Thursday, June 17th 2010, 10:08 AM EDT
I have now skim read the adjudication of the Editorial Standards Committee. A careful reading is not warranted. It is plain that the adjudication is no more than a rehash of the Stage 2 response which, itself, was no more than a tissue of distortion, lies and equivocation. Two substantive points are worth making, however:
• It has been abundantly clear throughout this process that outcomes for me and for other complainants would be pre-ordained and predictable.
• With a constant succession of delays and excuses therefor, it has taken your Committee a year and a half to deliver its demonstrably partial and flawed response. This time lag the Committee has acknowledged, and has offered an apology. The apology is not accepted. In itself, however, what these evasions underscore is the intellectual bankruptcy of the Corporation’s position and its essentially mendacious approach to dealing with complaints of prejudice - not, one might add, simply in relation to the global warming controversy. The bedrock on which the BBC has been relying has rested on the proposition that “the science was settled” by a consensus of scientific opinion, fortified in its case by reference to the fraudulent assertion that a seminar of climate experts convened by it on 26 January 2006, had so declared.
Download PDF file to read FULL letter from Rupert Wyndham to the BBC