Complaint
A listener complained about an interview with Rachael Clarke from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service arguing it failed to make clear that she was speaking for an abortion provider and that there was a failure to properly challenge her exaggerated account of the effects of the current law. The ECU considered whether the broadcast met the standards for impartiality set out in the ѿý Editorial Guidelines.
Outcome
In the ECU’s judgement listeners would have been in no doubt about Ms Clarke’s position. From the outset she expressed strong support for an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill which removed the risk of prosecution or being investigated by the police for women who terminate their own pregnancy outside the rules, for example after 24 weeks. In addition, the presenter challenged her position directly with a line of questioning which would not have made sense unless listeners already understood Ms Clarke’s stance. Listeners in general would have recognised her comments, such as her reference to women “no longer being dragged from their hospital beds to police cells for interrogation”, as being emotive rather than literally descriptive, and as intended to illustrate her concerns about the current legislation. Given the context and tone of the interview, there was no requirement for the presenter to challenge her on her choice of language.
Not Upheld