The High Visibility Blog
The High Visibility blog brings you regularly updated news about hi vis clothing and security equipment. High Visibility is a subsidiary of the Equisafety Group.
We would like to say a MASSIVE thank you to everyone we met at the MCN Motorcycle show 6-9th February. The POLITE range was a huge success and we sold out!!
Motorcyclist have a fantastic personality and the trade stand girls said it was their best ever show. We think this was more due to the fact of there being mostly men at the show walking around in leathers!!
Thank you for all you’re really positive attitudes toward the POLITE range and a big thank you to the Met Police for their support towards the POLITE range and telling people it is not illegal. It says POLITE not Police.
We have already booked for next year and look forward to seeing you all again and listen to your fantastic storys.
Check out our facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/#!/highvisibilitysportswear?fref=ts
Our next Motorbike Show is the following
Manchester Bike Show – 22-23rd March
BMF Peterborough Motorcycle Show 17-18th May
Bikefest Kelso 5-6th July
TailEnd Peterborough 13-14th September
More shows to be added soon.
Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers
Appeals to the Trust
and other editorial
issues considered by
the Editorial Standards
October 2013 issued December 2013
October 2013 issued December 2013 6
Fake Britain, BBC One, 4 June 2012
Appeal to the Trust
The complainant appealed to the Trust on 9 May 2013. With regard to point (a) of the
ECU’s decision, the complainant stated that, despite the ‘blobbing’, the design of the
‘POLITE’ waistcoat was obvious. Within minutes of the broadcast, the complainant was
receiving emails regarding the waistcoat being shown on Fake Britain, and Equisafety’s
Facebook page was being inundated with questions regarding the product’s authenticity.
While acknowledging that some viewers would not have known the design, the
complainant argued that this segment was aimed at horse riders who would have been
watching. As the waistcoat was so identifiable, and as it was indicated that the product
was ‘fake’, in that it did not meet standards, Equisafety should have been given the
courtesy of being asked to comment.
With regard to point (b) of the ECU’s decision, the complainant stated that the ‘POLITE’
waistcoat (although ‘blobbed’) was easily identifiable by horse riders watching the
programme, and it was therefore very obvious which product the tester was classing as
‘fake’. If the programme researchers had contacted Equisafety, or if they had taken notice
of Wirral Trading Standards, they would have been shown the certificates issued by one
of the largest international testing houses (namely, SATRA), which stated that the
waistcoat was tested after logos, signage and chequered strips were in place and that the
product had passed the applicable test. At the time the programme was aired, the
‘POLITE’ range was the only range on the market with these distinctive features, but due
to its popularity it has been copied by “many other companies”. The word ‘POLITE’ was
trademarked and all other products briefly shown were not of the same design at all.
With regard to points (d) and (e) of the ECU’s decision, the complainant raised various
points to state that the Contributor had been hostile to Equisafety over the past few years
and this is what motivated the Contributor to contribute to the programme. The
complainant reiterated that the Contributor was a close personal friend of the
Competitor’s owner and could be found working on the Competitor’s stand at events and
modelling for them on photo shoots.
The complainant said that, at the beginning of the programme [sic],7 the commentary
made viewers aware that a ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was being tested, started talking about the
Contributor buying a fake hi-vis jacket, then finished by talking again about the ‘POLITE’
range. According to the complainant, this “clever piece of editing” was done to lead
viewers to believe that the programme was about the ‘POLITE’ range only. The
complainant acknowledged that the Contributor did not state what brand of jacket she
had bought, but in the complainant’s view the insinuation was clear. As the Contributor
only ever wore the Competitor’s products, the complainant doubted whether she would
purchase another company’s product on any other occasion. According to the
complainant, the Contributor was also very aware of the ‘POLITE’ range before the
programme was aired, so to state that she had “come across the ‘POLITE’ range of
garments and accessories made by Equisafety” was completely untrue. The complainant
stated that the Contributor had been aware of the ‘POLITE’ range since 2010, and queried
why she had suddenly “come across it”.
The complainant stated that, owing to her association with the Competitor, the
Contributor was extremely knowledgeable and proficient in the legalities of relevant tests
and certificates, and regularly gave safety talks at a county British Horse Society in her
capacity as Safety Awareness Officer. Consequently, the complainant was “astounded”
that the Contributor had presented on camera a certificate issued by testing house TUV
and had insinuated that it was one of Equisafety’s. The complainant had contacted TUV,
who stated that they had neither heard of the Contributor nor sent her a certificate, which
led the complainant to believe the certificate had been downloaded via the Internet.
The complainant’s appeal raised the following points:
Point A: Equisafety’s ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was said to have “failed legal EU safety
requirements”, whereas it had been certified by international testing house SATRA, and
Wirral Trading Standards had told the Producer/Director that it was satisfied that
Equisafety’s products met the applicable standards.
Point B: The tester stated that Equisafety’s ‘POLITE’ waistcoat did not have a
sufficiently large area of yellow material because it had been modified after certification,
whereas the waistcoat was tested and certified with all logos, signage and chequered
strips in place.
Point C: The BBC should have given Equisafety an opportunity to comment on the
allegation that the waistcoat failed to meet safety requirements. Had the BBC done so, or
had the BBC taken notice of the Trading Standards Officer they contacted, they would
have been shown the SATRA certificates.
Point D: As the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was identifiable, the allegation that it was fake and
did not meet safety standards was unfair to Equisafety. Equisafety should have been
given the opportunity to comment on these allegations.
Point E: The Contributor has a history of being hostile to Equisafety and this was what
had motivated her to contribute to the item.
7 It was assumed that the complainant was in fact referring to the beginning of the item,
not the programme.
October 2013 issued December 2013 11
Point F: A number of comments were made by and about the Contributor which were
inaccurate and misleading.
Point G: The Contributor made references to a hi-vis jacket and corresponding TUV
certificate which were inaccurate and misleading.
Point H: The way in which the item was edited misleadingly implied that Equisafety’s
products are fake and do not meet safety standards.
3. Applicable Editorial Standards
The full guidelines are at http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines. The sections on
Accuracy, Impartiality, and Fairness, Contributors and Consent were relevant to this
4. The Committee’s decision
In reaching its decision, the Committee took full account of all the available evidence,
including (but not limited to) the Editorial Adviser’s report, a supplementary note prepared
by the Editorial Adviser and submissions from the complainant and from the BBC.
Points A and B
The Committee considered Points A and B against the editorial tests in Accuracy
Guidelines 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.4.11.
The Committee took the view that the BBC was bound at all times by the Accuracy
Guidelines, regardless of whether a given product was identifiable or not. Therefore, any
statement that a garment “failed legal EU safety requirements” must, irrespective of the
garment’s identifiability, be duly accurate. Similarly, any suggestion that the garment did
not have a sufficiently large area of yellow material because it had been modified after
certification, must also be duly accurate. Given the potential seriousness of any allegation
that a company was selling a hi-vis product that was purported, but failed, to meet legal
requirements, the Committee believed the requirements of due accuracy in this context
The Committee considered the subject and nature of the programme and how viewers
would have regarded products depicted in the programme. The Committee noted that the
programme’s webpage8 describes Fake Britain as a:
[s]eries which reveals the extent of fake goods in the UK, and investigates the
conmen who are trying to get their hands on your money.
In the Committee’s opinion, the title ‘Fake Britain’ suggested that any product depicted in
the programme was by implication fake, unless indicated otherwise. The Committee felt
that an allegation that a product was fake was an extremely serious one. The Committee
therefore concluded that it was incumbent on the programme makers to consider very
carefully how audiences were likely to regard any product depicted in the programme.
October 2013 issued December 2013 12
The Committee noted that the programme refers to the following in relation to the
(unnamed) ‘POLITE’ waistcoat:
Commentary: To meet the required visibility standards, the garment
MUST have a certain area of luminous material and this one falls short.
And Chris thinks he knows why.
Chris (BTTG Garment Tester): There are things put on them which
obviously obscure the fluorescent fabric. This is the sort of problem that we
see quite often with garments that are tested and certified and then
they’re slightly modified, they’re altered. It’s, I suppose, a question of not
considering the consequences of those small changes.
Commentary: Of the two jackets we tested, both failed legal EU safety
requirements, but for different reasons …
The Committee also noted that the commentary stated:
But it’s not just the industry experts that are concerned about fake hi-vis safety
gear on sale to the public …
In the Committee’s view, viewers would have construed the phrase “fake hi-vis safety
gear” as referring to the two garments tested by BTTG in the sequence that immediately
preceded the line of commentary, one of which was the (unnamed) ‘POLITE’ waistcoat.
The Committee considered whether the item’s description of the (unnamed) ‘POLITE’
waistcoat as “fake hi-vis safety gear”, the statement that the garment “failed legal EU
safety requirements”, and the reference to the garment not having a sufficiently large
area of yellow material due to possible modifications, were duly accurate.
The Committee noted that there was evidence to suggest that the waistcoat met EU legal
• It noted that on 5 June 2009, SATRA issued an EC type examination certificate for
Equisafety’s ‘Air’ waistcoat, of which the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was a later variant.
The Committee noted that the ‘Air’ waistcoat bore reflective strips and no
lettering, whereas the ‘POLITE’ variant bore chequered reflective strips and
• The Committee noted that the complainant had stated that Equisafety’s ‘POLITE’
waistcoat first came onto the market in 2010. The Committee also noted that the
Contributor had brought the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat to the attention of the Association
of Chief Police Officers on 14 August 2010, from which the Committee inferred
that the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was on the market at or before that date.
• The Committee noted that Equisafety submitted the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat to SATRA
for testing in November 2011, and that SATRA issued a Technical Report on
30 November 2011. Page 3 of SATRA’s Technical Report, dated 30 November
2011, showed photographs of the front and back of the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat with
logos, signage and chequered strips in place, from which the Committee inferred
that the garments tested by SATRA and BTTG were both ‘POLITE’ waistcoats.
With regard to the regulatory effect of SATRA’s Technical Report, the Committee
noted that, according to SATRA’s Managing Director:
October 2013 issued December 2013 13
“Test reports are an important part of the technical file, but cannot be considered
as satisfying the [PPE] Directive on their own. The legitimacy to apply the CE mark
comes from an EC type examination certificate after the EC type examination
process has been successfully completed … Only once the EC type examination
process has been passed, can the product be deemed to have satisfied all the
requirements of the PPE Directive.”
• The Committee noted that, on 7 March 2012, SATRA added the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat
to its previously issued EC type examination certificate for the ‘Air’ waistcoat. The
Committee noted that the date of certification of the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat postdated
the purchase and testing of the garment that appeared in the item, and
pre-dated the broadcast.
The Committee noted that the Editorial Adviser’s report and supplementary note referred
to other safety certification relating to the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat.
The Committee noted that SATRA and BTTG are accredited by UKAS9 to test and certify
certain products and are ‘Notified Bodies’ (Notified Bodies are appointed by EU Member
State governments and notified to the European Commission on the basis of their ability
to carry out the examinations and tests required for CE marking of Personal Protective
With regard to the apparent conflict between SATRA’s certification of the ‘POLITE’
waistcoat and BTTG’s findings, the Committee noted that, according to the BTTG tester:
“For EN 1150 design assessment, there is no agreed test method. Therefore, there
is scope for difference between Test Houses.”
The Committee noted that the commentary stated that “other areas leave a lot to be
desired” [emphasis added], whereas the BTTG tester had subsequently explained:
“The failure was by 0.01 m², or 100 cm², which is of the order of 2-3% of the
required total. It is the equivalent of approximately 1 cm extra length on the Vest.
It could be described as a failure by a slight margin. [emphasis added]”
The Committee noted that it is responsible for determining appeals on BBC Editorial
Standards, but it was not within its remit to determine whether legal standards had been
met and at what point those standards were deemed to be met. The issue to be
determined was whether the statements in the programme were duly accurate.
The Committee took into account that there was evidence that the waistcoat was
purchased and tested by the programme makers prior to SATRA adding the ‘POLITE’
waistcoat to the previously issued EC type examination certificate for the Air waistcoat.
However, the Committee took the view that, given that there was evidence to suggest
that the waistcoat had been certified to pass safety standards by SATRA at the point of
broadcast, that there was no agreed test method, and that the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat had
failed BTTG’s test by only a slight margin, the description of the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat in the
programme as “fake hi-vis safety gear”, and the statement that the jacket “failed to meet
EU legal standards” were not duly accurate. In reaching this decision the Committee
noted that it was not its role to resolve the apparent conflict between the SATRA and
BTTG test. Rather, its role was to determine whether the unequivocal statements in the
item, that the waistcoat failed to meet safety standards, were duly accurate. For the
reasons set out in this finding, the Committee concluded that they were not.
9 see footnote 3 above
October 2013 issued December 2013 14
The Committee also took the view that the cumulative effect of the commentary – and in
particular the statement that other areas left “a lot to be desired” – would have been to
mislead viewers into believing that the margin of failure was significantly greater than was
actually the case.
In relation to the reference to possible modifications leading the waistcoat to fall short of
safety standards, the Committee noted that, in the ‘rushes’ (unedited footage) of his
interview, the BTTG tester had repeatedly qualified his comments concerning possible
“What often happens is that a manufacturer will submit a garment for certification,
and it’ll be a plain garment, and it will meet the requirements, will get a certificate,
but often you’ll see manufacturers then changing the garment, adding badges,
adding things onto it, which then take away from the area of the material and will
then actually make that garment no longer compliant with the standard. That’s
possibly what’s happened in this case. …
So, possibly what has happened is that, when they first submitted the garment
for testing, it may not have had the badge on the back. …
Then possibly what has happened is that the manufacturers decided to put the
badge on the back …
It’s possible that when the garment was first checked it was a plain waistcoat,
and possibly what’s happened is that the manufacturers, after certification, after
testing, they’ve then decided to put the badge on the back …
It’s possible that, when the garment was submitted, it was a plain garment with
no badges on, no writing on, that maybe that was added after the garment was
tested and certified … [emphases added]”
The Committee compared the BTTG tester’s comments with the corresponding section of
Commentary: To meet the required visibility standards, the garment MUST have
a certain area of luminous material and this one falls short. And Chris thinks he
Chris: There are things put on them which obviously obscure the fluorescent
fabric. This is the sort of problem that we see quite often with garments that are
tested and certified and then they’re slightly modified, they’re altered. It’s, I
suppose, a question of not considering the consequences of those small changes.
In the Committee’s view, the item as broadcast suggested that the addition of wording or
other design changes on the waistcoat led this waistcoat to “fall short” of safety
standards. Given the room for difference between testing houses, given the naturally
speculative nature of the tester’s comments in the rushes, and given the waistcoat was
certified as having passed the EU safety standard at the time of broadcast with the
wording in place, the suggestion that this waistcoat fell short of the EU standards due to
modifications was not duly accurate.
October 2013 issued December 2013 15
The Committee considered Point C against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1
The Committee noted that the ECU had not considered the issue of whether the
information regarding the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s alleged non-compliance with safety
standards was properly sourced and/or cross-checked.
The Committee noted that the penultimate paragraph of Editorial Guideline 3.1 states:
Where appropriate to the output, we should:
• gather material using first hand sources wherever possible
• check and cross check facts
• validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material
• corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.
The Committee noted that Editorial Guideline 3.2.2 states:
All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced,
based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise
language. We should be honest and open about what we don’t know and avoid
unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that
cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.
The Committee noted that the programme makers had acknowledged that, at a meeting
on 7 February 2012 (at or about the time of filming), Wirral Trading Standards had told
the programme’s Producer that they did not believe there was a problem with Equisafety
products, and that the test certificates they had seen (supplied by Equisafety) showed
they were compliant with safety standards (although Wirral Trading Standards had
acknowledged that there was a conflict between those results and test results supplied by
the Retroreflective Equipment Manufacturers Association (REMA).
The Committee also noted that the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s User Information sheet, which
was enclosed with the garment tested by BTTG, stated that an EC type examination had
been carried out by SATRA.
The Committee noted that the programme makers had explained that they did not
contact Equisafety to make further enquiries regarding the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat because
they did not identify Equisafety in the programme. The Committee repeated its earlier
conclusion that, regardless of whether the garment in question was identifiable or not, the
BBC must comply with the Accuracy Guidelines. In the Committee’s view, being aware
that Wirral Trading Standards were satisfied with Equisafety’s certification, and also being
in possession of the garment’s User Information sheet, the programme makers were
under an obligation to double-check with SATRA whether the garment met applicable
safety standards. Alternatively the programme makers could have contacted Equisafety to
make enquiries regarding the safety certification. Noting that the programme makers had
not contacted SATRA or Equisafety, but had relied solely on BTTG’s test results, the
Committee concluded that the item was not properly sourced and/or cross-checked.
October 2013 issued December 2013 16
The Committee considered Point D against the editorial tests in Fairness Guidelines 6.1,
6.2.3 and 6.4.25.
Before addressing Point D, the Committee considered whether the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was
The Committee noted that, despite having given the complainant and programme makers
a fair opportunity to provide evidence on this point, at the time of considering the appeal
the Committee had not seen any evidence that any garment resembling Equisafety’s
‘POLITE’ waistcoat was on the market at the date of broadcast 10.It also noted that a
chequered waistcoat by the Competitor was not on sale at the date of the broadcast.
In any case, the Committee noted that, starting from the date of broadcast, numerous
comments about the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s appearance on Fake Britain had been made on
Equisafety’s Facebook page. In the Committee’s view, it appeared from some of those
comments that people in the equestrian hi-vis market, including purchasers of Equisafety
products, had recognised the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat.
The Committee therefore concluded that, despite the blobbing, the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat
The Committee then considered Point D against the editorial tests in the Guidelines on
Fairness, Contributors and Consent. The Committee noted that Editorial Guideline 6.1
The BBC strives to be fair to all – fair to those our output is about, fair to
contributors, and fair to our audiences.
In the Committee’s view, given the ‘POLITE’ waistcoat’s identifiability, the cumulative
effect of the breaches of the Accuracy guidelines under Points A–C above had resulted in
unfairness to Equisafety.
The Committee agreed that there was a significant public interest in investigating the
standards of high visibility garments on sale to the public. The Committee noted,
however, that, where the BBC’s output makes allegations of wrongdoing, iniquity or
incompetence, or lays out a strong and damaging critique of an individual or organisation
(as was the case in this instance), Editorial Guidelines 6.2.3 and 6.4.25 state that the
individual or organisation should normally be given a right of reply, unless there is an
editorial justification to proceed without it.
10 Following circulation of the finding to the complainant and programme makers, the
programme makers alleged that it was unfair for the Committee to conclude that no other
garment was on the market at the time without requesting any evidence of this. They
sought to provide evidence of another person selling similar waistcoats at the time of
broadcast of Fake Britain. The Committee considered that the programme makers had
been provided a fair opportunity to provide comments and evidence prior to the
consideration of the appeal. The Committee agreed that the additional information was
provided by the programme makers out of time. In any case, it appeared from the
Facebook comments that some people had identified the POLITE waistcoat.
In the Committee’s view, Equisafety should have been given the opportunity to comment
on the serious allegations that had been made against it, and there was no editorial
justification for proceeding without this.
The Committee considered Point E against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guideline 3.4.7
and Impartiality Guideline 4.1. In the Committee’s view, the questions for consideration
were whether the programme makers had made appropriate checks to establish the
Contributor’s credentials (as Guideline 3.4.7 required), and whether the programme was
duly impartial in this regard (as Guideline 4.1 required).
In the Committee’s view, the complainant’s allegation that the Contributor had made a
number of previous complaints about Equisafety did not necessarily imply that the
Contributor’s concerns were not legitimate, or were not sincerely held.
The Committee noted, and agreed with, the ECU’s finding that viewers might have judged
the Contributor’s contribution somewhat differently if they had known that she was
associated with the Competitor.
With regard to the checks that were made to establish the Contributor’s credentials (in
particular, the nature of her association with the Competitor), the Committee noted that,
according to the programme makers:
• The programme makers had contacted the Contributor, having been referred to her
by REMA, to whom they were referred by the CEO of the British Safety Industry
• The Contributor represented herself as a keen horse rider with an interest in safety.
• The Contributor mentioned that she had previously complained about Equisafety to
the ASA, Wirral Trading Standards, Aldi and other manufacturers.
• The programme makers’ interest in the Contributor was because of a referral by REMA
and her complaint to the ASA.
• The Contributor showed a keen interest in the general public safety aspects of the
story and had suggested that the programme focus on “the fakes in circulation from
all manner of manufacturers”.
• It was clear to the Producer that the Contributor had a lot of knowledge of safety
standards. When asked about why she had this knowledge, she explained that she
had started looking into it after buying a jacket she was unhappy with.
• The programme makers had checked with the Contributor whether she had any
connection to the hi-vis industry. The Contributor told them that she had done some
modelling for her friend’s company and occasionally helped out at trade shows, but
categorically told the programme makers that she did not work for that company.
• The programme makers accepted that this was the case. Given that: the Contributor’s
complaint to the ASA was upheld; the hi-vis equipment (including an Equisafety
jacket) failed the test that was filmed; and the Contributor had mentioned other
companies in addition to Equisafety, the programme makers believed (and still
believe) her to be a valid contributor.
• During a meeting with the programme’s Producer on 7 February 2012, Wirral Trading
Standards had mentioned the Contributor’s complaint against Equisafety. This was
why the programme makers had contacted Wirral Trading Standards, having been
alerted by REMA. Wirral Trading Standards did not mention any links between the
Contributor and the Competitor.
The Committee also noted from the rushes of the Contributor’s interview that, when
invited to compare Equisafety’s User Information with that of the Competitor, the
Contributor at first hesitated, then agreed, saying:
“I don’t think [the Competitor’s Managing Director] would mind … No, I don’t think
It seemed to the Committee that the Contributor’s contribution to the item was an
important and substantial one, and that viewers would have accorded considerable weight
to her comments. Given the significance of the Contributor’s contribution, and given that
viewers might have judged her contribution differently had they known that she was
associated with the Competitor, the Committee concluded that the programme makers
should have taken further steps to ascertain the precise nature of the Contributor’s
association with the Competitor.
The Committee then considered whether the item was duly impartial. Having previously
concluded that viewers would have accorded considerable weight to the Contributor’s
contribution, and that the programme makers had not taken sufficient steps to ascertain
the precise nature of her association with the Competitor, the Committee concluded that
the item was not duly impartial in this regard.
Finding: Upheld (regarding the failure to ascertain the precise nature of the
Contributor's association with the Competitor)
The Committee considered Point F against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1,
3.2.1–3.2.3 and 3.4.11.
The Committee noted that this point of appeal concerned the accuracy of the following
statements in the commentary:
“She [the Contributor] recently invested in a hi-vis jacket, to help her ride around
her local area in safety …
But it’s not just the industry experts that are concerned about fake hi-vis safety
gear on sale to the public. [the Contributor] is a keen horse rider …
After finding out hi-vis garments needed to be properly tested and certificated, she
began to doubt whether the one she’d bought was up to scratch …
October 2013 issued December 2013 19
But the jackets themselves are not the only fakes in the hi-vis market, as [the
Contributor] discovered when she decided to look at other hi-vis clothing and
came across the Polite range of garments and accessories made by Equisafety...”
In the Committee’s view, these comments implied that:
• the Contributor had purchased the jacket in question recently, whereas it appears she
had purchased it in 2009
• the Contributor was a lay person, whereas she appeared to have detailed knowledge
of the regulation and certification of hi-vis apparel
• apart from her personal concerns, the Contributor was disinterested in hi-vis apparel,
whereas she was associated with a hi-vis company (although the precise nature of
that association was not known).
In the Committee’s view, considered singly, the quoted comments were not so serious as
to amount to individual breaches of the Accuracy Guidelines. However, considered
cumulatively, their effect was to give the impression that the Contributor was a
disinterested member of the public. This was inaccurate and misleading.
The Committee considered Point G against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1,
3.2.1–3.2.3 and 3.4.11.
The Committee noted the complainant’s points that:
• although it was not expressly stated what brand of jacket the Contributor had bought,
it was implied that it was an Equisafety product
• contrary to what was implied, the Contributor had not contacted Equisafety
• the commentary made viewers aware that a ‘POLITE’ waistcoat was being tested,
started talking about the Contributor buying a fake hi-vis jacket, then finished by
talking again about the ‘POLITE’ range; this “clever piece of editing” was done to lead
viewers to believe that the programme was about the ‘POLITE’ range only
• the presence of workwear in the background of the interview with the REMA
spokesman, taken in conjunction with the presence of products by Equisafety and
another hi-vis company in the foreground of the interview with the Contributor,
implied that the Contributor was discussing Equisafety products
• contrary to what was stated, the Contributor had not contacted German testing house
• while it was not stated that the TUV certificate referred to Equisafety, this was
The Committee noted that the programme makers had not checked the authenticity of
the TUV certificate.
October 2013 issued December 2013 20
Noting that the item did not mention the identity of the manufacturer of the jacket that
the Contributor had purchased, the Committee considered whether the item had implied
that it was an Equisafety jacket.
The Committee noted that, following the Contributor’s discussion of the jacket in
question, the commentary stated that she had:
“decided to look at other high-vis clothing and came across the Polite range of
garments and accessories made by Equisafety. [emphasis added]”
Noting that this was the first time that Equisafety’s name was mentioned in the item, the
Committee took the view that viewers would have construed the word “other” as implying
that the jacket previously discussed by the Contributor was not an Equisafety jacket.
Given the presence of another hi-vis company’s product in the foreground of the interview
with the Contributor, the Committee could not agree that the presence of Equisafety
products in that interview implied that the Contributor was referring solely to Equisafety
The Committee did not therefore agree that the editing and commentary of the BTTG test
and the Contributor’s interview had implied that the jacket purchased by the Contributor
was an Equisafety jacket.
With regard to the authenticity of the TUV certificate referred to by the Contributor and
shown in the item, the Committee noted that the complainant had supplied it with what
appeared to be a copy of the certificate, which the complainant stated had been
downloaded from the Internet. However, in the Committee’s view, the mere fact that the
complainant had downloaded from the Internet a copy of the certificate, or one
resembling it, did not prove that the Contributor had done so. The Committee noted that,
in email correspondence with the complainant, TUV had been unable to confirm that the
Contributor had not contacted it in connection with the certificate, stating “It is possible”.
The Committee's view was that it had not seen any evidence which led to a conclusion
that the TUV certificate was not authentic, or that the Contributor had not contacted TUV
in connection with the certificate.
Finding: Not upheld
The Committee considered Point H against the editorial tests in Accuracy Guidelines 3.1,
3.2.1, 3.2.3 and 3.4.11, Impartiality Guideline 4.1 and Fairness, Contributors and Consent
The Committee noted the complainant’s allegation that the item as a whole, and its
editing in particular, was inaccurate, misleading, partial and/or unfair.
The Committee noted that Equisafety’s were not the only identifiable products in the
programme, and that, in the course of the complaint correspondence, the complainant
had identified other hi-vis clothing companies’ products from the item.
Having reflected upon its previous findings in this appeal, the Committee concluded that,
considered as a whole, the item was inaccurate, misleading and unfair towards
Equisafety. The Committee noted that the commentary regarding the ASA's investigation
October 2013 issued December 2013 21
was accurate: the ASA had found that the suggestion that the Police had endorsed the
product was misleading. However, the Committee considered that the overall effect of the
item was to give the misleading impression that the 'POLITE' waistcoat was fake in that it
did not meet safety standards.
The Committee could not agree that the item as a whole was biased in focusing on one
particular manufacturer, as other hi-vis clothing companies’ products were featured in the
Finding: Upheld in relation to accuracy and fairness; not upheld in relation to
The Committee decided that the BBC should broadcast a statement of the
Committee’s finding with the date, time, service and wording to be approved
by the Committee.
The complainant asked that a letter concerning the Contributor’s complaints to the ASA
about Equisafety be made available to the Committee. This letter was made available at
At a late stage in the appeal process, the complainant requested that the Committee
adjudicate upon an issue that had not been considered at Stage 2 or raised on appeal.
The Committee confirmed that this issue had been brought to its attention, and agreed
with the Trust Unit that it would not be appropriate, proportionate or cost-effective for the
Committee to consider this issue.
EQUISAFETY Level 1 Pairs
EQUISAFETY Level 2 Pairs
EQUISAFETY Level 2 Individuals (As above Cla...ss 2)
EQUISAFETY Level 3 Pairs
EQUISAFETY Level 3 Individual
EQUISAFETY Level 4 Individuals – FITE European Cup
EQUISAFETY Team Competition
All winners will receive POLITE products.
TREC Ireland is delighted to announce the title sponsor for the 2013
National Championships. The EQUISAFETY TREC Ireland National Championships
will be held from the 19th to the 21st of July at Ross House Equestrian
Centre, Mountnugent, Co. Cavan. UK based company Equisafety produce high
quality high viz products for horse and rider as well as a range of
performance sportswear. Visit their website
www.equisafety.com to see their excellent selection of products
Stand Out In A Crowd
Ever wanted to ride out wearing a product that kept you cool, but that offered you the chance to be at the height of fashion at the same time? Well now you can……
By wearing the Chiffon Rainbow Top, from High Visibility, is at the forefront of this year’s fashion featuring all those neon/bright colours that can be seen everywhere on the high street – pinks, oranges, yellows, greens etc.
Designed for the lady who wants to looks fashionable while riding, cycling or just out and about, this chic and sophisticated top has been designed using the very latest in technical performance fabrics.
This stunning garment has a vivid rainbow-striped chiffon back, which with its plain pink or yellow front, made from wickable fabric, will keep you cool but allow you to stand out in a crowd.
Sizes: Small – XXL
Colours: Yellow or Pink with Rainbow Striped Back
Available from July - only at www.highvisibility.uk.com
Best Caption wins a £45.00 rug.
Please go to our Equisafety Facebook page to add your caption.
The POLITE range was manufactured after this positive response by Association of Chief Police Officer (ACPO) Lead of Mounted Policing, Commander Robert Broadhurst from the Metropolitan Police who stated the following;
“Provided there is no deliberate attempt to impersonate Police there us very little we can do other than perhaps ask them to ensure the word looks more like polite than police. Assuming they have no items of police uniform it is unlikely the public will mistake them for us but if they do it will just be another High Visibility Patrol which should add to the reassurance picture.
After Commander Robert Broadhurst left the ACPO Mounted Section, Acting Head of the Mounted Section Christopher Rowbottom stated;
“My understanding of impersonating a police officer requires actions and intent not merely wearing clothing. I do not believe the wearing of your polite range would constitute impersonating a police officer.”
The new 2014 POLITE range was designed with the guidence from ACPO.
The POLITE Cycling Waistcoat is the best high viz on the sportswear market for giving you respect on the road
We are thrilled to announce that the Goverment are going to invest One Billion into cycling and cycling safety.
Its being talked about on Radio 4 today Also in the same feature they are interviewing a keen cyclist from London Mike Blackman, who wears the POLITE waistcoat daily and gives a glowing report on how effective it is.
Listen to Radio 4 today between 12 and 1pm YOU & YOURS program
Equisafety was proud to be a sponsor of the 4th riders4helmets safety symposium held in Kentucky USA.
In the video below, Equisafety founder Nicola Fletcher discusses her inspiration for the Equisafety range and how it will benefit the American market.
Please click the link to watch the video.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDcLSNPe3Rg&feature=youtu.be
- Working with Shearwater Insurance to keep you safer.
- POLITE a huge success at the EcCel
- Offical BBC Trust report on the BBC apology
- The EQUISAFETY TREC Ireland National Championships
- Fashionable & Funky...
- Competition time
- Comment from a new Cycling customer about the POLITE waistcoat
- Police guidence to HighVisibility about the POLITE range
- POLITE waistcoat being tested on Radio 4 today
- Equisafety Launches in to the USA