Safe Speed Forums

They're now (predictably) making me jump through yet another hoop. I received this response -

"Following on from my letter to you of 25 July, I was wondering whether you might be able to assist me in my investigation into your complaint.

I have now watched the programme a couple of times and discussed some of the broad issues with the producer. However, in order to address your complaint in detail, it would be extremely helpful if you were able to give me specific examples of where you felt the programme failed to give a balanced view."

Any ideas for a response ?

For example, one of the accidents covered by the programme involved
three friends walking home on an unlit country road in the dark, and one
of them had been hit by a car. The only view that the programme put
forward was that the driver's punishment should be increased. Nothing
was mentioned about the dangers of walking down an unlit road at
night-time and whether these people should have been there in the first
place.

But more than that, just in general there was no "devil's advocate" representative to provide an alternative viewpoint to that being put across by the programme's main interviewees. In a factual programme there should always be someone from both sides of the argument interviewed in order to provide a balanced viewpoint to viewers.