THE BBC have thrown out complaints over Sarah Smith’s inaccurate television broadcast about Alex Salmond’s evidence to Holyrood’s sexual harassment inquiry.
Viewers wrote in after the Scotland editor told the Six O’clock network news that the former First Minister believed Nicola Sturgeon should resign.
However, the former First Minister did not call for his successor to go, saying it was not a decision for him.
Smith made the incorrect statement to viewers across the UK on February 26, the day the former first minister and SNP leader gave oral evidence to MSPs investigating the Scottish Government’s mishandling of complaints against him.
Appearing on camera, the journalist, filmed outside Holyrood, said: “He [Salmond] believes Nicola Sturgeon has misled Parliament and broken the Ministerial Code which he thinks means she should resign.”
Smith later wrote that evening on Twitter that Salmond did not say the First Minister should resign. She posted: “On the 6 o’clock news headline tonight I said that Alex Salmond had claimed the First Minister had ‘broken the ministerial code and that he thinks she should resign’. I would like to clarify that Mr Salmond did not say that the First Minister should resign.
“He said ‘I’ve got no doubt that Nicola has broken the ministerial code but it’s not for me to suggest what the consequences should be.’”
Data released the following month by the BBC stated that a total of 348 complaints were made to BBC One up until February 28 about Smith’s report on the grounds of inaccuracy.
Further information made public by the BBC yesterday reveals that two complaints were made relating to the broadcaster not sufficiently correcting the inaccurate news story.
The broadcaster revealed that these complaints were not upheld.
The Holyrood committee at which Salmond appeared on February 26 was set up to establish what went wrong in the Scottish Government’s handling of complaints made by two civil servants against him while he was first minister.
He launched a judicial review in August 2018 after the Scottish Government completed its probe into him, after the complaints were filed in January of that year.
Salmond won his civil case against the Scottish Government in January 2019, with the Court of Session ruling its investigation had been unlawful and was “tainted by apparent bias”.
He received more than £500,000 in legal costs.The Holyrood committee probing what went wrong published its report in March and concluded the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints against Salmond and the subsequent judicial review was “seriously flawed”.
The committee was split on the question of whether the First Minister gave inaccurate evidence to the committee with Tory, Labour, Lib Dem and independent members concluding she did, while the SNP members disputed this conclusion.
Regarding the judicial review, the committee concluded that the Scottish Government caused an avoidable situation. It also stated that the “catastrophic failure” to disclose documents led to the high level of cost being awarded.
It found that the complaints procedure was developed too fast in the wake of the “MeToo” movement. Among its recommendations were the introduction of an independent support service for complainers and an independent system for
investigating complaints. The multiple roles of the Permanent Secretary should also have been seen as a risk, the review stated. A report by James Hamilton QC, a former director of public prosecutions in the Irish Republic, found that the First Minister did not breach the ministerial code.
The BBC was approached for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel