BIG BROTHER CORPORATION

Broadcaster vows to track down people who write ‘offensive’ posts about its stars… then tell their boss

THE BBC has threatened to inform the employers of people who make online comments about the Corporation that officials deem are ‘offensive or inappropriate’.

The draconian policy means viewers who post vitriolic remarks about BBC personalities such as Laura Kuenssberg or Mary Beard could find complaints sent to their bosses by Corporation spies.

But last night the ‘Big Brother’ tactics outlined in the broadcaster’s privacy policy were branded a ‘chilling’ attack on freedom of speech by campaigners.

Critics say what BBC officials regard as inappropriate may differ from that which offends others.

The row comes as large numbers of viewers give the BBC their name, date of birth and home address in order to use the iPlayer on-demand service.

An amended version of the Corporation’s Privacy and Cookies Policy reads: ‘If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content anywhere on or to BBC websites or otherwise engage in any disruptive behaviour on any BBC service, the BBC may use your personal information to stop such behaviour.

‘ Where t he BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws ( eg because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour.’

It raises the question of whether criticism of BBC figures such as political editor Ms Kuenssberg, historian Mary Beard or Bake Off finalist Ruby Tandoh could have led to action.

Ms Tandoh said she was savaged on Twitter by ‘misogynist’ trolls when she was on the show in 2013. Chef Raymond Blanc suggested the ex-model was ‘too thin to enjoy good food’ but later apologised.

Ms Kuenssberg was targeted last year by Jeremy Corbyn supporters, with one woman accusing her of biased reporting and having a ‘snarling countenance’ whenever she mentioned the Labour leader.

Cambridge professor Ms Beard was branded a ‘filthy old sl**’ by student Oliver Rawlings in 2013, but she forgave him after he offered to buy her lunch.

The document also shows the BBC plans to use viewers’ details to target them with marketing messages on third-party services such as Facebook, Twitter and Google.

Jo Glanville, of writer’s organisa- tion English PEN, which campaigns for freedom of expression, said: ‘The BBC risks setting itself up as a policeman and nanny without any clarity as to how it proposes to safeguard personal data or the public’s right to exchange ideas, opinions and information without censure.

‘The BBC’s policy poses a chill on freedom of expression and risks the misuse of personal data. On what basis is the BBC going to decide when content is offensive, inappropriate or objectionable – none of which is illegal?

‘And how do they propose to “stop such behaviour” without misusing personal data or undermining freedom of expression?’

The Corporation policy, which a spokesman said was ‘ standard’, does not clearly define what constitutes ‘disruptive behaviour’.

Tom Slater, of Spiked magazine, said the move ‘should concern anyone who believes in free speech’.

He added: ‘The definitions are so broad. “Objectionable” according to whom? That anyone could draft this without getting flashes of Nineteen Eighty-Four is beyond me.’

Defending the BBC, Prof Beard said: ‘The important point for me is that this is in the end a judgment call. Written guidelines have a habit of looking either too weak or too strong; it all depends on the good judgment of the person or persons interpreting the rule, on deciding what counts as offensive. In my own experience the BBC has tended to show good judgment.’

A senior BBC source said they were not aware of any occasion when an employer had been contacted, and said it applied to ‘serious breaches of the law’, though it is not phrased that way. The source refused to reveal how the BBC decides what is ‘offensive’ and did not comment on the process for contacting a user’s employer.

‘Who will decide that content is inappropriate?’