Watchdog Tonight: Troy Refuses Interview

nigelbb

Hot_Bring wrote: »

And the BBC's responce to my complaint about not naming the PPCs ( seems pretty pathetic in my mind and has a smell of CAPITA about it ) :

"I discussed this directly with the programme team, who explained that whenever we investigate a company, we have to be able to justify why we are specifically looking at them instead of the others in their field. For example, if we were to examine one supermarket, we have to compare the number of complaints with the other leading supermarkets to make sure it is fair to single them out for criticism.
With the car parking firms, because so many of them operate on a local level, we don’t get the same volume of complaints as we do with major, nationwide brands. That means it becomes more difficult to justify singling out individual companies as being noticeably worse than the rest. In simple terms, that means we would have to discard their stories and not broadcast them, as it wouldn’t be possible to justify the public naming and shaming of them above others.
However, we can tell their story if we don’t name them, using the details to pass comment generically instead. This gives us breadth and allows us to investigate the industry as a whole, which was always the intention of last night’s report."

They could simply have named PCM-UK then added the disclaimer "Other scamming bullies are available".

atilla

Hot_Bring wrote: »

And the BBC's responce to my complaint about not naming the PPCs ( seems pretty pathetic in my mind and has a smell of CAPITA about it ) :

"I discussed this directly with the programme team, who explained that whenever we investigate a company, we have to be able to justify why we are specifically looking at them instead of the others in their field. For example, if we were to examine one supermarket, we have to compare the number of complaints with the other leading supermarkets to make sure it is fair to single them out for criticism.
With the car parking firms, because so many of them operate on a local level, we don’t get the same volume of complaints as we do with major, nationwide brands. That means it becomes more difficult to justify singling out individual companies as being noticeably worse than the rest. In simple terms, that means we would have to discard their stories and not broadcast them, as it wouldn’t be possible to justify the public naming and shaming of them above others.
However, we can tell their story if we don’t name them, using the details to pass comment generically instead. This gives us breadth and allows us to investigate the industry as a whole, which was always the intention of last night’s report."

Funny that.
They didn't have an issue singling out the aerial scammer

Hot_Bring

atilla wrote: »

Funny that.
They didn't have an issue singling out the aerial scammer

Nor did they have an issue naming the car manufacturers ( multiples of ) that had to recall cars for air bags faults. Strange that .....