Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

Does Pete the badge care, or are people being offended on his behalf?
Yawn. It's been pointed out a number of times that this isn't about Pete per se but the national broadcaster using derogatory terms to describe a lifelong Blue and then lying about it. The difference between the Mail piece and the BBC one is that the Mail isn't taking the piss out of Pete by calling him "Bertie".
 
Yawn. It's been pointed out a number of times that this isn't about Pete per se but the national broadcaster using derogatory terms to describe a lifelong Blue and then lying about it. The difference between the Mail piece and the BBC one is that the Mail isn't taking the piss out of Pete by calling him "Bertie".

The last time I had to deal with the Daily Mail it was after they wrote a piece trashing Kompany and City as City use a limo company he part owns. In order to flesh this non story out and not actually have to do any journalism, they stole a load of content from the limo company website that I had provided and so breached copyright.

Good to see that we're at least preventing them from theiving by providing them content for free.

Nice one.
 
Daily Mail online this morning 4/4/17 have Pete in all his glory at Arsenal on Sunday, calling him a walking souvenier shop, nothing nasty but slightly micky taking
 
Daily Mail online this morning 4/4/17 have Pete in all his glory at Arsenal on Sunday, calling him a walking souvenier shop, nothing nasty but slightly micky taking

Pete was the centre of attention last night outside Stamford Bridge.

A group of American tourists were taking photos of him. I thought he'd never get away. They wanted group shots, selfies, Pete on his own, Not only did he take it all in his stride he was a real pro; smiling on cue, lapping it all up. Very funny. (Nobody was taking the piss, they just wanted a picture of this Great British eccentric and he was happy to oblige).
 
Received a relay from the BBC White-Wash Department

Match of the Day social media platform, 5 February 2017
Thank you for your email of 3 April concerning a posting on Match of the Day social media. I am sorry you were not happy with the BBC’s response when you first raised this matter. The Executive Complaints Unit (“ECU”) has previously investigated a number of similar complaints and so I can send you a finding rather earlier than would normally be the case. The ECU assessed the use of a picture of a Manchester City supporter with a caption referring to him as “Bertie”, a nickname used by Manchester United supporters, in particular, to refer to supporters of Manchester City. It considered whether the use of the picture and caption amounted to a serious breach of the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines concerning Harm and Offence1 . The Unit began by considering how the post came to be posted in the form it was. According to BBC Sport, the social media producer lifted the name “Bertie” from a related (non-BBC) Twitter feed where fans were using the term alongside the same or a similar picture. He didn’t appreciate its significance. When complainants brought it to the editor’s attention the caption was removed. The ECU then considered if the use of the word “Bertie” to refer to a Manchester City supporter amounted a serious breach of the Harm and Offence guidelines. The guidelines include the following: When our content includes challenging material that risks offending some of our audience we must always be able to demonstrate a clear editorial purpose, taking account of generally accepted standards, and ensure it is clearly signposted. Such challenging material 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-and-offence 2 may include, but is not limited to, strong language, violence, sex, sexual violence, humiliation, distress, violation of human dignity, and discriminatory treatment or language. As you can see, there is no absolute bar on including potentially offensive material in BBC output although the inclusion of such material should meet certain requirements. In this case, the ECU did not believe that “generally accepted standards” were breached by the inadvertent use of a nickname used by one club’s fans to refer to another’s, even though this might be understandably annoying for Manchester City supporters. The Unit also took account of the fact that in deference to those who did take offence the caption was quickly removed when it was brought to the editor’s attention. That was deemed sufficient to dispose of the matter. The ECU therefore concluded there were no grounds to uphold complaints which had been made. I note you have said the post was unfair to you as a supporter of Manchester City but the Unit took the view it could not consider any complaints of unfairness to Manchester City supporters in general because the post was about a particular individual. The BBC’s complaints process makes it clear unfairness complaints cannot be brought by a third party. This finding represents the ECU’s final decision but it is open to you to comment on it. I would be grateful if you could let me have any such comments by 24 April. Otherwise, if you wish to pursue the matter further, it is open to you to ask the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, to consider your complaint. You can find details of how contact Ofcom and the procedures it will apply at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-toreport-a-complaint. Yours sincerely Colin Tregear Complaints Director

My follow-up

Dear Mr Tregear

Thank you for your reply ref CT/1/1700106 to my compliant.

I’m sorry but as I predicted another white-wash, with no consideration to my dissatisfaction as listed in my original e-mail to you and repeated below.

  1. The initial complaint was not taken serious enough and the offender(s) was not dealt with

  2. The replies contained untruths and fabrications to try and protect those involved

  3. Different excuses were used and clear lies were told
In fact, you have added to the lies giving yet another explanation as to reason for the use of the term “Bertie”
Reasons given:
First it was contained within the Meta data of the picture from the PA
This was proven to be untrue
Then it was “added in error without due diligence”

Now you contradict both previous excuses with a claim that it was from another Twitter account. Please supply me with the information so that I can check this, I won’t hold my breath.

Can you blame me for not believing any explanation, especially from an organisation that is institutionally guilty of cover-ups?

So what is the truth and why can’t you tell me, after-all I know the answer, and it is contradictive of the BBC Charter


You then conveniently hide behind not accepting complaints from third parties and fail to accept that the gentleman in question, maybe, is not capable of complaining. Have you considered that?

Next you have failed to address the contradiction that no one in the Sport department were aware of the term “Bertie” and its meaning yet, that very same department had produced an article explaining it. Just ignoring my question as you have done in your copy and paste reply will not make it go away

Can you clarify your role in the BBC; explain your impartiality and independence? It seems to me that the whole BBC complaints department is there to protect the BBC, white-washing problems away, telling lies if necessary.

I don’t need to remind you that the BBC is funded by license payers such as me, not a charge that I can choose to pay or not, effectively it’s a tax. I do cherish the BBC, despite its faults and flaws, and this is why I will take this complaint as far as I can. I am not prepared to be repeatedly lied to.

So please address my questions and whilst I appreciate that others have made similar complaints I don’t accept a cut and paste reply. I also think you should question why so many have complained about, what on the face of it is; somewhat trivial especially for a “third Party” Well let me enlighten you, it was the “straw that broke the Camel’s back” Fans of Manchester City are tired of the bias shown towards Manu and the unfair treatment of our club across the BBC media. The pundits are mostly all former players of either them or Liverpool I have numerous examples of the bias towards them. It’s just as though the BBC Sport department is an extension of their near neighbours in Salford and it is sickening
 
Colin Tregear claims that they cannot accept "complaints from third parties"?
So, when we hear of hundreds/thousands of complaints against programmes on the BBC - they're all from paries concerned are they?
When Clarkson used the racist term "slope" on Top Gear - were the majority of those complaints not from "third parties"?
The bloke is talking absolute bollocks... it's actually an insult to your intelligence!
 
Colin Tregear claims that they cannot accept "complaints from third parties"?
So, when we hear of hundreds/thousands of complaints against programmes on the BBC - they're all from paries concerned are they?
When Clarkson used the racist term "slope" on Top Gear - were the majority of those complaints not from "third parties"?
The bloke is talking absolute bollocks... it's actually an insult to your intelligence!
Its a convenient excuse to hide behind
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.