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 A15. Unequal care for privacy of Contributors, A03. Lack of positive representation / ADHD voice + omitting testimonies, A02. Direct Harm / Lack of Careful Consideration, A07. Stimulant Medication Danger Misrepresentation / Fear-mongering and A17. Clear breach of numerous BBC and Ofcom Guidelines 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>
Concise, character-optimised (63 words, 432 characters)
<aside> ✍️ It violates Sections 5.39, 6.3.4, 6.3.18, 6.3.19, 7.3.14 as well as Guidance - Secret Recording and Anonymity. Team has anonymised the identities of certain private clinicians, leaving others exposed, without sufficient explanation, which can manifest racial or ethnic bias. It’s unclear identities were shown at all with no prima facie evidence against individuals presented and the investigation targeting the industry as a whole.
</aside>
Detailed (300 words, 2019 characters)
<aside> ✍️ BBC's Panorama episode on ADHD diagnostics breached the BBC Editorial Guidelines and caused measurable harm to the ADHD community. The program's exclusion of positive experiences with private clinics, which were shared with them in response to their inquires during their research, resulted in an unbalanced portrayal, skewing public perception. The most egregious violation is one of Section 4.3.25 - Impartiality and Audiences that expressly demands that BBC ensures that "responses should not be given a wider significance than they merit and we should take care not to misrepresent the relative weight of opinions expressed". Failure of the output to include a wide range of responses that was available to them is a further damning violation of various aspects of Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8 on Accuracy, Gathering Material, Statistics and Risk and 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 - Due Weight, Impartiality, Controversial Subjects.
Another significant violation of the BBC Editorial Guidelines was the lack of representation of people with ADHD in the episode. This contravened the principles outlined in the BBC Commissioning Guidelines, which emphasise the importance of including individuals directly impacted by the subject of the program. By excluding a broad range of people with ADHD and different experiences of obtaining the diagnosis from the episode, BBC disregarded the perspectives and experiences of the very individuals being discussed, further marginalising the ADHD community and perpetuating a biased narrative, which demonstrates a failure on BBC's part to bear it's responsibility to change industry practices and culture to be more inclusive and avoid failing disabled individuals. The lack of representation violated the principle of inclusive storytelling, as stated in Section 5 (Advocate) of the Commissioning Guidelines. This failure to include people with ADHD in the episode undermined the potential for an accurate, informative, and compassionate portrayal of ADHD and its impact on individuals' lives.
</aside>
Concise (145 words, 952 characters)
<aside> ✍️ The output breaches Section 1.2 of the Guidelines and causes measurable harm to people with ADHD (a vulnerable group). Casting doubts on the ADHD assessment process and inciting aspersions towards private treatment providers exacerbates stigma and fosters division. This narrative has already led to people with ADHD, who are 5 times more likely to attempt suicide and live on average 8-12 years fewer, questioning themselves and being questioned about their diagnoses, leading to mental, physical, and social health crises. The misinformation has resulted in measurable harm: increased rejection rate of shared care agreements, difficulties with workplace adjustments and more. The output has contributed to the public “being misled by statements or actions of individuals or organisations”, the very thing it sets out to prevent in Section 1.3. BBC's claim of offering support via a web page and helpline is grossly disproportionate to the harm done.
</aside>
Concise (88 words, 635 characters)
<aside> ✍️ The output blatantly violates Sections 3.3.22 - 3.3.23 Production Techniques and Sections 5.3.41 - 5.3.44 Representation of drugs. The editing, choice of commentary, “powerful drug” term and score throughout as well as unproportionally infrequent mention of stimulants being a recommended medication combined are failing in delivering important context, nuance and balance, resulting in negative perception, accusations of drug seeking and harm, violating Section 1.2. The output also failed to mention the titration process, which is a robust safeguard against adverse side effects and biologically incompatible or dangerous medicine.
</aside>
Concise, character-optimised (58 words, 406 characters)
<aside> ✍️ The output violates Sections 1.2, 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8, 4.3.2 - 4.3.8, and 3.3.22-23.
It unfairly targets and misrepresents private clinics, favours NHS assessment as the standard. Use of conversion %, online nature, and duration undermines private practices without context or corroboration for a balanced view.
The delay in correcting mistakes violates 3.3.28, causing measurable harm to people with ADHD.
</aside>
<aside> ✍️ Your outro
</aside>
Total: 654 words and 4,444 characters. Rest are yours to adjust, rewrite, better tweak and adopt.
🚧 TODO