Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

I am requesting information and copies of videos under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

It has come to my attention that the BBC "documentary" 9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip has edited out important parts. The edit does no justice to the truth. I am requesting copies of all footage which was not used in the show.

Also, I would like to know why Building 7, was not mentioned in the show and who made that choice?

Yours faithfully,

James Newman

Peter Jones left an annotation ()

No chance.
You're requesting material related to "journalism, art or literature", which the BBC frequently trots out as an excuse for non-disclosure.

James Newman left an annotation ()

I am guessing they will do that but am giving them the benefit of the doubt and to show that I tried this step before moving onto my next step.

If they are unable to answer this request I will make it my mission to video interview their journalists while they are recording live. I already know many places where I can do this. I know their tv show was edited and that the edit is not in the publics interest. If they decide to cover it up I will make all their journalists fair game.

Lets see how the BBC want to play.

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Mr Newman,

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, repeated below, which was received on 10th
September. We shall deal with your request as promptly as possible and,
at the latest, within 20 working days. If you have any queries about
your request please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20111119.

Yours sincerely,

The Information Policy and Compliance Team

BBC Freedom of Information
Room 2252
BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS, UK

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi/
Email: mailto:[BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2883
Fax: 020 8008 2398

show quoted sections

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Newman,

Please find attached the response to your request for information. 
<<RFI20111119 - final response.pdf>>
Kind regards,

Rachael Ward
Adviser, Information Policy and Compliance    

BBC Freedom of Information
Room 2252 WC, 201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS, UK

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi/
Email: [2]mailto:[BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2883    Fax: 020 8008 2398

 
[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

References

Visible links
1. file://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/
2. mailto:[BBC request email]
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/

Dear FOI Enquiries,

The Public have a right to see that footage. The Public have already paid for that footage and the BBC know they will never use that footage has it would expose them as a propaganda machine.

Thank you BBC for wasting the Public's money on 8 days of filming (112 hours) and only presenting 1 hour of footage to the Public. You may claim you are not entitled to release the footage due to "journalism, art or literature" but we both know that’s complete crap as you will have no intention of ever showing the Public the other 111 hours of footage.

I had a small amount of hope that you would release some of the footage as a good will gesture but instead you confirm that your only interest is in creating propaganda. Therefore, you can stick your TV license where the sun does not shine.

I'll be on the look out for any BBC news crews that are operating from a public street and if they are going out live I'll conduct my own journalism. I'll also be recording it too in case you happen to have any technical difficulties.

Yours sincerely,

James Newman

James Macfarlane left an annotation ()

The information would originally have been recorded for the purposes of journalism, art or literature; however, as footage was not used, the BBC can no longer claim that the information is held for any of those purposes.

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of British Broadcasting Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Copies and Information on video footage not used'.

Since you are no longer using the footage (unused footage) I don't see how you can claim a journalistic or entertainment exception. The public have a right to see what they have paid for.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

James Newman

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Mr Newman

As set out in the response to your request, the BBC does not offer an
internal review when the information requested is not covered by the Act.
Instead, you may appeal directly to the Information Commissioner's Office;
their contact details are provided in the response.

Yours sincerely
The Information Policy & Compliance Team

BBC Freedom of Information
Room 2252, BBC White City
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TS

[1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [2][BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882
Fax: 020 8008 2398

 

show quoted sections

Rodney Chavrimootoo left an annotation ()

Hi, I was in the show and I'm glad that this request was made. I really want a copy of this footage too, for the very same reasons. The issue seems to be that the show falls under the category of journalism as it is labelled as a documentary.However the documentary is more akin to a reality tv show, rather than any orthodox, regular documentary. What is not considered to be 'journalism, art or literature?' This is a very broad term and the clause was probably created to allow the BBC to hide things where their actions can be considered questionable.

Was me chatting to my mum on the phone really journalism? Really? This wasn't journalism. We were told what to say and directed like actors. That's not journalism.

James Macfarlane left an annotation ()

I'm not sure if what I said in my last comment will actually stand up. The decision of the Supreme Court in Sugar v BBC clarifies that once it is established that information is held for the purposes of journalism, it is effectively exempt from disclosure under the Act, even if the information is also held by the BBC for other purposes.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org