RJ Hamster
The BBC Says It Didn’t Mislead Viewers. The Evidence…
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more
The BBC Says It Didn’t Mislead Viewers. The Evidence Says Otherwise
JAN 31READ IN APP
Following numerous complaints about BBC Look North’s report on the Holderness Hunt, broadcast on 5 January 2026, the BBC has issued a standard response to complainants stating that it believes the programme met editorial standards and did not materially mislead viewers.
The reply we got from the BBC.
While we acknowledge the BBC’s reply, we believe it does not adequately address the core issue raised, namely, the accuracy of a specific factual statement presented to viewers, and that this warrants escalation.
This is not about opinion, balance, or political framing. It is about whether a factual claim was accurately expressed.
What the BBC’s Response Says, and What It Does Not Resolve
In thier reply, the BBC argues that the statement:
“These Old English foxhounds have never been fox hunting; it became illegal long before they were born”
is “strictly accurate” on the basis that fox hunting has been illegal since the Hunting Act 2004, and that the hounds shown were born after that legislation came into force.
However, the wording used in the broadcast reasonably implies that these foxhounds have never hunted, chased, or killed foxes at all. That implication is disputed by documented evidence. For viewers, that distinction is significant. An unqualified statement of this kind can reasonably be understood as a claim about what has happened in practice, rather than a statement limited to what is lawful. Where evidence and legal proceedings exist, greater care is required to ensure that factual wording does not risk misleading audiences.
Legality Is Not the Same as Reality
The BBC’s reasoning effectively rests on the assumption that because fox hunting is illegal, it does not occur. That assumption is problematic.
Illegal acts, by definition, still happen. The existence of legislation does not mean the behaviour it prohibits has ceased; it means it is subject to enforcement and, where appropriate, prosecution.
In this case, there is documented evidence that:
- A former huntsman associated with the Holderness Hunt, Tom Wright, has been charged on two occasions under the Hunting Act 2004
- Footage exists showing Holderness Hunt hounds chasing and killing foxes
- Court proceedings relating to alleged illegal hunting are ongoing
These facts do not require a finding of guilt to be relevant. Their existence alone directly challenges the unqualified assertion that the hounds have “never been fox hunting”.
Holderness Hunt hounds kill a fox in 2023.
Why Context Does Not Resolve the Issue
The BBC’s reply also relies on the argument that, “taken as a whole,” the programme explored allegations of illegal hunting and therefore did not materially mislead viewers.
However, established regulatory principles make clear that due accuracy applies to individual factual statements, not just to a programme’s overall balance or discussion. The inclusion of debate or opposing views elsewhere in a report does not automatically correct or neutralise a misleading factual assertion presented as settled fact.
In this case, the contested statement was delivered at the outset of the item and framed as an uncontested truth. That framing carries particular weight and is unlikely to be reinterpreted by viewers as a purely legal or hypothetical claim.
What Would Have Been Accurate
The BBC could have avoided this issue by using more precise wording, for example, by stating that:
- The Holderness Hunt has not been convicted of fox hunting
- Fox hunting is illegal
- Allegations of illegal hunting exist and are subject to ongoing court proceedings
Such wording would have accurately reflected the legal position without implying that fox hunting has never occurred.
Why Escalation Is Appropriate
The BBC’s reply does not fully address whether the original wording was capable of misleading viewers, focusing instead on broader programme context. As a result, it does not resolve the central concern raised by complainants: that a specific, unqualified factual statement was presented in a way that does not reflect the evidential reality.
For these reasons, the claim of “strict accuracy” is unconvincing, and the response falls short of addressing the underlying issue of due accuracy. That is precisely the type of dispute the Executive Complaints Unit exists to review.
What We Are Asking People to Do
If you received the same response from the BBC and remain concerned about the accuracy of the wording used, you can request a review emailing back another complaint in reference to your previous complaint (1a), outlining how you feel the points you raised in your 1a complaint haven’t been addressed.
You are entitled to explain, calmly and factually, why you believe:
- The wording was unqualified and absolute
- The distinction between legality and reality was not made clear
- The issue has not been fully addressed in the initial response
The BBC is required to log all complaints. Volume matters not because it applies pressure, but because it demonstrates that the issue is genuinely unresolved for a significant number of viewers.
Escalation is not confrontation, it is accountability through due process.
How to Escalate Your BBC Complaint
If you received the BBC’s standard or “blanket” response to your complaint about BBC Look North, you are entitled to escalate the issue.
How to escalate
Use the BBC Complaints website
You can return to the BBC Complaints page and submit a follow-up complaint referencing your previous complaint, explaining, as the BBC asks, why you feel the points raised in your 1a complaint haven’t been addressed.
In both cases, be sure to include your original reference number.
Suggested Email Template
You can use the following wording:
Dear BBC Complaints Team,
Thank you for your response.
I would like to escalate this matter as i believe my initial complaint has not been addressed. This request is in reference to my previous complaint (reference number: [insert your reference number here]).
Dear BBC Complaints Unit,
I am writing to formally request a review of the BBC’s response to my complaint regarding BBC Look North (East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire), broadcast on 5 January 2026.
My original complaint concerned a specific statement made in the report on the Holderness Hunt, in which the presenter stated:
“These Old English foxhounds have never been fox hunting, it became illegal long before they were born.”
The BBC’s response asserts that this statement is “strictly accurate” on the basis that fox hunting is illegal and that the hounds have therefore not been legallyused for fox hunting. However, this was not the wording used in the broadcast.
The statement was presented as an absolute factual claim, that the hounds have never been fox hunting, with no legal qualifier. A reasonable viewer would understand “never” to mean that the hounds have not chased or hunted foxes at all, not merely that they have not been used lawfully.
This distinction is crucial. Illegal acts can and do occur. The existence of the Hunting Act 2004 does not mean fox hunting does not happen, and it does not make the statement accurate.
There is documented evidence that Holderness Hunt hounds have repeatedly chased and killed foxes in recent years, and that former huntsman Tom Wright has been charged twice under section 1 of the Hunting Act 2004 in relation to these hounds, with the court cases on going and to play out this year. Those facts directly contradict the claim that the hounds have “never been fox hunting”.
While the programme may have discussed allegations elsewhere in the item, this does not correct or neutralise a specific factual statement presented as undisputed truth at the outset of the report. Ofcom guidance is clear that inaccuracies are not remedied simply by broader contextual discussion.
I therefore believe the wording breached the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy, in particular the requirement not to materially mislead audiences and to take due care over factual statements.
I am requesting that the ECU review whether the broadcast wording was misleading, and whether a correction or clarification is required to accurately reflect the reality that these hounds have been implicated in alleged illegal fox hunting, including ongoing court proceedings.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kind regards,
We’re blown away by your support this month!
Since launching our appeal to find new monthly donors to join Protect the Wild we can reveal that we have had over 500 new sign ups this month alone! I cannot be more thankful for your incredible support!
Protect the Wild is now backed by over 7,000 people giving a regular monthly donation. That support is what allows us to run undercover investigations, produce hard-hitting media, and keep applying pressure where others hesitate or stay silent.
If you’d like to join us in this record breaking month you can do so by clicking here.
