±«Óãtv

There's a lot of fuss in a couple of newspapers this morning over whether the ±«Óãtv ever uses private detectives in any of its journalism. It stems from a suggestion from one private detective that he may have done some work for Panorama almost 20 years ago.

The ±«Óãtv's response to that suggestion has been to reveal that we do use private detectives occasionally and exceptionally to help with programmes. To some that has conjured up pictures of dozens of gumshoes beavering away for the ±«Óãtv, busily hacking into private voicemails or other people's e-mail accounts, or accessing deeply personal and private information illegally. All practices which have allegedly been happening frequently in some newspapers, as Panorama chronicled on Monday.

It is worth stressing that we are not aware of any ±«Óãtv programme ever having commissioned a private detective to carry out this sort of illegal activity at any time in the past. It would be totally unacceptable and a serious breach of our editorial standards.

But engaging private detectives to do things of this sort is very different from asking them to undertake lawful activity as part of an investigation in the public interest. For example, consumer investigation programmes, where we have already established prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, may sometimes have difficulty in establishing the whereabouts of rogues, whose misdemeanours they have uncovered, so that they can confront them with allegations of that wrongdoing. We might employ third parties to carry out the necessary surveillance to find out where they are and where they might be approached and, on occasion, to obtain a photograph of them. Usually we track down individuals we want to speak to ourselves. But in very hard cases we might employ the specialist skills of a private detective to help us find someone. That may not be for suspected wrongdoing but could be to locate a witness to events which happened some time ago and who we are hoping will contribute to the programme.

So we could use third parties in a number of entirely lawful ways to help investigations and other programmes. But even if we did, their conduct would be governed not just by the law but by our own Editorial Guidelines. Undercover operatives, who are usually "clean skins" for obvious reasons, have to conduct themselves in accordance with the Editorial Guidelines and, often, a detailed protocol governing what they can and can't do. Any activity commissioned from a private detective would be managed in the same way if it involved breaches of privacy. The editorial guidelines are clear: intrusions into privacy need a strong public interest justification. And that does not include a prurient interest in the private lives of celebrities.

So suggestions that the ±«Óãtv might use private investigators for political stories are wide of the mark and those who are "genuinely surprised the ±«Óãtv used private investigators to stand up stories" should remain surprised. The ±«Óãtv validates and stands up its own journalism wherever facts and information come from.

David Jordan is the ±«Óãtv's Director of Editorial Policy and Standards

Every four or five years the ±«Óãtv revises its Editorial Guidelines; before 2005 they were called the Producers' Guidelines. The latest edition is launched today.

The ±«Óãtv's Editorial Guidelines encapsulate the values and editorial standards every producer of ±«Óãtv content is expected to follow. Since 2005 they have been formulated within the context of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code and, in addition, since 2006 they have been commissioned and signed off by the ±«Óãtv Trust.

For the first time the guidelines have been subject to public consultation, under the auspices of the Trust.

Read on and comment at the About The ±«Óãtv blog.

Jon Snow of Channel Four News has said on his that he has chosen not to wear a poppy on air, though he does wear one in his personal life. His view is that any symbol is a distraction. He's discovered, or perhaps he already knew, that it is a controversial viewpoint.

As far as the ±«Óãtv is concerned, presenters or reporters appearing on television can wear poppies if they want to. There is no rule that tells them they must do so. It is a matter of individual choice. The ±«Óãtv does give some guidance on when to wear them, so that we can have some sort of uniformity on screen, though there is some flexibility in that too. We suggest starting to wear poppies a couple of weeks before Remembrance Sunday. That's roughly when the Royal British Legion officially starts selling them. This year they started to do so on Saturday 28 October.

Buying and wearing poppies is an entirely voluntary act in society, and we don't believe it should be any different for newsreaders or presenters. There are some places in the UK - Northern Ireland, for example - where wearing a poppy has been a controversial thing to do. It may be difficult for some foreign correspondents. And it may be inappropriate for some activities. So it wouldn't be right for us to issue an all-encompassing directive to all of our reporters and presenters to wear poppies. People have different views about it and find themselves in different situations at home and abroad.

And there is no guarantee that every presenter or reporter who wants to wear one in this period will always be seen doing so. Some TV is made a long time before it is shown and often the participants don't know when the programme will be transmitted. Nor is there a guarantee that presenters won't wear them earlier than suggested . Politicians seem to acquire poppies very early, so on some news and current affairs programmes you may find the presenter doing so too.

I have been asked whether presenters might be pressured by editors to wear poppies before they go on air. This shouldn't happen. But as the controversy sparked by Jon Snow has shown, there is clearly the potential that not wearing one might cause some controversy. In my experience editors and producers usually point this out to presenters and make it clear they might have to answer complaints if they don't wear one. But that's not the same as applying pressure - that's simply a matter of pointing out the consequences of their actions