BBC Trust's whitewash is no surprise

Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Tim Bonner writes: Over a year ago I wrote about an article Chris Packham wrote for BBC Wildlife magazine in which, amongst other things, he branded everyone involved in hunting, shooting and wildlife management "the nasty brigade". He had a record for this sort of behaviour having previously described farmers involved in the government's badger cull trials as "brutalist thugs, liars and frauds". I argued that Chris Packham, described by himself and everyone else as a 'BBC presenter', was abusing the position given to him by the state broadcaster and was clearly in breach of the BBC editorial guidelines.

However, I also warned that when we complained to the BBC "there will be the usual excuses about contracted employees…and Chris Packham not presenting 'at the moment'".

The BBC rejected the complaint before it was even made by stating in the media that Mr Packham was 'entitled' to express views outside of his employment on BBC Natural History programmes. Last week the BBC Trust finally got round to issuing its response to an appeal lodged by both ourselves and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust.

The BBC Trust's 'finding' is extraordinary only in that it is such a blatant whitewash as to be risible. It ruled that "the amount of time contracted and the amount of time on air did not make Mr Packham a 'regular' BBC Presenter", even though he worked for the BBC on 119 days, or well over half the working year, in 2015. This, apparently, means he is a 'recurrent' BBC Presenter not a 'regular' one. The Trust decided that Mr Packham was not anyway 'associated with public policy broadcasting' because, for instance, an interview with campaigner George Monbiot about the future of farming in the uplands and 'rewilding' was an 'academic', not a 'policy' discussion. So it seems that as Mr Packham is not a BBC Presenter at all, let alone one associated with public policy, he is free to take the BBC's money whilst abusing whoever he likes, which mostly seems to be us.

As I said at the time we are lucky to live in a liberal democracy where people are able to hold any number of bizarre views. There is no issue with people voicing such opinions, but using the position granted by a public service broadcaster to promote an extreme agenda is a different thing entirely. Either the BBC has rules and applies them, or has no rules at all. What is entirely unacceptable is a perverse interpretation of those rules to protect its 'talent'.

The BBC Trust has comprehensively failed to address the concerns raised two years ago in its own review into rural coverage which found that the BBC has a "metropolitan bias". The government has now announced plans, which we welcome, to abolish the BBC Trust and move its regulatory role to Ofcom, and last week in a debate about the renewal of the BBC Charter Culture Minister Matthew Hancock also said the government's plans "made it clear that impartiality and accuracy are absolutely central to the future role of the BBC". We will hold him, and the BBC, to that commitment.

Follow Tim on Twitter @CA_TimB