The BBC has demanded that victims of an antisemitic attack on Oxford Street reveal their identities before it responds to their complaints, the JC can reveal.

Lawyers acting for the victims wrote to the corporation to contest the BBC’s claim that one of them had said “dirty Muslims” as their bus was attacked by thugs during Chanukah last year.
In a letter, the BBC replied: “We will be unable to substantively further progress your legal complaint until you identify your clients.”

Leading legal expert Lord Carlile told the JC: “It is wholly unacceptable for the BBC to try to force frightened teenagers to reveal their names, particularly as there is film of the incident anyway. It is not part of a civil action. All they are doing at this stage is seeking answers from the BBC and an apology.”

The crossbench peer and former counter-terrorism watchdog added: “The BBC is just wrong and it goes against public interest to insist that people who have been subjected to an attack should identify themselves at this stage.”

Jonathan Turner, executive director of UK Lawyers for Israel, said that the BBC was attempting to intimidate the youngsters into dropping the claim. Victims of racial harrassment often seek anonymity to avoid being targeted further, he said.

“The BBC does not need to know who the claimants are to investigate the veracity of their own report,” he said, adding that the corporation’s move was “pure prevarication.”

The section of the audio recording said to contain the anti-Muslim slur has been analysed by a forensic expert and linguist on behalf of the Board of Deputies, the JC revealed last week.

They unanimously concluded that the alleged English-language slur was a Hebrew phrase: “Tikra lemishehu, ze dachuf,” meaning: “Call someone, it’s urgent”. The BBC has provided no evidence to the contrary.

The victims are claiming that the BBC report was a breach of equalities legislation and have demanded an apology.

A Campaign Against Antisemitism spokesman said: “The BBC is attempting to bludgeon the Jewish community into silence by hiding behind layers of unaccountable bureaucracy. This incident and the BBC’s response demonstrates how unaccountable the corporation has become.”

The victim’s lawyers highlighted how the BBC described the antisemitic attack as being “apparent” or “alleged”, but presented the allegation that a Jewish youth had uttered an anti-Muslim slur as “undisputed” fact.

They said that the victims “categorically deny” that the slur was said, arguing that the BBC discriminated against their clients “by claiming that they or members of their party were at fault and to be blamed as well as those who abused them”.

The letter added: “The report fails to make clear that the antisemitic abuse was entirely unprovoked and significantly understates its seriousness.”

It called for the BBC to withdraw its allegations and offer compensation.

The BBC’s legal team denied that its reporting breached the Equality Act.

It justified its position by citing the “uncontroversial principle of English law that a defendant is entitled to know the identity of the party or parties that are making a claim against them”.

There is growing pressure on BBC Director General Tim Davie to resolve the escalating row ahead of his meeting this month with the Board of Deputies’ president, Marie van der Zyl.

Theresa Villiers MP, vice-chairwoman of Conservative Friends of Israel, told the JC: “The BBC’s reporting of this shocking incident falls below the standards of impartiality we have a right to expect of our national broadcaster.

"The situation is made worse by the corporation’s failure to correct its article and by its defensive and unhelpful response to the complaint from lawyers acting for the victims.”

Fellow Tory MP and former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale said: “This has left a damaging stain on the BBC in the eyes of the Jewish community. It is in everyone’s interests it is rapidly resolved.”

A spokesman for the Met Police said an enquiry into the attack was on-going but no arrests had been made. The BBC said it would not comment on legal correspondence.