"Whilst I note the contents of Mr Reeve's version of events, I need to make the BBC's position clear in relation to Mr Reeve's departure. This position is set out below.

Mr Reeve's departure from GMR followed a radio broadcast in which he used a word which could be regarded as racially offensive. There was never any suggestion on the part of the BBC that Mr Reeve either holds or supports racist views, but it was a matter which GMR wished to discuss with Mr Reeve. The Head of Local and Regional Programmes and the local Editor were unable to do so satisfactorily on the day because Mr Reeve left the meeting. He subsequently failed to report for work.

After his departure from GMR, Mr Reeve commenced employment tribunal proceedings alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. Those proceedings were settled by our respective solicitors through ACAS and at Mr Reeve's suggestion, by the provision of a joint statement from the BBC and Mr Reeve."

• James's account is not a "version of events"; it is what happened.
• There is no mention of the accusation of using racist language off-air.
• There is no mention of James being told that his use of those words was "gratuitous".
• There is no mention of James being asked to provide a "defence".
• If there was no suggestion that James held or supported racist views, why was he asked to provide a "defence" for his use of those words?
• Does being asked to provide a defence amount to taking part in a "discussion"?
• The statement was not a joint statement, nor was it accepted in full and final settlement of the matter.

<Back to main page