Disinformation and the BBC (Part 1)

This website was set up to counter the calumnies about Dr Halliday Sutherland perpetrated by the disciples, biographers and hagiographers of Dr Marie Stopes.

In 2014, I complained about the BBC’s history website which perpetuates the “Catholics against contraceptives” trope:

In 1921, Stopes opened a family planning clinic in Holloway, north London, the first in the country. It offered a free service to married women… The Catholic church was Stopes’s fiercest critic. In 1923, Stopes sued Catholic doctor Halliday Sutherland for libel.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stopes_marie_carmichael.shtml viewed 5 March 2023.

On that occasion, before any changes could be agreed to, the page was “archived” and it continues to misinform today.

Since then, the BBC has loudly trumpeted the resources it puts into fighting disinformation so, when I heard them broadcast false information in December 2020, I had renewed hope that they would correct it. The timeline and correspondence is set out below.

17 November 2020 – Broadcast

Professor Lesley Hall was interviewed by Emma Barnett on BBC Radio Five Live.

21 December 2020 Letter – MHS to BBC

on 21 December 2020, I wrote to the BBC:

Dear Sir / Madam,

Complaint in relation to The Emma Barnett Show 17^th November 2020.

I am writing to complain about an incorrect statement on the Emma Barnett Show on 17^th November 2020. I have set out my complaint following the framework for online complaints.

What is your complaint about? BBC Sounds.

Which Radio Station is your complaint about? BBC Radio Five Live.

What is the subject of your complaint? Stating that Marie Stopes had “very little” to do with eugenics is false and misleading.

The complaint: On 17 November 2020, Emma Barnett interviewed Lesley Hall on the subject of Marie Stopes. Hall is well-known as an expert on Stopes. The final question of the interview was: “Do we know why she [i.e. Stopes] was so committed to offering as she puts it reproductive choices, was it anything to do with eugenics?”

Hall’s answer was: “Very little… it was basically about enabling women to control their health and space out… to have healthy babies… she was very much about healthier babies and she saw that basically about enabling women to, you know, control their own motherhood and have space babies out and to be able to be better mothers.”

It is patently false to say that Stopes’ work had “very little” to do with eugenics. The fact is that Stopes’ Mothers’ Clinic (opened Holloway in 1921) was a eugenic project that sought to implement eugenic breeding in Britain. The evidence for this is:

Firstly, in 1921, Stopes set up the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress. Its eugenic aims were outlined in the Tenets of the C.B.C., reproduced in Appendix C of Aylmer Maude’s 1924 book The Authorized Life of Marie C. Stopes (Page 222. You can access a copy of the book at: https://archive.org/details/b29977587/page/222/mode/2up).

The Tenets contain both positive and negative eugenic aims including this one: “We say that there are unfortunately many men and women who should be prevented from procreating children at all, because of their individual ill-health, or the diseased and degenerate nature of the offspring that they may be expected to produce.”

“Who should be prevented from procreating children at all” make it clear that those whom Stopes deemed inferior would not have reproductive choice.

Secondly, on 22^nd February 1923, Dr Stopes testified under oath in the High Court. She stated:

“The object of the Society is, if possible, to counteract the steady evil which has been growing for a good many years of the reduction of the birth rate just on the part of the thrifty, wise, well-contented, and the generally sound members of our community, and the reckless breeding from the C3 end, and the semi-feebleminded, the careless, who are proportionately increasing in our community because of the slowing of the birth rate at the other end of the social scale. Statistics show that every year the birth rate from the worst end of our community is increasing in proportion to the birth rate at the better end, and it was in order to try to right that grave social danger that I embarked upon this work.”

The term “C3” originated from army recruitment stations. While “A1” designated the best recruits, “C3” referred to the worst of the worst recruits, rejected on mental and physical grounds.

Stopes’ statement that “it was in order to try to right that grave social danger that I embarked upon this work” makes her eugenic motivation explicit. The Court transcript was reproduced in The Trial of Marie Stopes, M. Box editor, Femina Books (1967), page 50.

Thirdly, the logo of the Mothers’ Clinic

While “joyous and deliberate motherhood” encompasses the spacing of babies, the illumination of “our racial darkness” is undoubtedly eugenic.

Fourthly, the brand-name of the cervical caps dispensed at Stopes’ Mothers’ Clinic: “ProRace” and “Racial” brands.

Fifthly, could be argued that providing poor women with contraceptives would indeed give them reproductive choice (I will leave aside the unreliability of Stopes’ cervical caps as contraceptives and her falsification of statistics as to their efficacy).

Yet Stopes advocated that those she considered to be inferior be compulsorily sterilised and, in such cases, “choice” would have been exercised by the state had the laws Stopes’ campaigned for been enacted. The language Stopes used to designate such people was wide-ranging and hateful, so much so that it led Zoe Williams of The Guardian to comment: “Her eugenics programme was actually slightly to the right of Hitler’s, just because her definition of defective is so broad.” (See: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/sep/02/marie-stopes-right-birth-control)

At the National Birth Rate Commission in 1918 Stopes said that “hopelessly bad cases, bad through inherent disease, or drunkenness or character” should be sterilised. Note that “inherent disease” included conditions that would be today considered infectious rather than inherited, such as tuberculosis.

In Chapter 20 of her 1920 book Radiant Motherhood, Stopes urged Parliament to pass laws to achieve this (you can view the book at: https://archive.org/details/radiantmotherho00stopgoog/page/n264/mode/2up) and lobbied candidates standing in the November 1921 general election.

Stopes send a copy of Radiant Motherhood to Prime Minister Lloyd George, highlighting the passages on sterilisation. In the accompanying letter, she urged Frances Stevenson, George’s personal secretary, to get him to read these passages.

In the sixth edition of her book Wise Parenthood, Stopes recommended the use of the experimental Gold Pin or Spring for “C3 mothers” as an alternative to sterilisation (you can view the book at: https://archive.org/details/cihm_990552/page/n51/mode/2up).

In summary, all of this evidence originates from the actions and words of Dr Stopes herself. All of it reveals Stopes’ eugenic intent and makes a nonsense of Hall’s statement that her work had “very little” to do with eugenics.

This is a serious issue. History matters and that the BBC is seen as a reliable source for information. I would suggest that an appropriate remedy would be to broadcast an interview which reveals the eugenic aspects of Stopes’ work.

Select the best category to describe your complaint? Factual error and inaccuracy.

What is the programme title? The Emma Barnett Show.

When was it broadcast? 17^th November 2020.

How did you listen to the programme? On BBC Sounds.

Roughly how far into the programme did the issue occur? The interview began at 1 hour 52 minutes into the show. The false statement was made at 1 hour 59 minutes and 9 seconds.

Do you require a response to your complaint? Yes please.

6 January 2021 E-mail – BBC to MHS

On 6th January 2021 the BBC told me that they would not address the issues I raised because I had not complained within the specified time.

Reference CAS-6476603-Y6Y7X9

Dear Mr Sutherland,

Thank you for contacting us regarding The Emma Barnett Show as broadcast on November 17 2020 on BBC Radio 5 Live.

We regret that we are not able to offer a response to your complaint at present, as it does not currently meet the requirements of our framework.

We’re not able to proceed at the moment as we can only respond to complaints made within 30 working days of the date on which the content was broadcast.

For future reference, it may be useful to read the BBC Complaints Framework on our website, which explains the terms of our service: [url to access the BBC Complaints Framework]

Thanks, once again for taking the time to contact us.

Kind regards,

The person who had patronisingly suggested “it may be useful to read the BBC Complaints Framework” was himself not familiar with the framework, so I wrote back.

7 January 2021 website message form – MHS to BBC

I refer to [name redacted]’s e-mail dated 6/1/21 which suggested that my complaint (Case number CAS-6476603-Y6Y7X9) was out of time.
I do not agree because:
1. My letter dated 21/12/20 indicated that my complaint was about BBC Sounds.
2. The Emma Barnett Show on 17/11/20 was available on BBC Sounds until 17/12/20.
3. Page 12 of the BBC Complaints Framework it states: “Complaints about BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds should be made within 30 working days of the content ceasing to be available.”
3. My complaint was made on 21 December 2020, a few days after the content ceasing to be available, so was well “within 30 working days  of the content ceasing to be available.”
Please would you address the substantial issues of my complaint.

9 January 2021 E-mail – BBC to MHS

On 9 January I received this reply from the BBC Complaints Team:

Reference CAS-6476603-Y6Y7X9

Dear Mr Sutherland,

Thanks for getting back in touch with us about the Emma Barnette [sic] programme. We’re sorry that you felt our previous response wasn’t satisfactory and we’d like to offer a further response to address your concerns.

I’ve checked the points you’ve raised and can appreciate why you weren’t satisfied with our initial response. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Before I offer a response, I also want to thank you for the vast amount of information you included in your original correspondence, such as specific details on what was said, when it was said and why you felt you needed to get in touch about this. All of this helps identify the issue quickly and bring about a speedy response, which under the circumstances above, we unfortunately didn’t deliver on. But I wanted to point out that this type of specific information is extremely helpful – namely at the bottom of page 3 – for our department when researching listener concerns.

With regards to the issue at hand, I’ve listened to the programme and Lesley was challenged about Marie Stope’s views, such as contacting Adolf Hitler and whether it was right to drop her name from the organisation. In fact, there was quite a lot of ground to cover and a lot of questions to get through. As you noted, the one on eugenics came at the end and Emma was able to squeeze it into the thirty seconds remaining. When the time arrived to close the interview, Emma was unable to provide any further challenges and moved on. It’s unfortunately not always possible to challenge every comment or claim made in a live interview.

Having said that, when Lesley responded ‘very little’ to Emma’s question, she added that this was due to Marie wanting the best for the mother and to give them a choice of motherhood. This appeared this tied back into eugenics and it might have been something Emma would’ve picked up on had she more time. Overall, the audience would’ve heard what was said and they can then make up their own minds on Lesley’s opinions. At no point did Emma take a stance on the matter or imply her guest’s response was factually accurate.

Nonetheless, we do value your feedback about this issue. As all complaints are made available to senior management and programme teams via our overnight feedback report, your comments were included your for their attention.

This report helps ensure the right people have seen audience feedback quickly and it can help shape the future of our programming output. In this case, it can help the programme team see where you felt the necessary improvements could’ve been made.

Thanks for getting touch and apologies once again for any disappointment caused with our previous response.

Kind regards,

I would have been happy for my complaint to be included in the “overnight feedback report” had this been the first time the BBC had got things wrong in relation to Dr Sutherland and Dr Stopes. It isn’t, so I expressed my disatisfaction as follows:

11 January 2021 Letter – MHS to BBC

Dear [name redacted],

BBC Complaints – Case number CAS-6476603-Y6Y7X9.

Thank you for your e-mail dated 9^th January 2021. Thank you too for acknowledging that the information in my letter dated 21^st December 2021 had assisted you to provide a speedy response.

I am writing to inform you that I am not satisfied with the response, and outline the reasons below:

ONE — At various times in your e-mail of 9^th January, you referred to Emma Barnett’s conduct (for example “at no point did Emma take a stance on the … ”). My complaint was not about Ms Barnett’s conduct, so I do not see the relevance of these statements. While we are on the topic, I think that Emma Barnett is an outstanding presenter and interviewer.

TWO — I take issue with your statement that Dr. Hall’s additional remarks tied her answer back to eugenics. While “wanting the best for the mother and giving them choice” could be said to be eugenic, these examples are not representative of the scope of Dr. Stopes’ eugenic goals, her commitment to them, nor to her stature as a leader in the eugenic movement. Stopes was a lifelong eugenicist: she joined the Eugenics Education Society in 1912[1] and, on her death in 1958, left her Clinic to the Eugenics Society[2]. She was President of the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress for 37 years.

Further, “wanting the best for the mother and giving them choice” are positive[3] eugenic measures, so the significant effort that Stopes put into campaigning for negative eugenic measures are not represented, including:

• Her advocacy of compulsory sterilisation of the so-called “C3s” and lobbying politicians (including Prime Minister Lloyd George) to these ends.
• Her advocacy of the dangerous and experimental “gold pin” (or “gold spring”) for “C3” women as an effective substitute to surgical sterilisation.
• The hateful language she used to described those she considered defective: “hopelessly bad cases, bad through inherent disease,[4] or drunkenness or character; “wastrels, the diseased… the miserable [and] the criminal”; the “degenerate, feeble minded and unbalanced”; “parasites,” “wastrels,” “the spawn of drunkards” to name a few).[5]

THREE While I was pleased to read that you valued my feedback and that my comments were included in the Overnight Feedback Report, I do not think this is sufficient in the circumstances.

Firstly, because the material for public consumption frequently omits[6], obfuscates or trivialises[7] Stopes’ eugenic agenda.

Secondly, information framed as “comments” is not as compelling as information identified as verified historical fact.

Thirdly, it is likely that the BBC will broadcast further interviews about Dr Stopes in the very near future. On 4^th March 2021 a book that discusses Stopes’ work[8] will be republished as a paperback and on 17^th March 2021 the centenary of the opening of Britain’s first birth control clinic (Stopes’ Mothers’ Clinic at 61 Marlborough Road, Holloway) will be marked.

Clearly, more needs to be done! I would refer the BBC to the work of University College London in ensuring that eugenic history is not whitewashed because (1) it disrespects the memory of the victims of British eugenics[9] and (2) it is hurtful to the Britons who are descended from those who survived British eugenics.

A suggestion to resolve this complaint.

I suggest that the BBC takes reasonable steps to ensure that, when the life and work of Dr. Marie Stopes are likely to be discussed, their staff are appropriately briefed on her eugenic agenda that I raised in my letter dated 21^st December 2021. Given that Woman’s Hour is likely to host such interviews and that Emma Barnett now presents the show, this should not be too difficult to arrange.

I appreciate that it is not possible to correct or challenge every statement made by an interviewee, but this small measure would reduce the chance that such incidents will recur.

Finally, on a procedural point, Page 24 of the Framework states: “The BBC’s response will direct you to information about how to take your complaint further if you are not satisfied with the reply.” Given that your response (and, for that matter, Ms Leonard’s) did not direct me to this information, I am not sure what stage we are at in the Framework. I have raised this to provide constructive feedback and so that I am not disadvantaged on this procedural point if I have used the wrong form.

I look forward to your response. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Yours faithfully,

---

[1] Eugenics and Politics in Britain 1900-1914 (1976) G.R. Searle, Leyden Noordhoff International Publishing, page 102.

[2] The Activities of the Eugenics Society (1968) Shenk, Faith and Parkes, F.A. printed in the September 1968 edition of the Eugenics Review , pages 142-161 (available online at https:// http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2906074/pdf/eugenrev00003-0012.pdf).

[3] In the context of eugenics, the terms “positive” and “negative” are used in the sense of “encouraging or facilitating” and “prohibiting or forbidding” respectively.

[4] “Inherent disease” included conditions that eugenicists thought were primarily caused by heredity. One of these was Consumption (tuberculosis of the lungs) which was a disease of poverty that killed 50,000 Britons each year in those times.

[5] Such language led Zoe Williams of The Guardian to comment: “Her eugenics programme was actually slightly to the right of Hitler’s, just because her definition of defective is so broad.” (See: https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2011/sep/02/marie-stopes-right-birth-control)

[6] For instance: the BBC History at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/stopes_marie_carmichael.shtml

[7] Dr Stopes’ eugenics are typically trivialised in four anecdotes: the letter to Hitler, Mary Barnes-Wallis’s glasses, spacing babies and an unpublished doggerel poem (“Catholics, Prussians, Jews and Russians are a curse, or something worse”).

[8] Difficult Women by Helen Lewis.

[9] These include the 10,000 children who died each year from drinking tuberculous milk (See: Consumption: Its Cause and Cure (1917) an Address by Dr. Halliday Sutherland. https://hallidaysutherland.com/research/consumption-its-cause-and-cure/).

12 February 2021 E-mail – BBC to MHS

On 12 February I received this reply by email:

Your Reference CAS-6476603-Y6Y7X9

Thank you for taking time to contact us again recently. Please do not reply to this automated email: it is from an outgoing address which cannot handle replies.

This is to inform you that although we normally aim to investigate and reply at this next stage of the complaints service within 20 working days (around four weeks), we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases. This means it will take a little longer to reply to you at present. We hope you understand that this is why we are unable to respond within our normal service times. We will of course do so as soon as we can, but in the meantime ask you not to contact us further and apologise if you experience further delay.

For full details of our complaints process please visit: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint.

In the meantime thank you again for contacting us and we appreciate your patience.

Kind regards

BBC Complaints Team

11 March 2021 E-mail – BBC to MHS

On 11th March I received this reply:

Reference CAS-6476603-Y6Y7X9

Dear Mr Sutherland,

Thank you for contacting us about your complaint. Throughout the interview, and in the cue line, we made it clear that there were issues and controversies surrounding Marie Stopes. The entire reason for this interview was to show how the charity was distancing itself from her name. We aimed to provide some history and examine why what might have seemed to be simple rebranding, was in fact more complicated. We did not suggest she was a hero, and we asked clear questions which revealed the question marks around her behaviour.

This was the cue. “One of the world’s leading organisations in providing contraception and safe abortion services across the world is changing it’s name. Marie Stopes International will be rebranded as MSI Reproductive Choices in an attempt to break its association with the family planning pioneer. Marie Stopes opened Britain’s first clinic offering birth control advice to married women in 1921. In recent years, however, her family planning work has been overshadowed by her association with the eugenics movement.” We did run out of time for the interview, and it is not always possible to challenge or explore every comment.

We now consider we’ve responded in as much detail as we can at this first stage of the complaints process, and regret we cannot investigate new points raised about it.

For these reasons I’m afraid we cannot correspond with you further at this first stage of the complaints process. If however you are still dissatisfied, you can contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process.

Details of the BBC complaints process are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ where you can read the BBC’s full complaints framework. You should contact the ECU within 20 working days of receiving this reply. You will need to explain why you believe there may have been a potential breach of standards or other significant issue for it to investigate.

If you wish to contact the ECU, we have provided a unique url link for you in this email. This will open up further information about how to submit your complaint. The link will then not work after you have submitted your complaint. You will be asked for the case reference number we have provided in this reply.

This is your link to contact the ECU if you wish: [unique url link redacted]

Kind regards

BBC Complaints 

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address.

16 March 2021 E-mail – BBC to MHS

I used the unique url (see paragraph above) to escalate the matter to the Executive Complaints Unit. Their e-mail of 16 March 2021 quoting my message:

I am not satisfied with the responses I have received from the BBC. Indeed, your correspondence to date suggests that my complaint is not being taken seriously.

For instance, the e-mail dated 6th January stated, incorrectly, that I was out of time. Fortunately, I knew the BBC’s complaints procedure better than your employee. Again, neither e-mail of the 6th and the 9th of January informed me of the appeal process.

Your e-mails raised points that were not relevant to my complaint. For instance, the e-mail of 9th January referred to Emma Barnett’s conduct (“at no point did Emma take a stance on the…”), which was irrelevant, because I had not complained about Ms Barnett’s conduct.

When, in your e-mail dated 11th March, I read: “we did not suggest she was a hero, and we asked clear questions which revealed the question marks around her behaviour,” I began to wonder if the writer had read the correspondence because (again) these statements were irrelevant. When, in the same e-mail, I read “it is not always possible to challenge or explore every comment,” I knew that he (or she) had not, given my letter of 11th January had stated “I realise that it is not possible to correct or challenge every statement made by an interviewee”.

My complaint was that the statement that Marie Stopes had “very little” to do with eugenics was false and misleading and I provided evidence to show that this was not a matter of opinion, but of fact.

I did not focus on an inerview [sic] that has passed and which could not be corrected. Given that Stopes is a frequently-discussed figure in British history, I pointed out that she would be discussed again and for this reason I focused on what could be done in the future to prevent the same thing recurring. These included, for example, the suggestion that you broadcast an interview that covered Stopes eugenic agenda, or that you took steps to ensure that key staff were properly briefed. Lamentably, these positive suggestions have been ignored in all of your correspondence.

I have drawn your attention to the nature, scope and extent of Dr. Marie Stopes’ eugenic work. I have touched on the harm caused by the eugenics and scientific racism of 100 years ago. I have taken care to ensure that not only has the evidence been brought to your attention, but that you could easily access source documents without very much effort. I have drawn your attention to material which shows that Stopes eugenic agenda has been omitted, obfuscated, or trivialised, including by the BBC itself.

I am appealing to the Executive Complaints Unit so that the issues I have raised can be properly addressed.

30 March 2021 E-mail/letter – BBC to MHS

On 30 March I received an email from the executive complaints unit which attached a signed letter with their final response:

Mr M Sutherland

Email: [e-mail address redacted]

Ref: CAS-6476603

30 March 2021

Dear Mr Sutherland

Emma Barnett, Radio 5 Live, 17 November 2020

I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Executive Complaints Unit’s investigation into your recent complaint about an interview on the above edition of the radio programme presented by Emma Barnett. As you know, the programme spoke to Dr Lesley Hall, a research fellow at the Wellcome Library, about the decision of Marie Stopes International to drop the name of its founder and rebrand itself as MSI Reproductive Choices.

I have understood you to say “It was patently false [for Dr Hall] to say that Stopes’ work had ‘very little’ to do with eugenics”. I have therefore listened to the relevant part of the programme and considered whether the interview with Dr Hall met the BBC’s standards for due accuracy which are set out in the Corporation’s Editorial Guidelines.

I do not believe there are grounds to uphold your complaint but I hope I can explain why I have reached this decision. I appreciate you have also made some suggestions for future broadcasts and staff training but since these fall outside of the remit of this Unit, I hope you can appreciate why it would be inappropriate for me to comment on, or act upon, your proposals.

Your complaint about the Radio 5 Live programme rests on a comment made by Dr Hall at the end of a seven and a half minute interview and had this been the only reference to Marie Stopes’ views on eugenics I might share your concern. However, her comment has to be judged in the context of the interview as a whole and, on that basis, I cannot agree listeners would have been given a seriously misleading impression of Marie Stopes’ position on eugenics or the extent to which it influenced her role in providing birth control and family planning advice to women.

I think it’s important to take account of the fact the entire interview was based on the controversy surrounding Marie Stopes and her support for eugenics. Emma Barnett began the interview by stating Marie Stopes International had decided to rebrand itself “in an attempt to break its association with the family planning pioneer”. She went on to explain this was because “the family planning network has been overshadowed by her association with the eugenics movement”. In the course of the interview, Ms Barnett raised the issue of eugenics a number of times and Dr Hall also acknowledged the controversial nature of Marie Stopes’ views. Dr Hall referred, for example, to the fact “she did have some rather dubious ideas about what was good and bad breeding” and suggested she held the kinds of views on the subject which, in her words, would make people now go “What?”. She told the story of Marie Stopes’ antipathy towards her daughter-in-law because she was short-sighted:

“She is going to give me grandchildren who are going to be wearing glasses, oh the horror. And it does sound, particularly with our own present views on the whole idea of eugenics, does sound very horrible.”

Emma Barnett asked Dr Hall directly if she thought the organisation’s decision to change its name was right or wrong. Dr Hall responded as follows:

“I think it’s probably reasonable to change the name now because I think she has had so much flak lately for the eugenics view that I think it might convey an impression to people using the service that would be misleading.”

I think it is reasonable to presume listeners would, therefore, understand concerns have been raised for many years about Marie Stopes’ views on eugenics and these concerns were regarded as so serious the organisation which bore her name decided to end its association with her.

I also think listeners to a news and current affairs programme such as this would recognise Dr Hall was expressing her informed opinion on the subject and would judge her comments accordingly. When Dr Hall said she thought Marie Stopes’ commitment to offering women “reproductive choices” had very little to do with her attitude towards eugenics, the audience would recognise she was giving a personal assessment based on her research, rather than stating an incontrovertible fact. As you will recall, Dr Hall said she believed Marie Stopes was motivated by “enabling women to control their health and space out children, to have healthier babies” rather than a commitment to selective breeding. Others may take a different view and I appreciate you have presented evidence which you believe proves Marie Stopes was motivated by “eugenic intent”. However, others such as Dr Hall apparently take the view Marie Stopes’ prime consideration was a desire to protect women from excessive childbirth and increase their knowledge about reproductive health. Disagreement between experts and different interpretation of evidence is, I think it is reasonable to say, a recognised part of academic and historic debate.

I accept it would have been interesting if there had been time for Ms Barnett to question Dr Hall’s position further and look at the evidence to support her opinion.

However, I cannot agree the audience would have been misled in any significant way when considering the content of the interview in its entirety. Listeners would have been in no doubt Marie Stopes held views which most today would regard as unacceptable.

There is no further right of appeal against this decision within the BBC’s complaints process but if you do wish to take the matter further, it is open to you to ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint. You can find details of how to contact Ofcom and the procedures it will apply at the following website: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a- complaint. You can also write to Ofcom at Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA, or telephone either 0300 123 3333 or 020 7981 3040.
Yours sincerely,

[Name redacted]

Complaints director

5 April 2021 E-mail – MHS to Ofcom

I reported the complaint to Ofcom and they confirmed receipt on 5 April 2021:

Title:

Mr

Forename:

Mark

Surname:

Sutherland

Contact phone number Address Email address:

Programme title:

The Emma Barnett Show on BBC Radio Five Live (17/11/2020 edition)

Date you watched, heard, downloaded or streamed programme:

18/11/2020

Time of broadcast (24 hour clock):

00:00

BBC Channel/ station/ website/ app on which the programme was seen or heard:

BBC Sounds / BBC Radio Five Live

Subject:

Stating that Marie Stopes advocacy of reproductive choices had “very little” to do with eugenics is false and misleading.

Description of original complaint:

On 17 November 2020, Emma Barnett interviewed Lesley Hall on the subject of Marie Stopes. Hall is well-known as an expert on Stopes. The final question of the interview was: “Do we know why she [i.e. Stopes] was so committed to offering as she puts it reproductive choices, was it anything to do with eugenics?”

Hall’s answer was: “Very little… it was basically about enabling women to control their health and space out… to have healthy babies… she was very much about healthier babies and she saw that basically about enabling women to, you know, control their own motherhood and have space babies out and to be able to be better mothers.”

It is patently false to say that Stopes’ work had “very little” to do with eugenics. The fact is that Stopes’ Mothers’ Clinic (opened Holloway in 1921) was a eugenic project that sought to implement eugenic breeding in Britain. At this point I referred to the words (spoken and written) by, the artefacts created by and the actions of Dr Marie Stopes herself. These included: the manifesto of her “Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress”, her testimony (under oath) to the High Court in 1923, the logo of the clinic, the brand names of her contraceptives, as well as other sources.

Reason for dissatisfaction with the outcome of the BBC’s final response:

A resolved complaint would have either been: (1) upheld, and the BBC learned from my communication or (2) denied, but was procedurally fair. Neither took place.

Instead, the BBC denied the complaint at every stage, introduced irrelevant material and did not even follow their own procedures.

This isn’t a “disagreement between experts”: it is a recognised expert on Dr Marie Stopes contradicting the words (spoken and written) and artefacts of Dr Marie Stopes – the very person whom is the subject of her expertise.

The BBC could have incorporated the evidence I presented into their biographical information on Stopes, to better brief staff in the future. Yet, apparently, nothing can be done!

For this reason I am appealing to Ofcom.

BBC Reference Number:

CAS-6476603

Date you submitted your complaint to the BBC:

21/12/2020

And that’s where I left it – I found the Ofcom website hard to follow.