The BBC's idea of Impartiality, versus mine. Some musings

As promised, I reproduce below my own transcript of the 'Feedback' programme (now I think taken off the website, as they only last a week) in which I was criticised with no contemporaneous chance of defending myself. I have, as noted before, been given a satisfactory chance to set the record straight. But I should stress this would not have happened had not I and several other people protested pretty forcefully, and had I not insisted rather strongly that early offers of redress were insufficient.

So, while the BBC and the programme deserve some credit for putting the matter right in the end, they certainly don't deserve *all* the credit. And the issue remains of what this episode can fairly be taken to mean.

As I have said before, it needs to be taken together with the original exchange on the 'Today 'programme. This, by the way, was (as far as I can recall) my first appearance on that programme for about two years, perhaps longer. The last appearance I can remember was a discussion with my brother about his book 'God is not Great', during his promotional tour here in 2007.

The subsequent famine of invitations, which seemed to coincide with the Corporation's growing friendliness towards David Cameron, had itself been a noticeable change. For some years I had been invited on to the Today programme perhaps three or four times a year. I remember particularly an occasion where I debated with Lindsey German, of the Socialist Workers' Party, over whether the Left had triumphed or been beaten in modern Britain. I also spoke, more than once I think, about conservative reasons for opposing identity cards.

On this latest occasion, I was at a disadvantage from the start. I had been asked on because of my past criticisms and because of my known opposition to the views of Professor David Nutt. Yet the news bulletins of that day, and indeed the lengthy news reports, had portrayed Professor Nutt's Lancet Report as a serious and powerful scientific document. Before I could even begin to engage on the subject, I had to challenge this assumption, which is why I had spent several hours the previous evening going through the report again and again to see if its weaknesses could easily be explained in crisp terms.

I might add that I'm currently discussing with a publisher a book to be entitled 'The War We Never Fought - Britain's non-existent "war on drugs".''

Readers of the 'Abolition of Liberty' will be familiar with the case I make, and the views I set out, in the chapter entitled 'Evil Drug Dealers', written several years ago. And others will know how persistent I have been in warning that the dangers of cannabis are gravely understated. This warning has been increasingly borne out by growing piles of reputable research into mental illness among the young - certainly to the point where serious doubts must arise. I direct anyone interested in this to the work of Robin Murray, Professor of Psychiatry at the Maudsley Hospital in London.

For a powerful anecdotal article on the subject, readers might wish to turn to Patrick Cockburn's heartbreaking account of the problems of his son Henry.

Anyone knowing or caring about this might at least be excused for wishing to get the point across as hard and fast as possible. They might even be excused for having a certain amount of 'passion' as they did so. Frankly, anyone not angered by official complacency and inaction over this grave danger to the young has something wrong with him. As for maintaining that someone is 'criminalised' when he is prosecuted and convicted for breaking an existing law, this is just language abuse. If what the person means is 'this should not be a criminal offence', he should say so. But anyone who knowingly chooses to break the criminal law is not 'criminalised'. He criminalises himself.

But Justin Webb, in his introduction, stated, as if this were a fact, that the report was 'a very serious scientifically-argued attack on current drugs legislation.'

I think this is, at the very least, arguable.

So I still think that this was a clear expression of partiality, which would tinge everything that happened subsequently.

I would hope by now that everyone interested has listened to the original thing.

Many have made comments, some of which I might endorse, and some of which are perhaps a little overstated, about the general conduct of the interview and how it did not favour me. Certainly it followed a sequence which assumed more or less that Professor Nutt was the establishment voice of reason, and I an outsider to be questioned more sceptically. Yet when we started into areas of hard fact, or indeed into discussion of the report itself, I was clearly equipped with facts (my attempt to mention the mental health dangers of cannabis had to be more or less wrestled on to the air over interruptions, as did my point that the criminal justice system is not interested in prosecuting possession of illegal drugs, only in supply).

I don't actually mind having to conduct these fights, because I am used to them. And on this occasion - and this is what I suspect got the goat of my critics, I was able (and this only because of my long experience of BBC interviews and their structure, in which I am never voluntarily given the vital last word) to state clearly that the report wasn't as scientific as it claimed to be, and to slam in the last word - an accusation of irresponsibility against the Professor for seeking to blur the distinction between legal and illegal drugs.

By the way, Professor Nutt in this conversation appears to say that 160,000 people were given criminal sanctions for cannabis possession last year (2009). I have been trying to track down this figure. The division of the Home Office into two parts does not help (nor does the increasing reliance of the government on the British Crime Survey, which is more like an opinion poll than classical crime statistics).

And what follows is a work in progress, to which I would welcome factual contributions and knowledgeable explanations. The Home Office recorded 162,610 cannabis possession offences in England and Wales in 2009. The 'Ministry of Justice' (how I shudder to acknowledge that this country has such a thing, usually a characteristic of a country without any Justice) has so far found (and this list is not definitive or complete) that in the same year police issued 11,491 penalty notices for cannabis possession, and a further 19,137 cautions for the same offence.

Meanwhile 22,748 cannabis offences came before the courts, of which 21,766 resulted in convictions. I am as yet unable to say what sentences were imposed, or what happened to the others. Maybe they were multiple offences committed by the same person. What I also cannot say (but strongly suspect) is that these cases came to court because the defendant involved was a persistent offender, the quantities of drug were exceptional, or he was charged with other offences at the same time, or all of these.

The idea that a young person, with no other criminal record, smoking cannabis in a private place is remotely likely to be imprisoned (or otherwise seriously sanctioned) or 'criminalised' for this offence seems to me to be laughable.

A fascinating insight into the recognised police procedure on this offence is given in this ACPO document.

I am trying to discover what legal status the 'Cannabis Warning' referred to in this document might have, whether it is equivalent to a caution, whether it forms part of a criminal record, or what.

Thus, it seems to me that the Today interview itself put me at a disadvantage, by assuming to be true (or failing to challenge) the assumptions of Professor Nutt, while treating my positions and contentions with a proper scepticism. I don't at all object to Mr Webb's adversarial treatment of me. He should do it to everyone, though I think he (and everyone else whose position is founded on licence money) should steer clear of stating contentious arguments as if they were fact. I just think the adversarial approach should have been applied equally to Professor Nutt.

But it is this inequality of treatment which leads directly to the 'Feedback' episode. Just as prison guards in bad countries can make it look as if their prisoners are struggling, so that they have the pretext to slug them and yank their chains, and thus the prisoners look like incorrigible troublemakers even as they seek to go meekly to their fate, a presenter who is adversarial only in certain directions can make some of his interviewees look like pesky interrupters whereas the others, not subjected to this treatment, all sound calm and serene.

This is bound to happen in an absurd BBC, where presenters are officially bound to pretend that they leave their opinions at the studio door - which is impossible - and where most BBC people share the same socially, morally and culturally liberal background, so aren't even aware that their views *are* views

This is why I have long argued for programmes such as 'Today' to have pairs of adversarial presenters, whose views are known and acknowledged, and who fall on either side of the liberal/conservative divide, so ensuring that everyone gets properly grilled by someone who has no sympathy with him.

So, assuming for a moment that Feedback's principal job is to launch 6-minute show trials (in their absence) of occasional contributors to Radio 4, then it was the handling of the issue on 'Today' which allowed 'Feedback' to do this to me. If Professor Nutt and I had been equally roughed up, then he too would have been constrained to interrupt, to interject and to use the techniques of the underdog.

Of course, what I describe above is absolutely not the job of 'Feedback'. Its targets are supposed to be established BBC presenters and executives, not outsiders who are briefly on air in programmes edited and presented by others. But of course Feedback covered this angle by suggesting that 'Today' had been at fault in having me on, and seeking a contribution from 'Today' - while somehow failing to notice that the whole item consisted of a group of people queuing up to say how dreadful I am, and of course the suggestion that I should be taken off the programme's address book.

But why was this double assumption (Hitchens is self-evidently awful, therefore 'Today' were automatically wrong to have him on, case closed), apparently viewed as axiomatic by 'Feedback' at the time - and never questioned by anyone in the BBC hierarchy? It would be very interesting to know. Does anyone in authority actually listen to such things before they are transmitted (or while they are being transmitted)?

So despite their eventual decision to give me the chance to respond, the next question is: 'How did the idea of subjecting me to such a show trial manage to get past the presenter, the producer and whoever commissions Feedback, and whoever checks recorded programmes before they are aired (not once but twice)? What sort of culture can exist in the BBC, where nobody spotted in time that it was wrong? For there is no doubt that it was wrong, or why was I allowed to respond as I did?

Transcript of 'Feedback' item broadcast BBC Radio 4, on 5th and 7th November 2010

About 2 minutes 58 seconds into the programme (the item lasts a few seconds short of six minutes, one fifth of the running time).

Roger Bolton:

'An editor in want of a lively discussion to inject some energy and passion into an otherwise rather dry programme is almost certain to have a list of guests who will always turn up and turn on. However, sometimes there is a danger that of part of the audience being turned off, which is what happened at 8.45 am last Monday on Radio Four.

'The Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens can always be relied upon for moral indignation and rarely hesitates to play the man as well as the ball. Some think he delivers more heat than light - but he certainly wakes up the audience

'His opponent on this occasion was Professor David Nutt, who had been invited on to the Today programme to talk about his latest study comparing the harmful effects of alcohol and hard drugs. The Professor concludes that while other drugs like heroin are more harmful to the individual, alcohol does most damage to society as a whole and that we should review the way we categorise all drugs.

'Mr Hitchens was suspicious of the Professor's motives. Is what follows an enlightening debate which succeeds in clarifying the issues for the listener?'

[There then follows a brief and in my view misleading extract from the Today programme, in which I am both faded down (I was in Oxford) and interrupted by the presenter. Both 'Feedback' and the 'Today' episode can be heard on Radio 4's listen again facility]

Then Mr Bolton continued: 'The Today programme's treatment of the issue and Mr Hitchens's contribution were just not good enough, says Guy Johnson.'

"I was livid and he wouldn't even let the guy say anything. He was just trying to shout him down which is kind of schoolyard rubbish"

New voice : "I'm not always in agreement with Dr Nutt, what I would have liked to see was a more cogent and coherent argument as to why the study was flawed"

New voice: "I am a head teacher. I run an 11-18 secondary school in Southampton. The report was essentially hijacked by Mr Hitchens's conclusions. From what I could see, Hitchens did not have any specific specialist knowledge of the topic. He's a foreign affairs and politics specialist if he's anything."

Roger Bolton: 'Thanks to Jacob Schell (unsure of spelling) who has worked with substance misusers for many years, and to Julian Thould (unsure of spelling).

'Dr Adrian Williams also contacted us. He is a research scientist at Cranfield University in Bedfordshire.

'He popped into the Feedback studio on his way back from a conference at Westminster to tell me what he thought of the interview.'

Roger Bolton continues: 'Dr Williams, Peter Hitchens described Dr Nutt's paper as "pseudo-scientific". You've read the report in the Lancet. Was that a fair comment?'

Dr Williams: 'No, I think it was totally unfair. I think Peter Hitchens clearly fails to understand the scientific method. He admitted as much, that he didn't even know what peer reviewing was. And I don't think he actually read it adequately. He obviously didn't understand the basic method of multi-criteria analysis that was described in a lot of detail and I think his criticism was totally unfair.'

Roger Bolton: 'Who would have been the right person to create a more balanced debate? Because there's a lot of division in the country about what we should do about drugs?'

Dr Williams: 'Absolutely. But I think you need someone with a good understanding of drugs and also the method that was applied in this particular study which was this multi-criteria analysis where you try to balance different sorts of impacts such as the individual's health, criminality, other wider damage to society and things like that. Which is not something that everybody understands fully. But it would be important to understand that in order to have an adequate debate on the subject.'

Roger Bolton: 'But somebody like Peter Hitchens does share the views of quite a significant part of the population and he's obviously very vigorous and interesting. People certainly will remember that discussion.'

Dr Williams: 'I think it will be remembered for the wrong reasons. He does seem to rant on and on - and I don't think he gave Professor Nutt an adequate opportunity to explain what had gone in the study. And I think by denigrating the quality of science without justification he was putting forward his own views completely at the expense of a study that was attempting to take an objective, balanced view.'

Roger Bolton: 'Do you think this is typical of some current affairs programmes like Today, that perhaps they're looking for heat rather than light?'

Dr Williams: 'I think there is probably a tendency to get people on who will talk in an animated way about a subject and perhaps give a good radio presence. But they don't necessarily actually inform the listenership in the way that a responsible programme should. What worries me about it is that there are probably a good number of people who have not got a strong background in science who may be sceptical and believe that someone who talks so vocally and vigorously and denigrates it in the way he did and actually believes he has a good scientific reason for putting across that point of view - when I am sure the reality is that he doesn't.'

Roger Bolton: 'So your advice to the editor of the Today programme - if he is listening (though I think he's in China at the moment) - is what?'

Dr Williams: 'I would consider an article like that - to consider the people in the BBC who actually work on science programmes. There are some admirable ones on the R4 network to do with science, Quentin Cooper, Geoff Watts, the medical ones, several I would contact. Those are the people first of all and discuss with them who would be a good person to discuss a paper of this sort.'

Roger Bolton: 'And remove Peter Hitchens from your phone book, I gather.'

Dr Williams: 'I think I would agree with that absolutely.'

A lot of stuff follows here about failed efforts to get an editor from the Today programme to appear (the editor and his deputy were both abroad at the time) ending with the words from Mr Bolton: 'We will not let them forget', as if they were guilty fugitives.

A statement from the Today programme is then read:

'We wanted to tease out with Professor Nutt the political dimension of the drugs debate. Peter Hitchens has long taken an interest in this area and it's not uncommon for the programme to turn to newspaper columnists when casting discussions. We felt both sides got the chance to make their main points and as far as we know neither felt hard done by. The discussion was reasonably robust but we felt there was light as well as heat generated, and the e-mails to the programme seemed to confirm that.'

Transcript ends.


If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down.