Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Prime Time 10th March 2015

1910111214

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,069 ✭✭✭✭ Grizzly 45


    Ah well...
    Maybe this time ten people might have complained of the 200k odd liscense holders who will be affected,unlike five in 2008...Now thats REAL progress!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Confucius say."He who says one man cannot change World. Never has eaten bat soup in Wuhan!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    I received no indication from RTE that they had received my original complaint, nor any reply.
    Today I posted the Complaint Referral Form to the BAI, along with copy of original letter of complaint etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,504 tac foley


    knockon wrote: »
    Very disappointing to hear that....

    Anyway mine is lodged

    Complaint Ref: 59/15


    Dear Mr. Knockon

    I acknowledge receipt of your complaint referral, which was submitted to the broadcaster in the first instance

    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭ knockon


    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

    I (sic) do tac.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭ garrettod


    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....

    If your right, then there has been about 20 complaints submitted in the last 2 weeks - hopefully each and every one of them, were regarding the same thing ;)

    Agree 100% with your comment about the low numbers by the way.

    However, it's still not too late for anyone who has not yet submitted a complaint, to do so. Only takes a few minutes and it is time very well spent (so what are you waiting for, boys 'n' girls ? ;))

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    Hopefully not fifteen complaints from Holy Marys about coverage of the same sex marriage ref.......


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭ garrettod


    :D

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    /sigh. The wheels grind slow...
    BAI wrote:
    Dear Sparks,
    In accordance with the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland’s (“BAI”) complaints handling process, I attach a copy of RTÉ’s formal reply to your complaint.


    If you are not satisfied with the station's answer, you can have your complaint considered by the BAI. In order to do so, you must instruct us within fourteen days of receipt of this letter. It should be noted that if you submit a reply, it is forwarded to the broadcaster for information and reference purposes.

    If we do not hear from you within the fourteen day period, we will assume that you were satisfied with the response from the broadcaster and the complaint process will be closed.

    For your information, initial consideration of your complaint will be undertaken by the BAI’s Executive Complaint Forum. If this Forum finds that the complaint requires further consideration, the complaint will be listed for the next meeting of the Compliance Committee. If the Forum finds that the matters of complaint have been sufficiently dealt with by the broadcaster and/or are not substantiated by the relevant broadcast content, the complaint will be deemed to be resolved and the complaint process closed. In either case, all relevant correspondence and a copy of the broadcast are considered in the assessment and detailed reasoning for the determination reached will be clearly communicated to you.

    And the RTE formal response is almost word for word their original response. Utter tripe and nonsense.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    And responded:
    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,


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 11,813 Mod ✭✭✭✭ 2011


    @ Sparks: God bless your perseverance.
    Thankfully you are on "our side" :)


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    It just gets right under my fingernails when people deliberately do things wrong, knowing that that's what they're doing, you know?
    That kind of asshattery is why we can't have nice things.
    Honestly, if they'd just do the right thing, I could go back to having fun and lots of people would have quieter lives... :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    It just gets right under my fingernails when people deliberately do things wrong, knowing that that's what they're doing, you know?

    I believe it's literally blind prejudice.

    The RTE arguments/counter arguments are condescending, to say the least.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 yubabill1


    Had to attach as could not cut/paste from pdf.

    Have not had time to consider response, but immediately it looks like we have them on the Corbally murders, as the PSNI firearm, while stolen - was not licensed, but issued.

    Found this link RE; the PSNI issue Glock used in the above attack - was another handgun used also?

    The article indicates only the Glock found in the burnt-out car was used.


    http://www.herald.ie/news/corbally-murder-weapon-was-a-stolen-psni-gun-27956671.html

    And this article categorically states the stolen PSNI Glock was the murder weapon, also used in a 2009 gang murder.

    http://www.herald.ie/news/contract-murder-of-corballys-man-held-27964992.html

    Page 11 of AGS/DoJE WG report says two centrefire handguns -one stolen from its licensed owner in Dublin - were used in the Corbally brothers' murder.

    Can anybody shed any light?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    Received e-mail from the BAI today, outlining RTE's response to my initial complaint.
    I was not surprised to learn that RTE believe they have no case to answer on any of the points I raised, and that, indeed, I was incorrect in all my assertions.

    My objection to the use of suicide statistics by Finian McGrath, TD, as a reason to enforce stricter controls on gun ownership, was also dismissed.
    Apparently,
    "These statistics were legitimately included in the programme because "This was an issue raised in a Communication from the European Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled "Firearms and the internal security of the EU: protecting citizens and disrupting illegal trafficking". An extract of the report was quoted in the November 2014 report of the Department of Justice and equality/ An Garda Siochana Working Group on Review of Firearms Licencing."

    It appears that in the 28 member countries in the EU, some 4000 suicides take place annually by firearm.
    They did not specify if these were legally held guns, or not.

    However, RTE claim that
    "The link between suicide and legally held firearms was therefore one which it was reasonable for Deputy McGrath to raise, and RTE to broadcast during a discussion on the licencing of firearms"


  • Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭ knockon


    Got an email from the BAI too....

    Response....

    Dear Jean,

    This formal response from the RTE is wholly unsatisfactory and clearly never addresses any of the issues with the responsibilities one would expect from the State broadcaster. The reply is astounding given the fact that I have made a complaint to the BAI.
    1. The proposals from of Justice and Equality / An Garda Síochána Working Group on Review of Firearms Licensing, were never examined in any detail.
    2. The Studio “debate” and the presenter chairing of such was unprofessional and unbalanced. Mr Egan was brushed aside and interrupted numerous times.
    3. RTE ‘s letter never addressed my original complaint regarding the email and information I sent to Deputy Editor Paul Ferris prior to the broadcast.
    Dear Paul,
    Please excuse me for writing to you again. I understand that the feature on firearms licensing takes place on Tuesday night. I assume that you are in possession of critical information supplied on Tuesday 3rd March by Minister Francis Fitzgerald in reply to Dail Questions by Deputy Niall Collins. The data she supplied to the Dail is the PULSE information supplied by AGS and is a list of Firearms stolen between 2010 and 2014. In regard to the figure of approximately 1700 firearms that were listed by the Gardai as having been stolen from 2010 to 2014 raised interesting written questions in the Dail on Tuesday this week, which saw an info dump of raw data from PULSE regarding the figures. Here's the breakdown.
    The breakdown which transpired upon the release of the raw data by the Minister in the Dail on March 3 to include hundreds of items which are not legally firearms in Ireland. In other words the whole basis for the proposed ban is based on these incorrect data figures by An Garda Siochana. Despite Mr Ferris having this critical information it was not delivered on this the leading investigative current affairs programme in the State.
    4. The interview with Mr Des Crofton, Director of the National Association of Regional Game Councils was edited to such a degree they may as well not have had his piece on the programme. Mr Crofton's interview did not cover the basics of Firearms ownership and was edited to such a degree that fundamental facts were left out giving a wholly unbalanced report.
    5. RTE's letter goes to great lengths explaining the inclusion of the Murder of Anthony Campbell and The Corbally Brothers. None of these horrific crimes were carried out by firearms belonging to Licensed Firearms holders which you acknowledged in the case of Anthony but not for the Corbally Brothers. Why include these dramatic and sensational interviews with sensational music to follow if the whole context was to examine the proposals by the Gardai and Dept of Justice Working Group? The interview with a distraught Mother conducted by RTE wholly inappropriate.
    6. Barry Cummins allowed Chief Superintendent Healy to supply flawed information and not once challenged him on anything he said. Healy showed a host of firearms that cannot even be licensed in the State and which had been confiscated from criminals. This point was not made in the report. Why didn't Mr Cummins challenge the new expert on Olympic Shooting who is the only person apparently who knows what an Olympic Pistol is! The programme seemed to accept everything the Gardai said as true despite being offered evidence on the contrary regarding the data from Pulse.

    In conclusion the Broadcaster response BAI Ref: 59/15 was inadequate and for the most part did not address my complaint. For this reason I am informing the BAI that I am not satisfied with their response.

    Yours sincerely,

    Knockon


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 yubabill1


    yubabill1 wrote: »
    Had to attach as could not cut/paste from pdf.

    Have not had time to consider response, but immediately it looks like we have them on the Corbally murders, as the PSNI firearm, while stolen - was not licensed, but issued.

    Found this link RE; the PSNI issue Glock used in the above attack - was another handgun used also?

    The article indicates only the Glock found in the burnt-out car was used.


    http://www.herald.ie/news/corbally-murder-weapon-was-a-stolen-psni-gun-27956671.html

    And this article categorically states the stolen PSNI Glock was the murder weapon, also used in a 2009 gang murder.

    http://www.herald.ie/news/contract-murder-of-corballys-man-held-27964992.html

    Page 11 of AGS/DoJE WG report says two centrefire handguns -one stolen from its licensed owner in Dublin - were used in the Corbally brothers' murder.

    Can anybody shed any light?

    BAI,

    I remain unsatisfied with RTE’s second response to my complaint, which essentially restates their original reply.

    As an addendum and in addition to my complaint, I wish to observe the following -

    the latest reply says;

    “The video report examined proposals from the Dept. of Justice and Equality/ An Garda Siochana Working Group on Review of Firearms Licensing, in particular the proposals to ban most handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.....”

    the actual review document was not examined in any detail.

    “The complaint ...alleges an unfair portrayal of licensed firearm holders”

    “An Garda Siochana are on the record...... as stating that the belief that stronger regulation and prohibition of certain firearms is (sic) required to prevent massacres such as Hungerford in 1987 and Norway in 2011, where the culprit used their legally-held firearms.”

    The video report gave no examination of the Garda assertion - specifically the circumstances surrounding police failures in licensing - rather it blindly accepted the Garda view and pejoratively presented interviews with Irish family members of people murdered with legally-held firearms, in an attempt to portray a risk of similar massacres happening here, without an examination of the strict suitability requirements recently introduced in Ireland following Abbeylara to avoid exactly these kind of incidents and atrocities.

    “As referenced in the complaint, the Prime Time report also pointed out that stolen licensed firearms have been used to kill people; for instance, the murders of brothers Kenneth and Paul Corbally were carried out using stolen guns. The complaint alleges that this fact is in dispute; however listening to the link...it is clear that this dispute is not in fact about whether or not a legally held firearm was used, but about when and where it was stolen.”

    2 observations:

    1. Gardai have failed to provide evidence for the second firearm they claim was used in the murders


    2 April 2015

    139. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan   asked the Minister for Justice and Equality   the number of legally held shotguns or handguns reported stolen from households in each of the past ten years and in 2015 to date; the extent to which such weapons have subsequently been used in the committal of crimes; the number of gun-related crimes committed, which indicate the use of weapons acquired through other sources; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13813/15]

    Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald):  
    I have asked the Garda Commissioner for a report in relation to this matter and will write to the Deputy when I have further information.

    2. Media reports at the time record one firearm was used, which was a Glock handgun issued (i.e.; not licensed) to a PSNI officer – an issue firearm cannot be offered as evidence in a discussion about firearms licensing.

    The article indicates only the Glock found in the burnt-out car was used.


    http://www.herald.ie/news/corbally-m...-27956671.html

    And this article categorically states the stolen PSNI Glock was the murder weapon, also used in a 2009 gang murder.

    [URL="wlmailhtml:{5E67008F-B227-465A-A8A7-DAC48010210F}mid://00000002/!x-usc:http://www.herald.ie/news/contract-m...-27964992.html"]http://www.herald.ie/news/contract-m...-27964992.html[/URL]



    “In relation to the figures used in the debate, they were all official figures and served to inform viewers about the current number of firearms
    licensed..”

    RTE failed to mention the substantial decline in the figure since the 2009 regulations, or the long-term decline in stolen firearms, as my complaint previously mentioned. The figure was given out of context and the rate of firearms ownership per capita quoted has since been proven to be patently incorrect. The figures for stolen firearms were provided to RTE prior to the video report and the interviewer failed to present the correct figure in the studio debate.

    I request the BAI examine my original complaint and this addendum.

    Sincerely,


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭ garrettod


    It should be intersting to see what the outcome from these complaints having been submitted to the BAI is.... not least, because they will struggle to tell a number of people they are all wrong.

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    Just a quick reminder to all those who complained to the BAI.

    Don't forget, after the BAI forward your complaint back to RTE, and then notify you of the RTE response, you have only 14 days to notify them (BAI) if you wish the complaint to go forward to committee.

    You can do so by phone (01 6441200) or by email or letter.

    They say it is not necessary to resubmit your objections, but I would, anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    Dear Mr Nek,
    I acknowledge receipt of your request to have your complaint considered by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

    For your information, the written material on file together with a copy of the relevant broadcast footage will now be assessed. I will write to you when a decision has been reached.


    Yours sincerely,
    Jean Crampton

    Broadcasting Authority of Ireland – Údarás Craolacháin na hÉireann
    2-5 Warrington Place, Dublin 2, Ireland
    T: + 353 (0)1 644 1200
    F: + 353 (0)1 644 1299
    E: [email protected]
    W: www.bai.ie


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 yubabill1


    15th June 2015

    Complaint Ref: 52/15


    Dear Mr. YB


    Please find an additional response from RTÉ attached. Please be advised that this is for information and a reply is not required. However, if you do intend on responding then you should do so by tomorrow Tuesday, 16th June. The Compliance Committee is due to make a determination on your complaint at their next meeting and any further reply from either party may result in a delay to your complaint being considered.



    Please contact me if you have any queries.

    Yours sincerely,

    BAI Compliance.

    BAI



    I am not satisfied by the further response received from RTE RE: Prime time 10/3/15.



    The RTE responses to my complaint seek to divert the conversation from my original complaints and I ask the BAI to consider my original complaint communication thus;



    ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 11/3/15

    Sir/ Madam



    I was very upset by your report on proposed new firearms legislation last night, which portrayed people like myself – licensed firearm holders – as potential rampage murderers, despite my having undergone substantial background checks, provided character referees, access to my personal medical record and agreed to access to my home at any time by Gardai and also having committed no criminal offences whatsoever.



    Was there a Prime Time examination of the above –possibly defamatory - Garda assertions regarding 140,000 vetted citizens and of Garda concerns regarding the licensing of certain firearms and was Prime Time’s investigation of said assertions and concerns 1. Accurate, 2. Impartial, 3. Fair?




    The programme contained a piece with Superintendent Fergus Healy, who was allowed mention his fear of a gun culture emerging, while demonstrating handguns which can no longer be licensed by new applicants under 2008 legislation. The only handgun in the piece which can be licensed today by a new applicant was the one Superintendent Healy “approved”. This clearly presented a biased impression of gun ownership.

    Was the Prime Time piece above 1. Accurate, 2. Impartial, 3. Fair in reporting Chief Superintendent Healy’s fear?

    The report also failed to mention the origination of the proposed ban, which came only after a large number of court cases were lost by Gardai regarding firearms licensing following 2009 legislation born out of round table agreement between stakeholders, greatly strengthening applicant suitability and firearms storage regulation.

    Again, was the Prime Time examination of the origin of the issue at hand 1. Accurate, 2. Impartial, 3. Fair?

    The report indulged in scaremongering around gun murders – citing a firearm stolen in ROI used in the murder of the Corbally brothers, which is in dispute1 – despite a background of multiple-year falls in gun crime2, gun seizures3 and a 50% reduction in thefts of legal firearms between 2010-2013 according to CSO statistics.

    Finally, was the inclusion of the Corbally brothers’ murders in the report an 1. Accurate, 2. Impartial, 3. Fair and appropriate reflection of the use of stolen firearms, given that the main murder weapon was an official PSNI pistol (issued by a police force and not licensed for civilian use) stolen in a jurisdiction not covered by the Irish Firearms Act and that an alleged use of a second firearm could not be clarified despite several Parliamentary Questions asked of the Minister for Justice and Equality in a timely fashion (all as yet unanswered to date)? Further, was the alleged second firearm a low-calibre pistol or a high-calibre military/police (to use Garda terminology) type and what is the risk to the public from stolen formerly-licensed

    military/police –style firearms?



    1.
    http://www.sportscoalition.org/kilda...erview-512015/

    2. http://www.thejournal.ie/frances-fit...22872-Jun2014/

    3. http://www.thejournal.ie/firearms-se...83874-Jul2014/





  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    Received same today.
    In every point raised, RTE consider that failure of the complainant to come up with new examples from the programme, somehow add legitimacy to their earlier response.

    So if you have already outlined your objections to each inaccuracy/manipulation/failing of the programme, the fact that you cannot list any new failings somehow (in RTE-think) negates your initial objection.

    As with your self, Yubabill1, I was given 24 hours from this morning to reply.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    Got the same yesterday, but only the one point, 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 yubabill1


    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.

    An important distinction - you still have today to reply - got confirmation of my final reply this morning.

    RTE must have talked to Ch Sup Healy about the Corballys.

    At the very, very least the Corbally murders were a poor and unrepresentative example, to prove a point about stolen licensed firearms: I mean the main murder weapon was a PSNI Glock stolen in NI and if the alleged second gun was a .22, then what has either got to do with banning civilian licensing of "Military/ Police high calibre" firearms?

    Can't justify the example as accurate, impartial or fair in this context.

    Let's see what BAI make of it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 yubabill1


    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?

    Heard nothing either - not holding my breath; they only seem to meet every quarter or so.

    Read some of the BAI decisions for pig iron - the framework affords very little control over media sources and c.90% of complaints are dismissed.

    However, the BAI do seem to take into account the number of complaints received about a report and I reckon we have about 6 or 7 complaints in, which is more than the BAI would get in an entire quarter.

    Don't be surprised when BAI decisions come from a "big picture" "overall" perspective - they like to hide behind this kind of thing.

    I reckon Sparks' complaint has the best chance of being upheld in part (mostly because he went into obsessive detail).


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭ garrettod


    Nekarsulm wrote: »
    Anyone hear any further on this matter?...

    All quiet of late. It's disappointing that they can put tight time deadlines on us for responses, if we want to press forward with a complaint, then they go elect to go for full radio silence. That said, I will say that my dealings with the BAI have been both plesant and professional so far, so I don't want to be unfair here. Perhaps a friendly follow up email from those of us with complaints, might be appropriate ?

    Thanks,

    G.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,055 ✭✭✭✭ Nekarsulm


    Would agree that contact with the BAI was cordial. They even emailed me to check a response I made before submitting it, as I had mistakenly attributed a quote to the wrong named person.
    Shall be interesting to get the official response.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 40,053 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sparks


    Or we could just ask...
    Please be advised that your complaint was considered at the meeting in late June and a decision should be circulated to you within the next week.

    Doubt my complaint was that much better btw.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,301 yubabill1


    Sparks wrote: »
    Or we could just ask...


    Doubt my complaint was that much better btw.

    Didn't get that email yet.

    Let's hope we kept them busy.


Advertisement