This is a sample complaint, showing how the materials of Arguments Database - Ready Enough can be used to strengthen your Stage 2 Complaint, assuming you have mentioned A04. NHS Clinician Dr. Smith Bias and Inadequacy of comparison, A05. Unrepresentative NHS assessment, failing to challenge consensus and A06. Private practices misrepresentation and Material Misleading in your Stage 1B complaint.
<aside> 🙏 Please, use this as reference point for your own writing. Find the link to detailed Argument page under the text and process and adjust it to your beliefs, views and position.
</aside>
<aside> ✍️ Your intro
</aside>
Detailed, character-optimised (245 words, 1604 characters)
<aside> ✍️ The output contrasts NHS and private assessments in its entirety. It relies on an NHS assessment that was conducted with either full (as per Section 6.3.1 - Informed Consent) or partial (crews, professional cameras, lights) understanding of the content and purpose of the output. It also wasn't signposted as "Sector Recording" This is compared to secretly filmed and heavily edited private assessments, violating Sections 3.2.22 and 3.2.33 - Production Techniques, leading to a skewed perception.
This significantly breaches several Sections: 3.1 mandates accuracy in sourcing and evidence. 3.3.1 emphasises considering relevant opinions and facts to arrive at the truth, including fact-checking and contextualising claims, 3.3.8 requires using a range of evidence to assess statistical claims accurately. 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 concerning Due Weight, Impartiality, and Controversial Subjects, are also violated.
Reporter admits to informing Dr. Smith about the research before the assessment (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65534449): “I told him about my investigation and he said he also had concerns about how some private providers were operating. He agreed to show me how an assessment should be carried out.” Contrary to what was stated in the Stage 1B response. This undermines the credibility of the assessment as it was biased and unsuitable for comparison. Either that or BBC failed to follow Section 6.3.1 on consent, or if Stage 1 responses lied as well as sidestepping the direct address of the inadequacy of comparison in the output's foundation.
</aside>
Concise (139 words, 869 characters)
<aside> ✍️ Despite BBC responses in Stage 1, the NHS assessment as shown cannot be presented as “standard” and should not have been heralded as such. Focus on duration and offline nature contradicts the NHS statistics, where 1/3 is online and most are 90 minutes on average. The output doesn’t adequately challenge the consensus that the NHS assessment is correct and to question the credentials and affiliation of Dr. Smith, who was and is also practicing privately at the time, which jointly violates Section 4.3.15 - Consensus and Section Section 4.3.12 - Contributors’ Affiliation. Arguably, the output failed to adequately signpost Dr. Smiths’ views as Personal as mandated by Sections 4.3.28 - 4.3.29: “the opinion of a specialist or professional … can add to the public understanding and debate … such personal view content must be clearly signposted to audiences in advance”
</aside>
Detailed, character-optimised (306 words, 2101 characters)
<aside> ✍️ Output violates Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8 Accuracy and Gathering Material, 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 Due Weight by omitting that some private practices primarily employ former or part-time NHS clinicians, explicitly confirmed by AHDH Direct. Output also creates a misleading impression by heavily implying that online ADHD assessments are less reliable, when 1/3 of NHS ones are online.
Private clinics assessment service representation is biased. Output selectively includes only cases supporting a sensationalist theme and lacks adequate statistics as required by Section 3.3.16, instead relying on anecdotal evidence. There are consistent material misrepresentations of private assessments: "7 minutes and you have a prescription" with Harley Psychiatry whilst omitting the initial 53-minute assessment for a total of 1h. ADHD Direct appointment time of 3 hours (2 initial, 1 follow-up) were omitted as well, violating Sections 4.3.10 -11 3.3.22 as they collectively contribute to a materially misleading impression of events.
Former employees contributing to the output were not adequately questioned, and their dismissal cause was not corroborated as demanded by Section 6.3.12: "We should consider whether it is appropriate to make more in-depth checks about people who … are to make a significant contribution to the output”, including: “documentary evidence to validate their identity and story or qualifications and experience” and “corroboration from people other than those suggested by the contributor". None of these measures were adequately provided to the audience.
Output violates Sections 3.3.22-23 when discussing drugs and private practices. It is apparent in the way interviews are presented, as they are heavily edited, evidenced by the timestamp on the online call. This editing potentially portrays clinicians in a less favourable light, making them appear less attentive, focused, or professional than they actually were. Section 3.3.22 clearly states that "Commentary and editing must never be used to give the audience a materially misleading impression of events or a contribution."
</aside>
<aside> ✍️ Your outro
</aside>
Total: 690 words and 4574 characters. Rest are yours to adjust, rewrite, better tweak and adopt.
🚧 TODO