tac foley wrote: »

Knockon, old floon, you DO realise that the 'I' in that text is a cleverly arranged bunch of ones and zeroes masquerading as a person. I think it's fair to say, from much prior experience in similar matters, that an auto-cued response involves 100% lack of human intervention.

As Mr Yoda would say 'Think I that the runaround getting are you'.

tac

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Got an email acknowledgement from BAI yesterday. Number 68/15. I suppose this is the 68th complaint of the year, low numbers considering....

Dear Jean,
This formal response from the broadcaster is almost identical to their earlier response of 13 April and is, as that response was, unsatisfactory and deficient and I again request that the BAI consider the matter further, that the complaint and the RTE response and my counter-response from April along with my response to their response of 12 May below be forwarded to the BAI complaints forum for an independent consideration. The complete lack of change in the RTE response between 13 April and 12 May despite the deficiencies of their 13 April response being highlighted indicates that the broadcaster is unwilling to consider the matter in a fair and unbiased manner.

In their 12 May response, RTE states:
[The report] examined proposals from the Department of Justice and Equality / An Garda Síochána Working Group on Review of Firearms Licensing, in particular the proposals to ban most handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which are capable of holding more than three rounds. This editorial framework and perspective was made clear in the introduction to the report and in the report itself.

This is in fact not the case. At no point in the entire report were the actual proposals from the Gardai examined. Had they been, the inaccuracies in RTE's claim above would have been apparent. For example, the proposals do not propose to ban shotguns which are capable of holding more than three rounds; they propose to ban shotguns which are manufactured to hold more than three rounds, a critical difference because in Ireland for ninety years we have modified shotguns by crimping or plugging magazines to restrict their capacity to meet the three-round limit and these proposals mean this will no longer be permitted; a proposal which is based on an assumption that licenced firearms holders intend to illegally modify their firearms.

RTE states:

The original complaint states that “the report failed completely to present the current state of firearms licensing laws, including basic requirements for obtaining a firearms licence”. This is incorrect. The report included an interview with Des Crofton, National Director of the National Association of Regional Game Councils, who stated “People who hold firearm certificates in this country go through a very rigorous vetting which includes not only the character of the applicant, whether they have criminal records, it includes also for example we have to provide details of our medical practitioners, give access to the Gardai to contact them just in case there’s any doubt or any query about mental state”. This excerpt from Mr Crofton's interview adequately highlighted what he himself described as the rigorous vetting regime already in place.

This is highly erroneous if not outright disingenuous as Mr.Crofton was cut off long before he had even covered the basics of the current firearms legislation and the ensuing impression from any lay member of the audience (which in this case would amount to over 95% of the audience) would simply not be that sufficient regulation was in place. As the purpose of the report was to report on the regulation of legally held firearms, this is a serious example of biased reporting facilitated by unfair editing of interviewees.
All legally held firearms in the state are governed by extensive regulation. We are, in fact, the most heavily regulated state in the EU when it comes to firearms, and have the fourth lowest ownership level. It was simply not possible to discern this from the RTE report, whose entire tone was sensationalist and inaccurate. For example, in the edited interview that RTE refer to, Mr.Crofton was cut off before even the basic tests in the licencing procedure could be referred to: namely, "does this applicant have a good reason for wanting this firearm, have they a safe place to use it, have they a secure place to store it, can they legally apply in the first place, and would it create a danger to the public or the peace were the licence granted?". This is such a short, readily understood sentence to describe such a critical and fundamental part of the licencing procedure that it beggars belief to ask anyone to accept that a report into firearms licencing in Ireland could be considered fair and unbiased while omitting it on any grounds. The broadcasters claim that they had adaquately explained the existing safeguards the current law provides without even mentioning the central test behind a firearms licence application is facile.

RTE states:
The complaint alleges that "the report failed to make clear that the proposals will only affect firearms which are solely used for target shooting and that no proposals have been made regarding the criminal abuse of firearms, or regarding the minimum security standards for firearms ownership”. In fact the report and the subsequent studio discussion stated the guns used by target shooters would be affected and that, for instance the firearms generally used by deerstalkers and many shotguns used by farmers would be unaffected by the proposals. The report focussed on proposals that have actually been put forward, rather than ones which haven’t, however we did question Deputy Finian McGrath about whether Gardai should target illegally held guns and not guns used safely by most people.

This claim is beyond the bounds of reasonableness. A single line, stated quickly and ignored throughout the rest of the report is not sufficient to balance the tone of the entire report, the choice of images, background music and interviewees. No lay member of the audience would have understood at the end of the report that the proposals apply solely to already well-regulated sports equipment after the entire report had focussed on the criminal abuse of firearms (indeed firearms which it is illegal to licence today in Ireland). Furthermore, it is incorrect; the proposals would affect all licenced firearms because several of the proposals related to general licencing conditions which apply to all applications. Had the report actually discussed the actual proposals, this would have been obvious.

RTE states:
Both contributors to the studio discussion were dealt with impartially and fairly by the presenter. Insofar as equal allocation of time is an indication of fairness, in fact both Deputy McGrath and William Egan spoke for almost exactly the same amount of time during the debate. The presenter impartially challenged both guests on their statements and, in the context of contributors' interruptions, it may be noted that at one point the presenter insisted forcefully that Deputy McGrath allow Mr. Egan speak.

This was factually untrue in April; it remains so in May. Mr.Egan was interrupted eight times; Deputy McGrath was interrupted three times. An almost three to one ratio of interruptions is not a balanced interview. That both participants get equal time is not an indication of fairness if one participant is permitted to interrupt the other and prevent them from presenting a statement, thus forcing them to use up their time repeating interrupted statements. It is also facile to suggest that the presenter was impartial when she herself interrupted Mr. Egan in the manner in which she did, accusing him of attempting to mislead the audience.

RTE states:
Disputed figures in relation to the number of firearms stolen between 2010 and 2014 were emphatically not included in the Prime Time report but were raised by Deputy McGrath during the studio debate. Mr Egan immediately responded by saying “You’re misrepresenting the statistics – the statistics in fact that have been published – there’s a problem – they’re unreliable in essence – at the end of February statistics were published which suggested that 1,710 firearms had been stolen – that in fact was contested by the sporting associations I’m associated with and within ten days the Minister for Justice had qualified those statistics reducing them by 600”. In a nutshell, the contended statistics were not reported by RTE and were challanged (and therefore not "permitted") when put forward by a contributor. Mr Egan was given fair opportunity to refute the statistic put forward by Deputy McGrath.

This ridiculous claim was undermined in April rather completely by the nature of the interruption of the host at the point referred to, wherein the host instructed Mr.Egan to stop speaking about the statistic on the grounds that he would "bamboozle us with statistics". At this point, the report was actively being biased beyond any reasonable point and had strayed into the realm of authored articles without stating that the report was such an article.

Had Mr.Egan been allowed to continue, he could have pointed out that the subsequent raw data released by the Minister in relation to the approximately 1700 firearms mentioned in fact included toy guns, gun safes, non-firing replicas of firearms, and other categories of item which are not legally firearms; he could have pointed out that the figure included several firearms which are not legally licencable by civilians in Ireland and which could only have been owned by the military or police; or he could have pointed out that the nature of the categorisation in the data was very susceptible to inadvertant duplication of reporting and that there were serious concerns as to the accuracy of the data as a result. However, because of the host's interruption and instructions, none of these points could be raised; nor could the attendant point that the fundamental statistics underlying the proposals being discussed were unreliable and indeed the Joint Oireachtas Committee has since called for an independent review of them with the same concerns in mind.

It should be noted that since the April response, the Minister herself has stated these statistics were wrong and has withdrawn them and that Deputy McGrath has recently admitted the same. Far from attempting to bamboozle the audience, as the presenter accused him of, Mr Egan was attempting to present the truth to them and was not merely prevented from doing so by the presenter, but had his entire case and character challanged by the presenter with this choice of phrasing.

RTE states:

The music and graphics used in the report were entirely appropriate to the sombre aspects of the topic of gun abuse.

This newfound concern for the sober nature of firearms on the part of the broadcaster does not sit well with the fact that the music was not somber but menacing in tone, as were the graphics.

RTE states:

The context in which these replica guns were shown is in fact the opposite of that claimed in the complaint. The report stated that anyone can walk into a shop and buy these replica guns which look the part – and that that is an issue the Justice committee will have to take into account when it’s deciding if there is merit in proposals to ban certain firearms.

Replica firearms were also shown in the introduction of the report. The script read “Let’s talk about guns. From long rifles to small pistols and everything in between”. The replicas guns were shown as the words “and everything in between” were being said. There was no unfair portrayal of legal firearms ownership.

This was beyond ridiculous in April and that has not changed in May. It is downright insulting to claim that this was apparent in the context of the video. It is not even accurate to state that airsoft replicas are between long rifles and small pistols, no matter how much leeway is given to the program for inaccurate language (as "long rifle" and "small pistol" are not terms used either in the law or the sport). The fact is, the report showed airsoft replicas with altered lighting which made it almost impossible to read the labels on those items that would have identified them to a lay audience as the toys they are; nor was it mentioned at any time how the law regards such items or what the controls in place on their purchase and sale and use are. Airsoft replicas have absolutely nothing to do with the proposals made by the Gardai and would be utterly unaffected were those proposals enacted without alteration. There was no reason whatsoever to show them except to provoke an emotional reaction in the audience which the subject material would not have done had it been simply stated. Their use was misleading and prejudicial to any member of the audience and did not in any way reflect the actual nature of the issue.

RTE states:
The visit of the Oireachtas Justice Committee to the range in Nurney was accurately presented

Again, this is factually inaccurate. The RTE report clearly states in narration that "the day we visit is the day three members of the Oireachtas Justice Committee drop by". In actual fact, both the RTE team and the Justice Committee were invited to a planned event to demonstrate the sport and the equipement and facilities used in the sport. No mention is made of the fact that this visit is an integral part of the current review of the firearms legislation; no mention is made of the fact that the majority of the committee, including the later guest on the programme, did not attend the visit (indeed the guest chosen was one of the most biased and one of the least informed members of the committee).

RTE states:
There was no editorial necessity to report the other matters referred to in Item 10 of the complaint and no unfairness or inaccuracy arising from not doing so.

The simple fact is that by not pointing out that the visit of the Justice Committee to the range was a planned part of an official process, and by deliberately phrasing its description of the visit in terms that specifically stated it was a casual unplanned visit, the report portrayed the target shooting community as being at best periheperal to the debate on firearms licencing, and at worst uninterested or even hostile to the process. In fact, the target shooting community has been deeply involved in the process since 2004, and has helped to draft the Firearms Act for the past twelve years, volunteering the time of the experts within the community on firearms and firearms legislation, many of whom wrote the very law now being discussed and who have worked closely with both the Gardai and the Department of Justice for over a decade on the implementation of the Act and the operational enforcement of it.

Furthermore, by not pointing out that Deputy McGrath chose not to attend hearings of the Committee on this topic; or to attend the planned visit to the range and to Garda HQ; the audience was denied the opportunity to evaluate his knowledge of the topic, which was deficient. This led to the impression that Deputy McGrath was an expert on the Firearms Act on a par with Mr. Egan who has spent many years in the courts arguing points of law within the Act and who is an acknowledged expert on it. This impression is deeply flawed because the Deputy is not an expert on the subject matter and the presentation of the report concealed this.

RTE state:
The complaint takes issue with the inclusion of relatives of victims of gun crime. An Gardai Siochana are on record as saying that one of the reasons they have proposed the stricter firearms laws is because guns have been stolen and used to kill people, for instance (and as stated in the report) the murders of brothers Kenneth and Paul Corbally were carried out using stolen guns. The views of people such as Christine Campbell whose loved ones have been killed by guns are therefore very relevant to this debate. An Gardai Siochana has also stated clearly before the Oireachtas Justice Committee its belief that stronger regulation and prohibition of certain firearms is required to prevent massacres such as Hungerford in 1987 and Norway in 2011, where the culprits used their legally held firearms. For this reason we included the interview with Rita Duffy whose brother, James Hughes, was killed by a man using his own legally held shotgun. She stated she feels the system as it currently operates is not working. The report clearly stated that there are no proposals to ban the type of firearm used to kill James Hughes. All interviews in the report were edited (and therefore of course not "interrupted"), including those of the relatives of the victims and contributors such as Mr. Crofton. All were edited fairly to reflect the views of the participants, adaquately and accurately within the time available.

Firstly, this claim utterly misrepresents my complaint in as negative a light as the author could draft. I object to this defamatory misrepresentation and wish for that protest to be placed on the public BAI record of this complaint.

My original complaint was that as the proposed changes to legislation only affect licencing decisions and not issues like security measures or public safety, there was no basis for such extensive interviews with victims of crime about the emotional impact that crime had on their lives. Had the report examined the firearms used in these crimes and where they were sourced from, that would have been relevant to the discussion. However, this was not done. Anyone watching the report would have no idea after watching it where the firearms used in these murders came from. They would be left with an impression that entangled those firearms and legally licenced firearms. However, the murders in question were carried out with pistols; and no legally licenced pistol has ever been used in Ireland in a murder, either by it's original owner or someone who stole it from them.

Even in their May statement, RTE has again alleged that the murders of the Corbally brothers were carried out using firearms controlled by the Irish Firearms Act; in fact the firearms used were stolen in Northern Ireland, one from the PSNI. This fact was not made clear in the report and has not been mentioned by RTE in their subsequent statements. To suggest that those acts have anything to do with Irish firearms legislation is ridiculous.

On a related point of fact, in both Hungerford and Norway, it was established in subsequent investigations that the shootings could have been prevented by more competent police work and the enforcement of existing legislation; this was not mentioned at any point. The events themselves were simply held up and the audience was cynically expected to automatically associate these events with a need for stricter regulation of firearms because of past media portrayals of these events.

Finally, it escapes me how RTE can claim they can edit a person's interview, cutting off their sentences this act, and still not interrupt them. This claim seems facile at best.

RTE states:
All figures used in the report were official figures, were accredited, and were not used out of context. As with all figures and statistics, they can be interpreted differently. The report set out the facts and the arguments of both sides. Each side also had an opportunity to put forward its arguments in studio.

This is again factually incorrect. The official figures have had serious issues found within them, as detailed above. At no point was this reported in the initial report; and when the matter was about to be raised in the subsequent interview, discussion was stopped by the host and the interviewee instructed to cease speaking on the topic after the incorrect statistic had been quoted by one side but before it could be rebutted and it was implied that the interviewee was attempting to "bamboozle" the audience.

This goes beyond impartial presentation of evidence; this is an editorial decision to present one side's statements as being suspect by abusing the presenters authority and in effect putting the reputation of the show and the broadcaster behind the other side. In this instance, Mr Egan proved not only to be in the right, but the statistics have now been acknowledged as flawed by all parties. Further, the flaws in the official figures were not difficult to detect; in several cases (such as the quoted firearms per capita figures), basic mathematics (dividing the stated number of licences into the CSO's population figures) showed that the official figures were overstated by 100%.

RTE states:
The complaint alleges that Olympic pistol shooting was misrepresented as having a defined standard pistol. The report in fact featured Chief Superintendent Fergus Healy displaying the only gun that, as the script made clear, he would be happy being in private ownership. The complaint also takes issue with the absence of an Olympic shooting expert in the report. Insofar as such a perspective would have added to the programme, Prime Time approached a number of such experts, but we were unable to secure an interview for the report before transmission. RTE notes that the complaint does not identify any fact or point of view which was not included in the programme by virtue of the unavailability of such participants and therefore no indication of unfairness in this context.

This is again still very inaccurate. Chief Superintendent Healy did not in fact state that the pistol shown was the only one he would be happy to see in private ownership; he in fact stated that it was the only pistol *on the table in front of him* that he would be happy to see in private ownership. In point of fact, all the pistols on that table except for the Walther GSP in question were pistols that are not legally licencable in Ireland today and which had been confiscated from criminals. This point was not made in the report.

Secondly, this claim does not address the complaint that the report claimed there was a standard Olympic pistol (speaking as an ISSF-qualified judge with twenty years of experience, there is no such thing).

Thirdly, several ISSF experts were indeed approached before the programme was filmed and all declined to appear on the show on the grounds that the last time Prime Time reported on our sport, the report was so poor we were compelled to complain to both RTE and the BCC. However, we did speak with the RTE reporter for several hours in total and gave her as much background information as we could and explained the current situation to her quite clearly. The end report bore no resemblence to the current situation and none of the factual points explained were related, and in fact the report deliberately obfuscated or misrepresented several of these. I know the other experts RTE approached personally, and their reasons for refusing to appear were simply that nobody trusted the Prime Time team to produce a fair, unbiased or accurate report of the situation and our mistrust has since been shown to be well-founded. RTE had all of the information necessary to present a balanced and fair report, much of which came from the target shooting community despite our misgivings; they failed to use this information and instead produced a report which was unfair and biased and sensationalist in nature.

RTE states:
The complaint alleges that deer stalking was portrayed in a negative light and without presenting the reasons for deer stalking. Viewing will confirm that in fact the report made it clear that the hunting shown was “part of a long standing tradition”. The very first mention of deer stalking in the report describes it as a “valuable tradition”. The report pointed out that it is of benefit to farmers trying to grow grass to feed livestock. Des Crofton in his contribution pointed out that there is an economic reason for deerstalking, to do with commercial forestry and farming. It was made clear that the deer killed would provide meat.

The complaint alleges that it was untrue to state that deer hunting rifles would not be affected by the proposals under examination. In fact there is no proposal to ban the type of firearms being used by the deerstalkers featured in the video report; and the issue being examined was the banning of certain types of firearms. Furthermore, it was stated on air that some fear more restrictive laws coming down the line.

This does not address the complaint and is factually inaccurate - in point of fact all of the firearms used in deerstalking will be affected by several of the proposals, most notably the new grounds being sought on which to legally refuse licences.

This claim also does not answer the obvious question of why, if RTE believed that these firearms were not affected, the segment on deer hunting and the killing of a deer was included in the first place. The only reasonable reason to show a lay audience the killing of a deer when that audience is not accustomed to seeing animals killed for food, is to prejudice that audience by shocking them and hoping that the shock will be associated with all the firearms shown in the report, even though the majority of those which the proposals seek to ban cannot legally be used for deer hunting in Ireland.

RTE states:
The financial issues described in the complaint are not immediately relevant to the topic being reported and discussed; proposals from the Department of Justice and Equality/ An Garda Siochana Working Group on Review of Firearms Licencing to ban most handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns which are capable of holding more than three rounds, clearly defined as such to viewers. Neither is the claimed role of firearms owners in drafting current legislation, or detailed examination of Oireachtas Committee hearings.

This claim in effect states that the Prime Time report was unconcerned with several million euro in court costs for cases lost by those presenting proposals to change the law so that in future identical cases, the law would be in their favour, and RTE imply that multi-million euro losses do not motivate those who suffer them in any way.

While it would be pleasant to believe such joyously idealistic notions, reality is far less noble, and for professional reporters to ignore this unpleasant truth is one thing, but for them to claim it is fair and balanced to do so is really quite another.

The financial aspects to this situation are of direct relevance to the story yet were ignored completely even though Prime Time had in fact been briefed on them.

Further, while RTE may feel that it is merely a claim that the target shooting community has drafted the Firearms Acts, the existence and operations of the Firearms Consultative Panel, as well as the many meetings between the community and the various Ministers for Justice and their deputies over the past several decades, are all matters of public record.

And if RTE believe that not showing Oireachtas committee hearings in any detail whatsoever is valid, and also wish to state that the shooting community is only "claiming" to be involved in the legislative process, it needs to be noted that those committee hearings heavily feature the shooting community being involved in the legislative process. Had this been shown to the public in the report, the public would have known that the shooting community is responsible and involved with and supports the legislation that governs firearms use in Ireland, lending their time and expert opinion on both the technical aspects of firearms use and the technical details of firearms legislation in an effort to support that legislation. This would have jarred significantly with the image portrayed by the rest of the report, which gave an impression of a conflict between the shooting community and the government (in the form of the Gardai, the Minister, the Department and the Oireachtas) which in reality does not exist.

Lastly, it is telling that when RTE restates what they believe are the proposals from the Working Group in this manner, they do not state them accurately. Only one of the proposals deals with banning classes of firearm; even if enacted, it would not ban most handguns; and it is not concerned with shotguns capable of holding more than three rounds, but shotguns manufactured to hold more than three rounds, a significant difference as mentioned above.

Once again, as I stated in April, RTE have spoken about, but not adaquately responded to, only a few of the twenty-seven specific complaints made regarding the report. Their response is inadequate, deficient and is in fact ad hominem in several parts, as detailed above.

Yours Sincerely,

Sparks wrote: »

RTE throwing Healy up as saying that both the firearms were used in the Corbally murders, and sidestepping the difference between "were used in" and "the murder weapon". Didn't reply in order to prevent any further delays to the hearing.

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Anyone hear any further on this matter?
Any indication as to whether the BAI will consider each complaint individually, or lump them all together?
About three weeks now since the "reply within 24 hours" email sent.
Or will RTE string it out till the summer break etc. and claim that "key" personel are unavailable tillSeptember?

Sparks wrote: »

Or we could just ask...


Doubt my complaint was that much better btw.