SCOPE
This guidance note sets out considerations for removing or amending BBC online content and revoking content in online services, such as BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, following legal or editorial issues post-publication. Removal or revocation may result from a BBC review of content or in response to requests from individuals.
The note applies to all permanently available online content published on a BBC site or third-party platform and on-demand content within the planned window of availability. It does not apply to:
- content removed on its planned expiry date or on the expiration of the window of availability;
- content retired from online services;
- time limited content that will naturally be replaced by more up to date content or
- content removed for technical reasons.
Key Points
- The BBC's Editorial Guidelines say, "The archive of the BBC's online content is a permanent public record and its existence is in the public interest. The online archive, particularly news reports, should not normally be removed or amended." (13.3.25)
- Providing the content continues to meet the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and there is a public interest in continued publication which outweighs a removal request, the online archive will usually be preserved and remain accessible.
- The presumption of the BBC is that any 'right to be forgotten' does not usually outweigh its right to freedom of expression and the public's right to information.
- Consideration should be given to seven questions when weighing a removal request against freedom of expression. (see The Seven Questions for Consideration)
- Content should not normally be hidden or removed while we consider requests, unless there are legal or editorial reasons to do so.
- The BBC should be very reluctant to remove or amend an accurate report of a court case, unless there is an exceptional legal or editorial reason for doing so.
- Remedies such as clarifications, updates or corrections; temporary revocation or anonymisation are preferable to permanent removal.
- Content temporarily removed from online services should be republished as soon as possible to avoid permanent revocation.
- On-demand programmes which have been altered since linear transmission should not be presented as though they're the same as the original.
- We should be transparent if content has been removed or amended since first publication, or is subject to an upheld finding, unless there are legal or editorial reasons not to, otherwise we risk losing the trust of our audiences.
- Divisions need detailed protocols, which include a system of referrals and record keeping for the removal of online content.
Introduction
The public has a right to be informed about past events and the BBC's online archive is an important source for future reporting and historical research.
The Editorial Guidelines say:
The archive of the BBC's online content is a permanent public record and its existence is in the public interest. The online archive, particularly news reports, should not normally be removed or amended. (Editorial Guidelines 13.3.25)
Any removal risks the accusation that we are erasing the past and rewriting history.
Removal Only in Exceptional Circumstances
The Editorial Guidelines say:
Where there is an expectation that content, from a name to a whole programme, is made available permanently, it should only be removed in exceptional circumstances.
For details about those exceptions see Editorial Guidelines 13.3.25.
Any proposal to remove any online content from the BBC archive must be in accordance with the Editorial Guidelines and include an assessment of the information that may be lost by acceding to the request.
(See Editorial Guidelines Section 13 Re-use, Reversioning and Permanent Availability 13.3.22 – 13.3.28)
Content in online services, such as BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds should not normally be revoked during the window of availability.
Complaints Requesting Removal or 'Right to be Forgotten'
Providing the content continues to meet the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and there is a public interest in continued publication which outweighs a removal request, the online archive will usually be preserved and remain publicly accessible.
The presumption of the BBC is that the 'right to be forgotten' does not usually outweigh its right to freedom of expression and the public's right to receive information.
Content should not normally be hidden or removed while we consider requests unless there are legal or editorial reasons to do so.
It may be necessary to verify the identity of the complainant and to make independent checks of the information provided in the request.
The Seven Questions for Consideration
Drawing on legal and regulatory frameworks, consideration should be given to the following seven questions, where appropriate, when weighing a removal request against freedom of expression and the preservation of the online archive.
1. Is the information accurate?
Where online content, particularly news, was accurate at the time of publication, there is a presumption that it will not normally be removed. New facts that did not exist at the time of publication do not make the original content inaccurate.
However, where the omission of new facts would be misleading and unfair, such as the outcome of a court case, the content should usually be updated.
Where a complainant says the content was inaccurate or seriously misleading at the time of publication, it should be investigated and corrected, where appropriate.
Where a complainant, including a contributor, says the content no longer reflects their current opinions, there is a presumption that the online archive will be preserved and remain accessible.
2. Did the complainant have a legitimate expectation of privacy?
Some personal information is considered inherently private such as, tragic, humiliating or distressing events, medical or financial details, private contact information or details about an individual's sexual orientation. These attract a higher expectation of privacy.
Any expectation of privacy will not usually outweigh the BBC's right to freedom of expression and the public's right to receive information where a complainant consented to publication, or where their behaviour is criminal or seriously anti-social, or where the information is already lawfully in the public domain.
• Prior consent (See Guidance: Informed Consent)
If the complainant consented to the online publication, there is usually a presumption they understood the content such as news or factual content will be permanently available and will be preserved and remain accessible. When people give interviews to the BBC, their remarks become part of a public record. Anyone inside or outside the BBC could quote their comments and republish them. To change them or erase them would change a piece of history. Published remarks should usually remain in the public domain and online archive.
Where a contributor argues that the BBC's use of a contribution goes beyond the consent given at the time of first use, we should attempt to establish the details of that consent. If sufficient details of the original consent are not available, then provided their safety is not put at risk and there was no complaint after the original publication or broadcast, the online archive will usually be preserved and remain accessible.
When consent for a contribution was properly given, but not by the contributor (e.g. by a parent), we may give greater weight to the contributor's views if they now have capacity to make their own decisions.
It is not necessary for the BBC to obtain consent from individuals featured in court reports or other regulatory hearings unless they are interviewed by us.
• Prior or subsequent behaviour
Where the complainant's prior or subsequent behaviour is criminal, seriously anti-social or in breach of a professional standard, this may strengthen the public interest in the online archive being preserved and remaining accessible.
• Prior existence of the information in the public domain
Where the information about the complaint is available in public records or was put in the public domain by authorities such as the police, courts or regulatory bodies, there is a presumption it will usually be preserved and remain accessible. Information already lawfully in the public domain, should remain in the public domain.
3. Is the information in the public interest?
Where the public interest in the content outweighs an individual's expectation of privacy, there is a presumption it will be preserved and remain accessible. For more information about the public interest see Editorial Guidelines Section 1 The BBC's Editorial Standards 1.3.
4. Does the information relate to a public figure or individual in a publicly accountable role?
A public figure is an individual who may hold public office, use public resources or play a role in public life. Where the information relates to a public figure or individual in the public eye, who has achieved fame or notoriety, or has a degree of media exposure, there is a strong presumption that it will not normally be removed.
We would also not normally remove information relating to an individual in a publicly accountable role or a position of trust, such as public office, law enforcement, teaching, supervision of children, financial services, charity sector or similar.
5. Is continued publication causing demonstrable and significant harm?
When assessing significant harm or distress, a distinction should be made between contributors to whom we have a duty of care and individuals to whom no specific duty of care arises.
The BBC does not have a duty of care to the relatives or friends of people featured in our reports who are not our contributors. There is also no duty of care to an individual where the BBC is simply reporting events which should, in the public interest, be in the public domain, such as proceedings in court or regulatory hearings.
We do not have any obligation to improve job prospects or professional or personal reputation and this will not form part of the consideration when assessing the level of distress or harm.
Where an individual has asserted distress or harm due to our continued publication (for example to loss of professional standing or job prospects) and no specific duty of care arises, continued publication is likely to be in the public interest.
The privacy rights of children and young people may carry more weight due to the vulnerability arising from their age even in circumstances where no duty of care exists. The BBC may also give greater weight to a contributor's views if they now have capacity to make their own decisions, for example, where a child contributor who is now an adult requests removal.
Where there is a duty of care, the BBC will usually require evidence a contributor has suffered significant harm or distress due to continued publication, which outweighs the public interest in preserving the online archive.
A distinction should be drawn between embarrassment, discomfort or unhappiness and significant harm. Embarrassment, discomfort or unhappiness alone are not sufficient to outweigh public interest and preservation of the online archive.
The BBC has a greater duty of care, to a contributor who has been interviewed only by the BBC.
6. When was initial publication and does the information remain in the public interest?
Where the public interest in the information remains despite the passage of time since the event or publication, the online archive will usually be preserved and remain accessible.
In general, the more recent the information, the stronger the public interest.
Some information will always have an overriding public interest however old the content.
There is a stronger public interest in information about criminal or regulatory proceedings remaining accessible as a public record. The BBC should be very reluctant to remove or amend an accurate report of a court case, unless there is an exceptional legal or editorial reason for doing so. We cannot erase the past for people who have been found guilty, or indeed innocent, of criminal charges in open court or in a regulatory hearing.
The public interest may even become more significant over time. This could include a private individual later holding public office or the reported information acquiring importance in the future, from a cultural, scientific or historical perspective.
7. What impact would acceding to the request have on freedom of expression and the right of the public to receive information?
Where the public interest in freedom of expression and preserving the integrity of the online archive outweighs a removal request, the content will not normally be removed.
There is a public interest in freedom of expression which lies at the heart of the BBC's independence. The BBC's audiences have a right to receive information without interference.
There is also a strong public interest in preserving the integrity of the BBC's online archive, so it remains easily accessible for future reporting or historical research.
Alternative Remedies to Full and Permanent Removal
Remedies such as clarifications, updates or corrections; temporary revocation; removal of a photo, word or sentence, or anonymisation are preferable to full and permanent removal of online content.
See section on Transparency below.
Add Clarification or Update
Adding a clarification or update is preferable to protect the integrity of the online archive. Consideration should be given to the prominence of an update to an archived story online. It will often be fairer to place the update at the top of a page. Any changes advised by the legal department may need to be given prominence and should be made as soon as practically possible.
Publish Correction
Corrections should be made promptly and transparently acknowledged in accordance with the Editorial Guidelines.
(See Editorial Guidelines Section 3 Accuracy 3.3.28)
Where the BBC has made a public statement (published on the BBC Complaint's Website) in response to an issue of significant concern acknowledging and/or apologising for an error in on-demand content, a summary of that statement should be made available at the point the content is accessed. The statement may also be linked to.
Temporarily Revoke
Issues may arise after publication, meaning that programmes in online services, such as BBC iPlayer or BBC Sounds, may require temporary revocation for editing. The threshold for considering a temporary revocation is as high as it is for a permanent one.
We should consider how we might rectify any legal problem, such as uncleared rights, or a serious breach of the Editorial Guidelines or Ofcom Broadcasting Code; protect a contributor's safety or privacy or avoid further harm and offence to our audiences, which may be caused, for example by inadvertent strong language in a live programme.
Content temporarily revoked should be re-edited and republished as soon as possible to minimise disruption to audiences and to avoid permanent revocation. The appropriate Revocation, Revision and Correction label should be applied to content during the planned window of availability.
Remove Part of Text or a Photo
We may consider removing a photo where it does not change the editorial meaning of the content. Where we remove a photo or part of the text, we should usually publish an update explaining the action taken unless there are legal or editorial reasons not to.
Delisting by External Search Engines
Where complainants do not find redress from the BBC, they may separately approach search engines, for delisting on a name-based term.
Delisting is preferable to removing a page from the BBC online archive. The page would be hidden from search results only on the name-based term. The content remains unchanged on the BBC website.
It should be noted that Delisting impedes users from finding the information and may mislead them into believing the information does not exist.
Anonymise
Anonymisation is usually a greater interference with the online archive than de-indexing or delisting. Once anonymised, the information ceases to exist, as it is removed from the original content and may lose its relevance.
We should assess what information is available elsewhere in the public domain. In practice, removing a name may be ineffective if an individual's identity is revealed by other organisations, or is already a matter of public record.
We would not normally anonymise individuals in news reports retrospectively as it may undermine our journalism.
Publish Details of Upheld Findings
On-demand content should not normally be permanently removed if a complaint has been upheld by the Executive Complaints Unit or Ofcom. Where an acknowledgement of the finding is sufficient to avoid re-editing, it may continue to be made available online without any changes.
Where a change is directed, the programme should be temporarily removed, amended and reinstated, making clear at point of play that the content is subject to an upheld finding. A brief explanation of the finding and any changes made since broadcast, including a link to the finding should be included.
External Search Engines
There is no guarantee that content which has been removed or amended disappears from the internet immediately. Complainants should be told that until an external search engine crawls the content and removes or updates it, it may still be available for an unknown period in the cache and visible in search results.
The BBC cannot instruct external search engines to act but can signal there's been a change to a page or that a page needs to be removed from the cache or the search index. Neither the search engines'; response, nor a time frame can be guaranteed.
Requests should be made to the 24x7 Operations Team or the relevant News Support Helpdesks for news reports.
Transparency
We risk losing trust if we remove online content, or make significant amendments, which change the editorial meaning, without telling our users.
We should be transparent if content has been removed or amended since first publication, or is subject to an upheld finding, unless there are legal or editorial reasons not to be.
The appropriate Revocation, Revision and Correction label should be applied to programmes in BBC iPlayer.
Protocols
Each division must have a detailed protocol for the removal and amendment of all types of online content wherever it is published. A protocol should include a system of referrals and out-of-hours process. Removal or amendment should only be done with the approval of the relevant senior editorial figure.
Divisions must also keep a record of removal and revocation requests relating to our online content intended to form a permanently, publicly accessible archive.
Last updated January 2025