Corbett Family Statement in response to BBC Trust's final ruling publication 1st July 2009
Regarding "The Curse of Steptoe".

Since I last contacted your website (www.steptoe-and-son.com) over 15 months ago, Harry’s surviving relatives have been embroiled in a protracted complaints procedure with the BBC regarding ‘The Curse of Steptoe’. This morning, the BBC Trust published their final ruling regarding the programme, which can be viewed on their website at :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2009/may.pdf
If you are unable to view the above linked 'pdf' file, a free copy of adobe reader can be acquired by clicking HERE.

We would firstly like to point out that Harry’s daughter, Susannah, agreed to help the writer, Brian Fillis, after she was told that the BBC wanted to set the record straight following the fabricated documentary shown on Channel 4 in 2002 called ‘When Steptoe Met Son’. She was told that the drama would portray how Steptoe and Son came into being as well as life behind the scenes. At no point was there any mention of the drama being called ‘the curse’. Steptoe writers Ray Galton and Alan Simpson told us they “declined being involved with in the 2002 documentary as it was on the same subject of conflict between the actors, which they said did not to their knowledge exist”. They agreed to speak to Brian Fillis during pre-production of ‘The Curse of Steptoe’, and reiterated to him that there was no conflict between the actors, and told him not to make another programme to keep the myth going. Unfortunately, all the detailed factual information Susannah provided to the writer was ignored, with history being rewritten for the sake of a good story. Ray Galton and Alan Simpson have since spoken about the drama with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio 5 Live (15 January 2009). In response to the question “How accurate was it?”, Alan replied “Well, as far as we’re concerned, not at all. I mean, obviously we were with them all the years they were working, and they got on fine. There was nothing, no friction at all. They worked beautifully together.”

It might seem difficult to believe that the BBC could make a drama about real life events, and yet invent completely fictitious situations and storylines. Surprisingly, writers are afforded an enormous degree of ‘dramatic licence’, even conflating and inverting events which took place years apart in order to make it appear that they are somehow linked. It is interesting that the writer felt the need to interview Harry’s family before writing the drama, in order to make it appear that it was well researched, but afterwards the family’s opinions are doubted, and we are told that “it is regrettable that the writer’s interpretation of events is at odds with our own”! It is also interesting that the BBC were fully aware that fact and fiction were being combined in the drama, but were confident that viewers could discriminate between these events in the drama. We wonder how many viewers realised this at the time?

We provided the BBC Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) with a long list of specific inaccuracies (some of which I previously listed on this website), which the Executive Producer accepted were, in all cases but one, inaccurate, but that they all fell within the degree of dramatic licence permissible under BBC Guidelines. For a complaint to be upheld, inaccuracies must result in “material unfairness to the person portrayed” or “mislead the audience in important respects about the people and events being portrayed”. Using these two tests, most of our complaints were disregarded as ‘dramatic licence’. Nevertheless, the BBC conceded that some aspects of the drama were seriously inaccurate and unfair. They agreed that Harry did not have an affair with his second wife, Maureen, while married to his first wife, a depiction which was extremely hurtful to their family. They also agreed that it was misleading on an aspect of the narrative central to the audience’s interest in the drama, namely the impression given that Steptoe and Son came to an end as a result the birth of Harry’s son. The two events were separated by a period of 8 years (1966 to 1974) and completely unrelated. The BBC also upheld a separate complaint that the actor Phil Davis (who played Wilfrid Brambell), when interviewed on BBC Breakfast, failed to give the impression that the drama was not entirely factual (he claimed it was “all fact”), and was wrong to claim that Harry and Wilfrid hated each other. On this point, at least, the BBC have agreed that there was no hatred between the actors, but maintain that the drama failed to give that impression. We leave it to the viewers to decide for themselves.

As a result of our complaints, the BBC edited a small part of the drama concerning Harry’s separation from his first wife, and addressed the other issues by adding an on-screen caption. The drama was rebroadcast in December 2008.

In January 2009, we lodged an appeal with the BBC Trust. Over and above the complaints already upheld, they agreed that the drama was inaccurate and unfair to claim that Harry’s son was conceived as a result of a casual relationship. The scene where Maureen turns up on Harry’s doorstep, having to convince him that he is the father, was a disgraceful fabrication of the facts and totally unacceptable. The BBC Trust decided that the unfairness remained in the edited version. For the record, the final ten minutes of the drama were completely and utterly invented by the writer, presumably to try to bring the programme to a conclusion.

The BBC Trust went further, stating that although dramatic licence was permissible, the basics facts should remain the “essential truth”, a framework of accuracy onto which the dramatist could add fictional elements. In this respect, the writer, Brian Fillis, failed miserably. The BBC Trust thought that the programme team’s research was ‘deficient’ and ‘not as full as it might have been’, and that a greater element of journalistic rigour was required. They also warned that the use of on-screen captions “should not be regarded as a blank cheque for indiscriminate and excessive use of dramatic licence in a storyline”.

Looking at the broader picture, our complaint into ‘The Curse of Steptoe’ has presented the BBC with a dilemma about these types of dramas. Amazingly, there are no BBC guidelines for how recently deceased people are portrayed in drama. But as a result of our complaint, the BBC Trust are to meet with the BBC Executive and recommend that BBC Guidelines are revised to address dramas such as this, in particular the presentation of fact and the use of dramatic licence. If such guidelines had been in place before, ‘The Curse of Steptoe’ may never have been written.

Unfortunately for Harry, Wilfrid and their families, only time will tell whether the damage to their reputations can be undone. The myths perpetuated in the drama are rapidly becoming ‘common knowledge’. In an attempt to redress the balance, and in response to countless requests, we can exclusively reveal today that Harry’s biography is currently in preparation. Although people will continue to decide what to believe, we feel there is a need for Harry’s side of the story to be told. In our opinion, the BBC should be ashamed of their disgraceful treatment of Harry, particularly after all he did for the BBC and comedy drama and entertainment. Perhaps we should end by stating that after 18 months correspondence, with dozens of letters exchanged, we have not received a single word of apology from the BBC. An organisation which prides itself on integrity and impartiality? It is hard to believe sometimes.

From Simon Blott (Harry’s nephew)
On behalf of Harry H Corbett’s family