposals in this report, as it affects us. Those who want to can access the report via the Balanced Seas site. The summary of MCZs starts on page 32, and for a quick glance you need to look for the blue shaded summaries of conservation objectives for each MCZ, and look for items that are listed as affecting 'Tourism and Recreation' Some also specify anchoring as a problem. You have to note the species listed as affected, and refer back to the species map to determine the area they are present. Not always very clear, specially in Newtown which in the main report appears to need no special protection, but still appears on the list for Reference Area protection.

the 'unique' natuire of the studland Seahorse colony goes right out of the window. Both species of Seahorse are mentioned in various locations, and a breeding colony in the lower Thames has NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY PROTECTION! One up to the PLA I think!