The Filipina living in London who claimed to be former dictator Ferdinand Marcos' daughter and has been cheating many Filipinos in the UK has lost a case with the British government broadcast regulator OFCOM against a Philippine TV channel
The Office of Communications (Ofcom) which controls and regulates television and radio broadcasts in the United Kingdom has rejected a complaint against Balitang Europe, produced by ABS-CBN and made against them by Helena Skeggs (above).
(Put this on your favorite social networking site to let others know)
COMMENTS MAY BE MADE AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS ARTICLE
Balitang Europe, along with Balita Pinoy, had exposed Skeggs' activities which included among other things getting "loans" and "investments" from Pinoys in the UK (and not repaying) on the basis that she was either the illegitimate or adopted daughter of Marcos. Her real name is Helena Pedroche and is originally from Pangasinan (Urdaneta).
Balita Pinoy had also investigated Skeggs after numerous Filipinos had complained about her. Although we were threatened by her lawyers (which we rejected), she did not attempt to take legal action, instead trying the softer option of complaining to Ofcom.
This is certainly because she would have been subjected to questioning under oath had she attempted a legal action through the courts.
Skeggs' complaints to Ofcom (which are reproduced in whole below with Ofcom's rejection along with a link to Balita Pinoy's original reportage) included that she was treated unfairly in the programmes, she was unfairly portrayed as a swindler and as having conned 50 people out of money lent to her, she was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, that no effort was made to contact her, that her privacy had been unwarrantably infringed and that photos of her were taken from her home without her consent.
Ofcom rejected all her complaints totally.
The entire judgement by Ofcom is extremely damaging to Skeggs. In attempting to get a favorable resolution from the British government's broadcast regulator, she (and her husband) were no doubt hoping to avoid a damaging inquiry into her activities. Unfortunately, this resolution by Ofcom has backfired in a spectacular way, as Ofcom have not only accepted Balitang Europe's evidence, at one point, Ofcom have clearly accepted that Skeggs' complaints reflect badly on her. This is shown thus:
- Mrs Skeggs was known by a number of different names: Helena Garcia Pedroche, Helena Marcos Skeggs and Mrs Helena Skeggs.
- Mrs Skeggs claimed to be: the illegitimate daughter of late former President Marcos, a millionairess, the daughter of an actress who became Miss Spain, an immigration adviser and a Virgin Atlantic pilot.
- Mrs Skeggs gained the trust of her creditors by: befriending them, telling them how rich she was, reinforcing the tales of her wealth by entertaining them at expensive restaurants and hotels and by giving them expensive gifts.
- Having gained their trust, Mrs Skeggs would: ask them for loans, borrow their credit cards or seek money to invest on the stock market for them.
- The reasons Mrs Skeggs gave for wanting the money were: that her aunt was suffering from cancer and she needed to pay for expensive treatment, she needed a short-term loan until the large inheritance she was due to receive came through or so she could invest on their behalf on the stock market.
- The reasons Mrs Skeggs gave for not repaying the monies were: her inheritance was so large the bank was holding it or that she was just awaiting funds to repay and would pay as soon as the money was released by the bank.
- Mrs Skeggs rarely denied she owed monies: she had admitted certain debts, signed a list of debts admitting sums due, agreed terms for repayment of other debts, said she would repay as soon as monies were released, promised repayment many times, did not appear to have contested County Court proceedings and Mr Skeggs had signed cheques in part payment.
- There were a number of creditors and large amounts due to them: 51 people from whom a total £542,890 had been borrowed, which with a year‟s interest at 10% amounted to £644,722.
The above excerpt directly copied from Ofcom's resolution (reproduced in full below) could not be more damaging to Skeggs.
Skeggs, along with her partner/husband Richard Skeggs, lives in a very expensively rented house in the millionaires row of Manor Road in Chigwell, a suburb north east of London.
Have you been affected by Helena Skeggs?
If so, click on the "Helena Skeggs Complaint" button below to let us know
Helena Skeggs Complaint
THE OFCOM RESOLUTION IN FULL
Ofcom Broadcast Bulletin, Issue 180
18 April 2011
Not Upheld
Complaint by Mrs Helena Skeggs
Balitang Europe, ABS-CBN News Channel, 13 and 20 September 2009
Summary: Ofcom has not upheld this complaint of unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy made by Mrs Helena Skeggs.
These programmes investigated allegations made by a number of London-based Filipinos that Mrs Helena Skeggs had borrowed over £600,000 from 50 Filipinos by making false claims, such as that she was a millionairess awaiting the arrival of funds or the illegitimate daughter of the former President Marcos. They said that they had been unable to recover the monies from her.
Mrs Skeggs complained that she was treated unfairly in the programmes as broadcast and that her privacy had been unwarrantably infringed in the making and the broadcast of the programmes.
In summary Ofcom found the following:
- The programmes did not present allegations about Mrs Skeggs in a way that was unfair to her.
- Mrs Skeggs was provided with an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the allegations made in the programmes.
- The programme makers were given photographs of Mrs Skeggs and her family by people who claimed to be owed money. The programme makers therefore did not infringe Mrs Skeggs‟ privacy in order to obtain the photographs and in the making of the programme.
- Mrs Skeggs‟ privacy was not unwarrantably infringed by the broadcast of photographs of her and/or her family. The photographs disclosed no personal or sensitive information about Mrs Skeggs and she did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to them.
Introduction
On 13 and 20 September 2009, ABS-CBN News Channel, a 24 hour news channel for the Philippines, broadcast two editions of Balitang Europe, a community news programme providing information for Filipinos in Europe. The programmes consisted of a two-part investigation into allegations that Mrs Helena Skeggs had borrowed substantial sums of money from 50 Filipinos in London which they had been unable to recover from her or her husband.
The programmes featured a number of people who said they had lent money to Mrs Skeggs, but had not been paid back. The programmes stated that the creditors had received cheques that bounced, including cheques issued by Mr Skeggs and/or Mr and Mrs Skeggs‟ company, that County Court judgments against Mrs Skeggs had not been satisfied and that she had not responded to complaints made to the Philippine Embassy in London.
In both programmes it was stated that the programme makers had tried to contact Mrs Skeggs to get her side of the story and in the programme broadcast on 20 September 2009 it was stated that representatives for Mrs Skeggs had informed the programme makers that Mrs Skeggs was going through a financial crisis, that she would be able to repay her debts soon, that the accusations against Mr and Mrs Skeggs were untrue and that in some cases they were owed money by the people making claims.
Mrs Skeggs did not participate in either programme, but both programmes broadcast a number of photographs of her, her partner, Mr Skeggs, and his 13-year old daughter.
Mrs Skeggs complained to Ofcom that she was treated unfairly in the programmes and that her privacy had been unwarrantably infringed in both the making and broadcast of the programmes.
The Complaint
Mrs Skeggs' case
In summary, Mrs Skeggs complained that she was treated unfairly in the programmes as broadcast in that:
a) She was unfairly portrayed as a swindler and as having conned 50 people out of money lent to her.
By way of background, Mrs Skeggs said that, while it was correct that she had borrowed money, she had always promised to repay it and the people who made the verbal allegations in the programmes were all aware she intended to repay it.
b) She was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
By way of background, Mrs Skeggs said that no effort was made to contact either her or Mr Skeggs to get their views and that, prior to the programme broadcast on 13 September 2009, Mr Skeggs‟ legal adviser tried to obtain details of the allegations from the broadcaster, but received no response.
(This claim by Skeggs had the added "fun-factor" that Ofcom had obviously seen the video shown by Balita Pinoy and other footage of reporters attempting to speak to Skeggs' legal advisor, disgraced former lawyer Philip Englefield, outside a court - as can be seen, he was extremely reluctant to speak to either Balita Pinoy or ABS-CBN's reporters)
In summary, Mrs Skeggs complained that her privacy had been unwarrantably infringed in the making of the programmes in that:
c) Photographs of her were taken from her home without her consent.
In summary, Mrs Skeggs complained that her privacy had been unwarrantably infringed in the programmes as broadcast in that:
d) Photographs of her and her family, which were taken from her home, were included in the programmes as broadcast without her consent.
ABS-CBN News Channel's case
ABS-CBN News Channel ("ABS-CBN") responded to the complaint of unfair treatment as follows:
ABS-CBN first responded to the complaint that Mrs Skeggs was unfairly portrayed as a swindler and as having conned 50 people out of money lent to her.
ABS-CBN said that it was approached by several members of the Filipino community in the United Kingdom ("the interviewees") with a story about a Filipina based in London who had not fully repaid substantial amounts of money borrowed from them. Each of the interviewees told the programme makers that a woman known variously as Helena Garcia Pedroche, Helena Marcos Skeggs and Mrs Helena Skeggs befriended them, took them out for dinner or gave them presents. In this way, ABS-CBN said that she gained the interviewees‟ trust and then was able to ask them for money or the use of their credit cards. ABS-CBN said that the reasons Mrs Skeggs gave for wanting the money were many and various and that she would introduce herself as a millionairess and an illegitimate daughter of the late former Philippine President Marcos.
ABS-CBN said that some interviewees said Mrs Skeggs had paid back some of the money she had borrowed, but never all of it and eventually it became very difficult to collect anything from her. ABS-CBN said the programme makers were shown several cheques which had bounced, signed by Mr Skeggs, who it thought was either the partner or husband of Mrs Skeggs.
ABS-CBN said that it had approached the making of the programmes on the basis of substantial research undertaken over the course of three months and documentary evidence provided by individuals who had been affected. It had interviewed numerous witnesses and had collected supporting documentation including a copy notebook provided by one of the interviewees, Ms Gloria Tabor, containing the names of around 50 creditors, copy County Court judgments and bounced cheques signed by Mr Skeggs.
c) ABS-CBN responded to the complaint that Mrs Skeggs was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
ABS-CBN said that the programmes did not state that Mrs Skeggs was a "swindler" or that she had "conned" anyone, but it recognised that the programmes could be interpreted as making that allegation and ABS-CBN therefore accepted that the programmes alleged wrongdoing on the part of Mrs Skeggs.
However, ABS-CBN said that it had given Mrs Skeggs several opportunities to respond, both before and after the broadcasts of the programmes, which she declined. ABS-CBN said it made a number of attempts between June and September 2009 to contact Mr and Mrs Skeggs so that it could obtain their side of the story. It tried to call the mobile phone numbers for Mrs Skeggs which had been provided by the interviewees, but there was no answer from her. In July 2009 ABS-CBN said that Mrs Skeggs telephoned its reporter from her representative‟s office and said "I am not a bad person. I did not point a gun at them and you cannot show me on TFC". The reporter said that he asked Mrs Skeggs questions about the allegations, but she simply denied cheating people. The reporter said he also asked her for an interview but she just repeated that they could not broadcast a programme about her. The reporter also spoke on that occasion to Mrs Skeggs‟ representative and he promised that Mrs Skeggs would make payments as soon as money was released by the bank and he confirmed this in an email dated 3 July 2009. [Skeggs' representative is disgraced and debarred former lawyer Philip Englefield who was sentenced to 6 years jail in a UK court for stealing client's funds]
ABS-CBN also said that prior to the broadcasts of the programmes, the reporter visited Mrs Skeggs‟ home in an attempt to make contact with her and obtain her comments, but, although her car was parked outside, nobody answered the door.
ABS-CBN said that it made clear in the commentary to the programmes that Mrs Skeggs had been approached, but that she had chosen not to contribute or appear. ABS-CBN said that Mrs Skeggs had also declined to give her side of the story when offered the opportunity to do so subsequently. Furthermore ABS-CBN said that it had broadcast comments made by Mrs Skeggs and her representatives, including her denial of the debts and the counter-allegations that in fact it was Mr and Mrs Skeggs who were owed money.
ABS-CBN responded to the complaint of unwarranted infringement of privacy in the making of the programme as follows:
d) ABS-CBN responded to the complaint that photographs of Mrs Skeggs were taken from her home without her consent.
ABS-CBN said no member of its news team or anyone affiliated with ABS-CBN entered Mrs Skeggs‟ residence or removed any photograph from her home. It said that the photographs used in the programmes were provided by interviewees for the programmes. ABS-CBN said it had no reason to believe that the photographs it received from the interviewees were anything other than the property of the individuals in whose possession they were. One interviewee informed ABS-CBN that the photographs she provided were taken by her at an airshow in July 2008 and that she had paid for the prints. Another interviewee provided a statement confirming she had witnessed photographs being handed to the reporter at one of the group meetings.
(One of the "photos" Skeggs complained about, this is a drawing shown by her attempting to prove she is Marcos' daughter - these claims have proved under detailed investigation to be totally false, just like most of what she has claimed to her victims)
ABS-CBN responded to the complaint of unwarranted infringement of privacy in the programme as broadcast as follows:
e) ABS-CBN responded to the complaint that photographs of Mrs Skeggs and her family were broadcast without her consent.
ABS-CBN accepted that photographs of Mrs Skeggs were used in the programmes without her consent. However, it said that the use of the photographs was warranted because it was in the public interest to show Mrs Skeggs‟ image and that the public interest outweighed her right to privacy. It said that Mrs Skeggs‟ activities did not take place in the privacy of her own home, but were in the public arena. ABS-CBN also said that some of the allegations and evidence had appeared on the internet before the broadcasts and were therefore already in the public domain. [Published in Balita Pinoy].
Mrs Skeggs' response
a) As regards the complaint that she was portrayed as a "swindler", Mrs Skeggs said that she did not "victimise", "swindle" or "con" anyone and the statement in the programmes that she "took" or "absconded" with money implied that she stole it. Mrs Skeggs said that she borrowed or received money from certain third parties in normal, legitimate circumstances, but then experienced financial difficulties and was unable to repay certain debts as soon as she had wished.
Mrs Skeggs said that she had now paid, or was in the process of repaying all of the debts.
Mrs Skeggs said that the programmes wrongly stated that she owed £600,000 to 50 individuals. Mrs Skeggs said that she had no idea how the figure of £600,000 was arrived at and that the only evidence for the claim that there were 50 creditors came from Ms Tabor‟s statement and a notebook that she showed the reporter. Mrs Skeggs said that ABS-CBN has not produced evidence to substantiate these claims and that it did not appear that the reporter had endeavoured to corroborate the claims elsewhere.
Mrs Skeggs said that the reporter‟s statement suggested that he had seen evidence of monies owing to 13 people, not 50. Mrs Skeggs said that of those 13 people, the debts to six of them had been repaid and she disputed that any monies were owed to one of them. Mrs Skeggs said that the rest were the subject of County Court judgments which she did not challenge and were in the process of being repaid.
b) As regards opportunity to respond, Mrs Skeggs said that in the programmes the reporter stated that he "exerted all efforts to get the spouses‟ side of the story but they could not be contacted by phone". In his statement he said that he gave Mrs Skeggs "opportunities to be interviewed to give [her] side of the story" and that he made "a number of attempts between June and September 2009 to contact Helena and Richard Skeggs".
Mrs Skeggs said that in fact she did not recall receiving a single telephone call, voicemail or email from the reporter and that at no point was she provided with information sufficient for her to make an informed decision about whether to contribute to the programmes in reasonable time prior to the broadcasts.
Mrs Skeggs said that she noted that the reporter visited her house when she was not at home, but left no note or letter informing her of his visit. Mrs Skeggs said that the only other effort made by the reporter was to contact her representative. Mrs Skeggs said that soon afterwards she had a brief telephone conversation with the reporter but that he failed to provide sufficient information for her to make an informed decision about whether to contribute to the programmes. Mrs Skeggs said that following the broadcast of the programme on 13 September 2009, the reporter contacted her to ask for an interview to give her side of the story for the programme scheduled for 20 September 2009. However, having seen the content of the first programme, Mrs Skeggs said that she rejected the offer, fearing that her contribution would be distorted.
d) With reference to the use of photographs of her in the broadcasts, Mrs Skeggs said that there were images of her in programmes that included unsubstantiated allegations that she had "victimised", "swindled" or "conned" third parties. Mrs Skeggs said that ABS-CBN had not proved that she had done anything other than borrow money and been unable to pay it back. Mrs Skeggs said that this was not a matter of public interest that would outweigh her right to privacy.
ABS-CBN's final response
a) As regards the complaint that Mrs Skeggs was portrayed as a "swindler", ABS- CBN said that it had evidence in the form of copy County Court judgments totalling in excess of £45,000, Ms Tabor‟s list of debts totalling £261,590 and the reporter‟s spreadsheet of Ms Tabor‟s list and details of other creditors he had spoken to. ABS-CBN said that its reporter had spoken directly to 18 individuals to verify their stories and was able to satisfy himself that the documents he was given were genuine, that the sums taken by Mrs Skeggs were real and that her "modus operandi" was the same or substantially the same in each case.
b) In relation to the complaint that Mrs Skeggs was not given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond, ABS-CBN said that the reporter attempted to make contact with Mrs Skeggs on numerous occasions between June and September 2009 to obtain her side of the story. He also attempted to make contact with Mrs Skeggs and her representative through their respective telephone numbers. He spoke to Mrs Skeggs on 3 July 2009, when she called his mobile phone directly, which suggested that she had received his messages. ABS-CBN said that from what Mrs Skeggs said to the reporter it was evident that she knew about the nature of the allegations that were being made. The reporter said he also asked Mrs Skeggs whether she and her husband would give an interview and she declined. ABS-CBN said that the reporter informed Mrs Skeggs during the telephone conversation that he was investigating allegations of fraud against her and explained that he needed her side of the story to ensure a balanced programme. ABS-CBN said that the reporter then spoke to Mrs Skeggs‟ representative and said that he was working on a report about Mrs Skeggs and the money that she had allegedly taken from people. The reporter also explained that he was seeking input from Mr and Mrs Skeggs to enable a balanced programme to be made and again requested their participation. ABS-CBN said that the conversation with Mrs Skeggs‟ representative was evidenced in an email from him the same day.
ABS-CBN agreed that the reporter did not leave a note at Mrs Skeggs‟ house, as he believed that Mr and Mrs Skeggs were at home, since their car was in the drive, and that they were fully aware from his knocking on the door and calling out that he was attempting to speak with them.
(The photos above show a house in Mortimer Road, London NW10 - a house Skeggs used a lot in her dealings, especially in getting people to send "investment money & loans" to her using Western Union)
ABS-CBN said that in both programmes it had stated that it remained open to Mr and Mrs Skeggs to provide their respective sides of the story and that it had repeated this offer more recently and had again extended the opportunity to Mrs Skeggs to provide her version of events, which she had declined.
d) As regards the use of photographs of Mrs Skeggs in the broadcasts, ABS-CBN said that the programmes revealed more than the fact that Mrs Skeggs borrowed money and failed to pay it back, as each individual who came forward independently verified that she had used the same basic method to gain their trust and confidence before asking for substantial sums of money for apparently legitimate reasons. ABS-CBN said that it was in the public interest to disclose Mrs Skeggs‟ behaviour.
Furthermore, ABS-CBN said that a news item about Mrs Skeggs appeared on several internet-based news websites and featured the same story and many of the same documents and photographs as were shown to and independently verified by ABS-CBN. The news stories pre-dated the programmes and the documents and photographs were already in the public domain prior to being shown to ABS-CBN.
Decision
Ofcom‟s statutory duties include the application, in the case of all television and radio services, of standards which provide adequate protection to members of the public and all other persons from unfair treatment and unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in the making of, programmes included in such services.
In carrying out its duties, Ofcom has regard to the need to secure that the application of these standards is in the manner that best guarantees an appropriate level of freedom of expression. Ofcom is also obliged to have regard, in all cases, to the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed.
In reaching its decision, Ofcom considered all the relevant material provided by both parties. This included a recording and transcript of the programme as broadcast, both parties‟ written submissions and supporting material.
Unfair treatment
a) Ofcom first considered the complaint that Mrs Skeggs was unfairly portrayed as a swindler and as having conned 50 people out of money lent to her.
Ofcom considered whether the broadcaster‟s actions ensured that the programmes as broadcast avoided unjust or unfair treatment of Mrs Skeggs, as set out in Rule 7.1 of Ofcom‟s Broadcasting Code ("the Code"). In particular, Ofcom had regard to whether the broadcaster had taken reasonable care to satisfy itself that material facts had not been presented, disregarded or omitted in a way that was unfair to an individual or organisation (as outlined in Practice 7.9 of the Code).
Ofcom was mindful of the fact that it was working from a transcript which translated the programme into English and that while the parties had agreed the translation, some words and expressions may not be easily translated and some of the original meaning could be lost.
Ofcom noted that the first programme commenced with the following statements:
"It is estimated that at least £600,000 or almost 50m Pesos were taken by a Filipina who is married to a Briton from 50 Filipinos that they victimised here in London...Filipino Helena Pedroche Garcia Stuart-Skeggs, who has a British spouse allegedly had a "sweet tongue" (persuasive) and knows how to deal with her fellow Filipinos. Her usual modus, she would befriend her prospective victim, she would treat them to a fancy restaurant and hotel and give them various presents. When the prospective victim‟s trust has been obtained, that‟s when she would ask for a loan or lure them into investing in stock market".
The programme featured two people who told of their experiences with Mrs Skeggs and the reporter then stated:
"In the beginning, Helena was able to repay a little of her loans, however, it eventually became difficult to collect from her and the cheques issued by her husband, Richard Skeggs, allegedly bounced.
Five victims already tried to bring the matter to court but until now the spouses haven‟t showed up yet. The victims also approached the Embassy, but Helena never showed up despite a letter sent by the Embassy to her".
The second programme largely repeated the allegations made in the first programme and featured a number of other people who told of their experiences with Mrs Skeggs.
Ofcom noted that, although the words "swindler" and "conned" were not used in either programme, ABS-CBN recognised that the programmes could be interpreted as portraying Mrs Skeggs as a "swindler" and as having "conned" Filipinos out of money they had lent to her. Ofcom also noted that Mrs Skeggs considered that the programmes implied that she had stolen the money.
However, given that the programmes referred throughout to loans and promises to pay, Ofcom did not consider that was a meaning that the programmes bore.
In Ofcom‟s view, the programmes portrayed Mrs Skeggs as a swindler and as having conned 50 people out of money they lent to her and Ofcom proceeded to consider whether, in portraying Mrs Skeggs in that manner, the broadcaster had taken reasonable care not to present, disregard or omit material facts in a way that was unfair to Mrs Skeggs.
It should be noted, that Ofcom‟s role was not to establish whether Mrs Skeggs had or had not swindled or conned Filipinos in London, but to determine whether, in broadcasting the allegations, the programme makers took reasonable care not to present, disregard or omit material facts in a way that was unfair to Mrs Skeggs and whether they had subjected her to unfair or unjust treatment in the broadcast of the programme.
Ofcom noted that at the time of the broadcasts ABS-CBN had collected information from interviews with numerous people who claimed they were owed money by Mrs Skeggs and from supporting documentation which indicated that:
- Mrs Skeggs was known by a number of different names: Helena Garcia Pedroche, Helena Marcos Skeggs and Mrs Helena Skeggs.
- Mrs Skeggs claimed to be: the illegitimate daughter of late former President Marcos, a millionairess, the daughter of an actress who became Miss Spain, an immigration adviser and a Virgin Atlantic pilot.
- Mrs Skeggs gained the trust of her creditors by: befriending them, telling them how rich she was, reinforcing the tales of her wealth by entertaining them at expensive restaurants and hotels and by giving them expensive gifts.
- Having gained their trust, Mrs Skeggs would: ask them for loans, borrow their credit cards or seek money to invest on the stock market for them.
- The reasons Mrs Skeggs gave for wanting the money were: that her aunt was suffering from cancer and she needed to pay for expensive treatment, she needed a short-term loan until the large inheritance she was due to receive came through or so she could invest on their behalf on the stock market.
- The reasons Mrs Skeggs gave for not repaying the monies were: her inheritance was so large the bank was holding it or that she was just awaiting funds to repay and would pay as soon as the money was released by the bank.
- Mrs Skeggs rarely denied she owed monies: she had admitted certain debts, signed a list of debts admitting sums due, agreed terms for repayment of other debts, said she would repay as soon as monies were released, promised repayment many times, did not appear to have contested County Court proceedings and Mr Skeggs had signed cheques in part payment.
- There were a number of creditors and large amounts due to them: 51 people from whom a total £542,890 had been borrowed, which with a year‟s interest at 10% amounted to £644,722.
In Ofcom‟s view, on the information collected by ABS-CBN, there was a basis for saying that it was not possible to describe the way in which Mrs Skeggs persuaded people to lend or invest money with her as "normal, legitimate circumstances", as she suggested. As a result, Ofcom did not consider that it was unreasonable for ABS-CBN to have portrayed Mrs Skeggs in the way that it did.
Ofcom also noted that Mrs Skeggs said that she owed nowhere near £600,000 to nothing like 50 people. However, at the time of the broadcasts, the reporter had taken statements from 18 people and had compiled a spreadsheet listing 51 individuals and the amounts of money they were owed. Some of the information on the spreadsheet had been provided by Ms Tabor, the rest had been added after the reporter spoke to the individuals. Ofcom recognised that nine people on the spreadsheet had the sum £0 by their names, which suggested that at the time of broadcast they were not owed any money and that therefore ABS-CBN only had evidence of monies owed to 42 people.
Although ABS-CBN did not receive a response to the allegations from Mrs Skeggs prior to the broadcasts, it did receive an email from her representative dated 3 July 2009, in which he said that funds were to be released very soon and that on receipt of a list of those claiming funds he would go through the list with Mrs Skeggs and where it was agreed funds were due he would pay them out of the funds he received. ABS-CBN also received a letter before action from Mrs Skeggs‟ solicitors dated 15 September 2009 which stated that that the allegations made in the programme broadcast on 13 September 2009 were not true and that Mrs Skeggs was in fact owed money by a number of those making claims against her. It also stated that she had recently experienced financial difficulty, but that any sums due would be repaid in the next few weeks. Ofcom noted that the above information was included in the programme on 20 September 2009.
Ofcom recognised the importance of freedom of expression and the freedom to broadcast matters of genuine public interest such as the allegations contained in these programmes. However, it also recognised that in presenting such serious allegations the Code requires that broadcasters take reasonable care not to do so in a way that causes unfairness to individuals or organisations. In this case, taking into account the evidence considered above and the submissions of the parties, and notwithstanding the discrepancy over how many people were owed money, Ofcom did not consider that the programmes presented, disregarded or omitted material facts in a way that was unfair to Mrs Skeggs in respect of the allegations and the responses received to the allegations and has not upheld the complaint in this respect.
b) Ofcom then considered the complaint that Mrs Skeggs was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Ofcom considered whether the broadcaster‟s actions ensured that the programmes as broadcast avoided unjust or unfair treatment of Mrs Skeggs, as set out in Rule 7.1 of the Code. In particular, Ofcom had regard to Practice 7.11 which requires that, if a programme alleges wrongdoing or incompetence or makes other significant allegations, those concerned should normally be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond.
Ofcom acknowledged that various representations had been made by the parties about Practices 7.3 and 7.13 which provide that where a person is invited to make a contribution to a programme they should normally be given sufficient information to ensure their consent to contribute is informed consent and that where it is appropriate to represent the views of a person or organisation that is not participating in the programme this must be done in a fair manner. However, these issues did not form part of the Entertained Complaint and were not therefore considered by Ofcom.
Ofcom noted ABS-CBN‟s admission that the programmes alleged wrongdoing on the part of Mrs Skeggs. As stated above, it was Ofcom‟s view that the programmes portrayed Mrs Skeggs as a swindler and as having conned 50 people out of money they lent to her. As a result, and in accordance with the Code, Mrs Skeggs should normally have been given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Ofcom first considered whether Mrs Skeggs had been provided with an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the programme broadcast on 13 September 2009. Ofcom noted that ABS-CBN asserted both in the programmes and in its response to the complaint that the reporter had tried to contact Mrs Skeggs to give her opportunities to respond to the allegations and that Mrs Skeggs stated that, other than one brief telephone conversation with the reporter, she did not recall receiving a single telephone call, voicemail message or email from the reporter before the programme broadcast on 13 September 2009 and that no note or letter was left at her house informing her of the reporter‟s visit or setting out information about the allegations.
While Ofcom noted there was a dispute between the parties about the attempts the reporter said he had made to contact Mrs Skeggs between June and September 2009 on the mobile phone numbers he had been provided with by the interviewees, the parties did agree that the reporter had a telephone conversation with Mrs Skeggs which he said took place in July 2009.
The reporter said that during the conversation he told Mrs Skeggs he was compiling a report on the complaints of the alleged victims and asked for her response to the allegations and for an interview. Ofcom noted that Mrs Skeggs had not taken issue with the detail of the reporter‟s account of the conversation (although she said the reporter failed to provide sufficient information for her to make an informed decision about whether to contribute to the programmes). The reporter said that from the content of what Mrs Skeggs said to him, he believed that she knew about the nature of the allegations that were being made at that point. The reporter said he then spoke to Mrs Skeggs‟ representative and told him that he was working on a report about Mrs Skeggs and the money that she had allegedly taken from people and that he was seeking her input to enable a balanced programme to be made.
On 2 August 2009, the reporter and some of the interviewees went to Mrs Skeggs‟ house to try to speak to her. The reporter said that they tried to obtain a response for about 10 minutes, but that despite the fact that the reporter believed Mrs Skeggs was at home because her car was parked outside, there was no answer. Mrs Skeggs said she was not at home.
Ofcom recognises that a response can be sought in a number of different ways, e.g. by seeking an on-camera interview, by requesting a written response for inclusion in the programme or even simply telephoning the subject. What is important however is that the subject is notified of all material allegations and given a proper opportunity to respond. In Ofcom‟s view, approaches for a response do not generally need to set out or explain all the evidence upon which the allegations being made are based, provided a proper description of the allegations is provided.
In order to demonstrate that Mrs Skeggs had been notified of all material allegations, it would have been preferable if they had been set out in writing in advance of the programmes. However, it was clear to Ofcom that the nature of the allegations to be broadcast was made clear to Mrs Skeggs and her representative in the telephone conversation on 3 July 2009 and that she declined an invitation to respond by way of an interview.
As regards the programme broadcast on 20 September 2009, Ofcom considered that Mrs Skeggs had been provided with an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond, as she acknowledged she received an invitation to be interviewed but that she rejected the offer as she feared her contribution would be distorted.
In the circumstances, Ofcom considered that Mrs Skeggs had been offered an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in the programmes.
Ofcom has not therefore upheld the complaint in this respect.
Privacy
In Ofcom‟s view, the individual‟s right to privacy has to be balanced against the competing right of the broadcaster to freedom of expression. Neither right as such has precedence over the other and, where there is a conflict between the two, it is necessary to focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights. Any justification for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account and any interference or restriction must be proportionate.
This is reflected in how Ofcom applies Rule 8.1 of the Code which states that any infringement of privacy in programmes or in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must be warranted.
c) Ofcom considered the complaint that photographs of Mrs Skeggs were taken from her home without her consent and were used in the programmes as broadcast.
Ofcom noted that ABS-CBN denied that it or any member of its news team entered Mrs Skeggs‟ home or removed any photograph from her home and stated that the photographs used in the broadcasts were provided by interviewees who complained about the treatment they had received. One of them had confirmed that she had taken photographs with her own camera at an airshow in July 2008 and ABS-CBN also provided a statement from an interviewee who confirmed that she had seen photographs handed to ABS-CBN by the owners of the photographs.
Ofcom noted Mrs Skeggs‟ contention that the photographs were taken illegally from her home. Ofcom was satisfied, however, that ABS-CBN had not removed the photographs from Mrs Skeggs‟ home and had obtained them properly, as far it was concerned, and in good faith. As a result, Ofcom was satisfied that ABS-CBN had not infringed Mrs Skeggs‟ privacy in obtaining the photographs and in the making of the programme.
Ofcom has not therefore upheld the complaint in this respect.
d) Ofcom considered the complaint that photographs of Mrs Skeggs and her family were included in the programmes as broadcast without her consent.
In doing so, Ofcom took the following approach. Mrs Skeggs‟ complaint said she was only making a complaint of unwarranted infringement of privacy on her own behalf, not on behalf of her partner or his daughter (notwithstanding the reference to them in her complaint). In light of the fact Mr Skeggs had also made a complaint, and of the way Ofcom dealt with it, Ofcom therefore only considered whether Mrs Skeggs‟ privacy had been unwarrantably infringed in the broadcast of the photographs of her and her family.
Ofcom first considered whether Mrs Skeggs had a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to the photographs broadcast without her consent.
Ofcom noted that four photographs which included Mrs Skeggs were broadcast in the programmes. Two of them included Mr Skeggs and one included Mr Skeggs‟ daughter.
It was clear to Ofcom that two of the photographs had been taken at an airshow in July 2008 and had therefore been taken in a public place. It was not clear to Ofcom where the other two photographs had been taken but, as they appeared to have been taken at social gatherings, Ofcom considered that it was likely they had been taken in private places. It was also apparent to Ofcom that all the photographs were taken by acquaintances with the knowledge and consent of those featured.
Ofcom considered both whether Mrs Skeggs had a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to the photographs of her and in relation to the photographs of her partner and his daughter.
While Ofcom recognises that privacy could include the right to control the dissemination of information about a person‟s identity or image, in Ofcom‟s view, in the absence of other factors or aggravating circumstances, there will not generally be a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to the mere disclosure of a person‟s image.
As to the photographs of Mrs Skeggs, Ofcom noted that she was not a public figure, that the photographs were of her going about her private business and that they had all apparently been taken with her knowledge and consent. Ofcom recognised that Mrs Skeggs would not have expected that photographs of her would be broadcast on a television news programme, however, as the photographs of Mrs Skeggs merely disclosed what she looked like and did not appear to disclose any information of a personal or sensitive nature or show her in an embarrassing situation, in Ofcom‟s view, Mrs Skeggs did not have a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to the broadcast of the photographs of her.
As to the photographs of Mr Skeggs and his daughter, Ofcom noted that they merely disclosed what they looked like and did not appear to disclose any information about Mrs Skeggs‟ private or family life. As a result, Ofcom did not 18 April 2011 consider that Mrs Skeggs had a legitimate expectation of privacy in respect of the broadcast photographs of Mr Skeggs and his daughter.
Given this, Ofcom considered that there was no infringement of Mrs Skeggs‟ privacy in respect of the broadcast of the photographs of her and her family and it was not necessary for Ofcom to consider whether any intrusion into her private life was warranted.
Ofcom has not therefore upheld the complaint in this respect.
Accordingly Ofcom has not upheld Mrs Skeggs' complaint of unfair treatment or unwarranted infringement of privacy in either the making or broadcast of the programme.
Below is a link to Balita Pinoy's original reporting of the Skeggs scandal along with court documents
Helena Skeggs - the Marcos Daughter fraudster
Helena Skeggs Complaint
If you have been affected by Helena Skeggs let us know, click the "Helena Skeggs Complaint" button above
Tags:
abs-cbn, balita_pinoy, balitang_europe, ferdinand_marcos, filipino_swindler, filipinos, fraud, helena_garcia_pedroche, helena_marcos, helena_pedroche, helena_skeggs, ilford_county_court, illegal_investments, immigration_adviser, london, manor_road_chigwell, marcos_daughter, miss_spain, mortimer_road_london_nw10, ofcom, philip_englefield, uk, unpaid_loans
Posted at: 03:28 | Add Comment
| 
| 
del.icio.us