BBC Scotland take 42 days to find a sentence to use in responding to complaint about coverage of alleged hospital deaths but carefully do not mention the very next one – ‘it is our view that, even without the infection, their survival would still have been uncertain’

Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland

Click on the above.

Or direct bank transfer at Sort Code 08-91-04 Account - 12266421 Name - JOHN ROBERTSON
No tasteless, exploitative and titillating images of dead children required here.

On January 19th 2026, I sent this complaint to the BBC regarding their coverage of the QEUH water supply infections:

10 days later, they apologised for the delay in responding. In my experience, they never meet their 10 day target, suggesting they’re under pressure from unhappy viewers in greater numbers than before.

28 days later, this:

We are writing to apologise that we’ve not been able to reply to your complaint within the 10 working days we aim for. While we manage this for most complaints, unfortunately it’s not always possible and we are sorry that a response to your complaint is now overdue.  We will respond as soon as we can, and we appreciate your understanding.

Yesterday, 42 days later:

Goodness knows how many hours of staff time and cost later, they offer this:

In our coverage, the use of the word ‘fatal’ to describe the infections refers to the fact that the Case Note Review, ordered by the Scottish Government in 2020, found that “the deaths of 2 of the 22 children and young people who had died by the time of the publication of this report were, at least in part, the result of their infection.” We are satisfied that our reporting at the time was accurate and fair.

Does ‘at least in part, the result of their infection‘ justify the term ‘fatal infections?’ Wouldn’t they have had to be more central like the completely ‘fatal’ cancer and sepsis?

Second, here is the full paragraph in the Case Note Review, from which BBC Scotland triumphally plucked their sentence but from which they, oh so carefully, ignored the second, upon which reading of the first is utterly dependent:

We found that the deaths of 2 of the 22 children and young people who had died by the time of the publication of this report were, at least in part, the result of their infection. Both of these children also had other serious medical problems and it is our view that, even without the infection, their survival would still have been uncertain.

Finally, the inquiry report does not name the 2 children above, obviously, so we cannot say who they are. Nevertheless, in the BBC report there is a large image of one child with her mother, strongly implying that she is one of these two.

It reminds me of the dread Anas Sarwar in a TV election debate shouting ‘What about M…!?’ at FM Nicola Sturgeon.

Source: https://www.gov.scot/publications/queen-elizabeth-university-hospital-case-note-review-overview-report/

Please Support Talking-up Scotland at:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/support-talking-up-scotland

Click on the above.

Or direct bank transfer at Sort Code 08-91-04 Account - 12266421 Name - JOHN ROBERTSON

Discover more from Talking-up Scotland

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

2 thoughts on “BBC Scotland take 42 days to find a sentence to use in responding to complaint about coverage of alleged hospital deaths but carefully do not mention the very next one – ‘it is our view that, even without the infection, their survival would still have been uncertain’

  1. What about the pigeons in the water tank supply? 🙂 Have they given up on that line (which was strongly promulgated at the time these allegations were made in the Scottish papers and TV)?

    Like

  2. AI
    “Propaganda avoids ambiguity.

    Instead of:

    “Study Suggests Possible Link”

    It says:

    “Study Proves Harmful Effects”

    Certainty increases perceived authority.”

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.