C. H. ROLPH AND THE BBC
SIR,—The letter published in the Spectator dated December 18, 1959, and signed by Sir Alan Herbert and others, appears to be based on a misunderstand- ing of the facts. While the BBC would not want a statement of the facts to deter those who may wish to assist Mr. C. H. Rolph the Corporation feels that you may think that, in fairness, they should be made known to your readers.
Sir Alan and his co-signatories say that Mr. Rolph utilised material supplied to him for the purpose by the BBC and found himself subsequently penalised to the tune of £225 'because the material turned out to have been inaccurate.'
Mr. Rolph was not penalised for using inaccurate material supplied by the BBC. His liability arose out of misstatements made by him in a broadcast talk which were not present in the newspaper cuttings supplied to him, at his own request, by the BBC.
' A sum of £2,250 was paid as compensation in settlement of the case. The BBC paid £2,025 of this sum. Mr. Rolph agreed to contribute £225, which he is paying by way of instalments spread over two and a half years.—Yours faithfully,
M. G. rsaQuIsaasoN
[C. H. Rolph writes: 'All this happened thirteen months ago. From tlrat day to this I have never again seen the BBC's press cuttings, or had an opportunity to compare similar ones with an official transcript of the court proceedings. The atmosphere at the time of the settlement was: "Better get this agreed quickly, before any writs come in." I can't doubt that some of the comments I made would in fact be further mis- statements. What must be added, if "fairness" is to be served, is that the BBC admitted to my solicitor last February that I was "in good faith misled by the newspaper report." that "at the time the general press coverage was bad," and that I had "in the past done very good work for the Corporation and had always been both responsible and co-operative." It then demanded the f2.25:—Editor, .S'peciator.]
Previous page
