http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/policies/prog ... text.shtmlInside Out
BBC Two ( Yorkshire and Lincolnshire) , 6 and 13 January 2003
The complaint to the Head of Programme Complaints maintained that reporting in the above programmes
about the boot camp Casa by the Sea was biased and represented a threat to the safety of British
children.
In two short films, Inside Out told the story of a mother and daughter, Sarah and Suzie El Madawi. It told
how the teenager was so rebellious that her mother was willing to find a draconian solution, which meant
sending her to a boot camp in Mexico called Casa by the Sea. .
In particular, the complainant maintained that:
Casa by the Sea was one of an integrated group of companies under the umbrella of the World Wide
Association of Specialty Programs and Schools ( commonly known as WWASP) . He went on to detail
allegations about a range of inhumane practices, bullying and abuse, including brainwashing, practised at
WWASP facilities. In contrast, the overall impression given by the programmes was that, although the
regime at Casa was strict, the camp was a life-enriching therapeutic experience .
The only allusion to WWASP made in the programme was a brief glimpse at the website, while no
reference was made to any of the serious allegations made against either Casa by the Sea or any other
WWASP facilities.
Although this was a personal view programme , it failed to challenge appropriately the impression given
of the conditions in the camp and the treatment of the children, given that the programme makers knew,
or should have known about the allegations concerning the facility. . In particular the complainant was
concerned that the teenager, Suzie, might have been brainwashed herself, and so her account should not
have been taken at face value.
Most UK parents would not have been aware of the existence of such a facility, and might have been
tempted to use it as a result of the items.
The Head of Programme Complaints did not uphold the complaint on the grounds that:
The purpose of the programme was to provide an account of one particular case, and the parental
dilemma faced by the mother Sarah El Madawi. In summary, this was that she felt her daughter would be
lost to her, and would be dragged into homelessness, drugs and even prostitution, unless drastic action
were taken.
The programme left viewers in no doubt about the toughness of the regime at Casa by the Sea, with
enforced silence, dreary punishments and relentless schooling and physical punishment.
The programme producer, Lucy Hester, had been aware of the allegations relating to this type of camp,
and she and the crew were on the alert during the period they spent at Casa by the Sea. At the end of five
days filming, , she had heard nothing about physical mistreatment perpetrated against the girls. Indeed, she
was impressed by the attitude, confidence and niceness of the girls; by the affection between them and the
monitor mothers ; and by the testimonies of parents who attended the certification ceremony.
It was difficult to refute the allegation that the girl s account could not be relied on because of the
brainwashing. The Head of Programme Complaints was, however, satisfied that the producer had not
been brainwashed and had given him a balanced account of conditions at Casa by the Sea. This account
did not substantiate the concerns raised by the complainant in relation to the facility or the treatment of
the girls.
The complainant appealed to the Governors Programme Complaints Committee. .
The Committee s decision
The Committee took the view that the two items had been appropriately framed. It noted that the aim was
to reflect the experience of the mother and the daughter, and not to provide a far-reaching investigation of
the camp concerned. It considered that the items had given a fair reflection of the child s experiences.
It noted the complainant s concern that the programme had failed to alert other parents viewing the
programme to the controversies surrounding such camps. It considered, however, that such information was
available on the internet to parents who were taking an active interest in the camp. This had not, therefore,
represented a serious breach of the programme s responsibilities.
The appeal was not upheld.
