Media discussion - 2025/26

[Saddleworth2]

Yup, that is what they do. Sometimes, you can drag it out to 3 or 4 replies, but ultimately, they shut it down at their end eventually.

I read an article about their complaints stats. Seemingly just a very small % reach senior management. This is the reason why.

 

[asahartford1]

This is the only thing I can't understand about our owners.

Because the same outlets would then say City owners shutting down free speech. It would go viral, more bad press , more fans and general idiots on SM getting involved.
That is why.

Save artillery for the big battles. Our OWNER or rather his subordinates will react to any personal vitriol in a commensurate manner.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Sorry its a bit long winded but this is exactly what I put in my appeal,

So when "Keith" Says "City are Proven Self Confessed Cheats" thats ok? That meets all your Criteria for being a good post? Could you supply me with any information about when City were found guilty of being "Self confessed Cheats" otherwise its just a complete lie which appart from being off the actual topic is also abusive & a Lie,
If you are going to have a HYS section please at least try and keep it sensible, I know all football fans are going to have different opinions but you are happy for people to tell complete Lies and get away with it?

I then recieved the reply posted above this morning, I know its a waste of time but I thought I would test the appeal system, fully expecting a reply to say they had removed the post, I guess its a free for all on the BBC as long as you aim your lies & Abuse at City & non of the other clubs?,
I just hope if we win the case & are found not guilty City will take some action but I have serious doubts they will.

The comment is clearly defamatory. It fails two tests one is that it will "disparage City in their trade" by suggesting they can't be trusted as a business which could damage them commercially. The other one relates to City's managers. Not naming people doesn't protect the BBC from a libel claim. In fact any of City's senior Financial managers all the way up to Khaldoon could sue if they wanted to so in theory the BBC could face multiple actions. In practice of course no one would waste their time suing because of comments from a lunatic. But the BBC is the publisher and has a duty to be accurate and impartial. The person who handled your complaint is clearly not equipped to do the job.The HYS comments section is just an open sewer of racist and libellous comments and it can't be justified.

 

[waspish]

The comment is clearly defamatory. It fails two tests one is that it will "disparage City in their trade" by suggesting they can't be trusted as a business which could damage them commercially. The other one relates to City's managers. Not naming people doesn't protect the BBC from a libel claim. In fact any of City's senior Financial managers all the way up to Khaldoon could sue if they wanted to so in theory the BBC could face multiple actions. In practice of course no one would waste their time suing because of comments from a lunatic. But the BBC is the publisher and has a duty to be accurate and impartial. The person who handled your complaint is clearly not equipped to do the job.The HYS comments section is just an open sewer of racist and libellous comments and it can't be justified.

Who actually runs the website as in who overlooks it all not some kid looking at posts then making his mind up if it fine or not?! Emailing who outlooks it or the “boss” now he won’t be seeing what’s been posted or not allowed to be posted! So emailing him/her till you get a response is a better bet than the one who just allows disallows posts

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I read an article about their complaints stats. Seemingly just a very small % reach senior management. This is the reason why.

The complaints system is in total chaos. In fact Ofcom itself has been overwhelmed with complaints about the BBC. When you consider that the vast majority of people don't even bother complaining it paints a picture of an institution which has essentially collapsed. Like so many in this country.

 

[Kinkybyname]

The comment is clearly defamatory. It fails two tests one is that it will "disparage City in their trade" by suggesting they can't be trusted as a business which could damage them commercially. The other one relates to City's managers. Not naming people doesn't protect the BBC from a libel claim. In fact any of City's senior Financial managers all the way up to Khaldoon could sue if they wanted to so in theory the BBC could face multiple actions. In practice of course no one would waste their time suing because of comments from a lunatic. But the BBC is the publisher and has a duty to be accurate and impartial. The person who handled your complaint is clearly not equipped to do the job.The HYS comments section is just an open sewer of racist and libellous comments and it can't be justified.

guilt and responsibility lies with the publisher

 

[Legalamb777]

I dont know why I bother but I just reported some cretin called Keith on the BBC HYS section about Phil Foden who posted "City are Proven Self Confessed Cheats", needless to say I got the reply that the BBC didnt have a problem with that post,
its a real shame but the BBC really do seem to be turning into a Shit Stain of an organisation.

Turning into did you say?

 

[Legalamb777]

Tbh, I don't know why he was picked or started, and he only played 50min. And if McNulty thinks the greek Papillon is the answer to England's defensive issues, I know a Nigerian Prince who needs help unlocking his ancestral funds.

“The Greek Papillon”
I fucking love bluemoon sometimes…..kudos

 

[Legalamb777]

We’ve definitely got one journalist who is honest about City - John Cross from Mirror.

Gives it them about the cup final & how Pep genius was a new way of smashing gunners.
Also - airs the theory that it’s now ANYONE BUT ARSENAL - City now not the most hated club.

Basically Arteta was taught a lesson.

He went up in my estimations when I learned he will not share a studio,discussion,X chat in fact any conversation/discussion with that absolute orange weird speaking **** Jordan,apparently hates him more than us blues.

 

[mattcity5]

Sorry its a bit long winded but this is exactly what I put in my appeal,

So when "Keith" Says "City are Proven Self Confessed Cheats" thats ok? That meets all your Criteria for being a good post? Could you supply me with any information about when City were found guilty of being "Self confessed Cheats" otherwise its just a complete lie which appart from being off the actual topic is also abusive & a Lie,
If you are going to have a HYS section please at least try and keep it sensible, I know all football fans are going to have different opinions but you are happy for people to tell complete Lies and get away with it?

I then recieved the reply posted above this morning, I know its a waste of time but I thought I would test the appeal system, fully expecting a reply to say they had removed the post, I guess its a free for all on the BBC as long as you aim your lies & Abuse at City & non of the other clubs?,
I just hope if we win the case & are found not guilty City will take some action but I have serious doubts they will.

A proper journalist could easily do some checks and write an article based on this.

Put the same comment about various different teams over a period of time and see which ones are automatically removed. The ones that aren't, get someone to submit a complaint about them and see what the response is.

I'm sure an article based on that could make interesting reading...

 

[A590 blues]

I know its talk sport but
This is what happens when Yanks own sports teams and Football is going the same way .
This is why they are trying to hound our owners out .....its as simple as that, and they can spin it all they want but we know

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Yup, that is what they do. Sometimes, you can drag it out to 3 or 4 replies, but ultimately, they shut it down at their end eventually.

In my case I complained to Ofcom but they ignored the repeated communications from Ofcom. A case officer at Ofcom told me there was nothing they could do because they had been overwhelmed by BBC complaints. The most bizarre thing was I got a very polite reply from the Director General Tim Davie saying he would look into it. The reality is there are big issues at Salford. The story was overtly racist towards Arabs and false.

 

[asahartford1]

In my case I complained to Ofcom but they ignored the repeated communications from Ofcom. A case officer at Ofcom told me there was nothing they could do because they had been overwhelmed by BBC complaints. The most bizarre thing was I got a very polite reply from the Director General Tim Davie saying he would look into it. The reality is there are big issues at Salford. The story was overtly racist towards Arabs and false.

This is it really.
A co-operation that has major issues, probably ones that may see the end of it's existence.
Any company where it seems only Police interference or a jail term leads to a severance of employment cannot be a success.
Of course some employees are professional but are surrounded by the infected.

 

[Scottish Cityzen]

Just a update, I decided to appeal the moderators decision that saying and publishing "City are Proven Self Confessed Cheats" was ok, I filled out a appeal form asking when City had been found guilty of cheating? and why was the comment not removed,
It took them a couple of days to get back to me but this morning I got a Email from the BBC which said "In this instance, We Believe the Moderator made the correct decision so we will be unable to uphold your appeal"
I know I was wasting my time I was just interested if the BBC would accept they made a mistake, obviously not,
I thought maybe saying Cheats was acceptable these days so posted "liverpool are cheats" on a HYS this morning about the Dippers, Needless to say it was removed in less than 2 minutes :-)
I am sure the club could wipe the floor with the BBC if they could be bothered.

Good effort Blue.

I did something similar in the aftermath of the 2-1 win over the dippers when the feral red mob were unsurprisingly taking our win poorly. I got rebuffed initially but like you put in a further complaint which got a positive result. From re-reading it I’m particularly proud I remembered to use lower case for the rags:


I see that you have rejected my reporting of a comment on the Liverpool v Manchester City match as ‘not breaking house rules.’ I do not accept this rationale. Yet again people are allowed to post irrelevant and defamatory comments relating to the ‘115 charges’ tribunal. Firstly that has nothing to do with the purpose of the article so is off topic. Secondly the last time I checked Manchester City are not ‘cheats’ as we await a verdict on the case. Your refusal of seeing anything wrong with this particular post is consistent with - perhaps an inherent bias against Manchester City, which could reasonably be inferred from the general tone of your articles over a consistent period of time. Please review this again and advise accordingly, virtually every HYS is of a similar ilk of childish, libellous comments, which are not robustly or acceptably managed by your moderating teams (perhaps because they are sitting doing so in their full man u kit or similar). If you can’t run a feature such as HYS in a fair and neutral manner, as per your charter then perhaps you should consider ceasing having it. I look forward to hearing from you, as my options are moving to a different platform for my news / sports news. Additionally, whether I continue to require my licence fee which is increasingly looking poor value for money.

Their grudging reply:

Dear BBC User,

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

In this instance, we agree the comment should have been removed following your report so it has now been removed from the site.

Thank you for bringing it to our attention and please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.

Regards,

BBC Moderation Services


Hopefully the HYS this weekend is equally bitter from the dippers…

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

This is it really.
A co-operation that has major issues, probably ones that may see the end of it's existence.
Any company where it seems only Police interference or a jail term leads to a severance of employment cannot be a success.
Of course some employees are professional but are surrounded by the infected.

The BBC is just too large to be governed properly (a bit like the NHS). There are some talented people who work there but the organisation has become out of control and detached from mainstream thinking outside the London bubble. It has no significant broadcasting rights for our national sport so its only role for football must be fair analysis and comment. But instead it has become a clickbait operation pandering to the lowest common denominator. There are already hundreds (perhaps thousands) of football-related clickbait operations. BBC online essentially duplicates what is already supplied by the marketplace. This is can't be justified as a fair use of public money.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

So they just responded to your complaint with ‘no it’s fine’ without any explanation as to why the ‘cheats’ post was ok? Worth another complaint mate. They should have at least explained why it didn’t break their rules.

There's more 'fluidity' in the RDAHMeedya 'rules' than water coming out of our tap.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The person who handled your complaint is clearly not equipped to do the job.The HYS comments section is just an open sewer of racist and libellous comments and it can't be justified.

It'll be some snot-nosed intern Rags fan.

The thing is, as the publisher of the site, the BBC are entirely culpable for any libelous comments they knowingly leave up, especially given their is documented evidence that a complaint has been made. This is why sites (including this one) have moderators, amongst other things, is in order to try and insulate site owners from potential legal action.

The first port of call for anyone who seeks to undertake legal action would be to ask them for a copy of their employee guidance for moderating such forums.

There's more 'fluidity' in the RDAHMeedya 'rules' than water coming out of our tap.

Ofcom? The worlds largest self-licking lollypop.

 

[J.G.Blue.]

Good effort Blue.

I did something similar in the aftermath of the 2-1 win over the dippers when the feral red mob were unsurprisingly taking our win poorly. I got rebuffed initially but like you put in a further complaint which got a positive result. From re-reading it I’m particularly proud I remembered to use lower case for the rags:


I see that you have rejected my reporting of a comment on the Liverpool v Manchester City match as ‘not breaking house rules.’ I do not accept this rationale. Yet again people are allowed to post irrelevant and defamatory comments relating to the ‘115 charges’ tribunal. Firstly that has nothing to do with the purpose of the article so is off topic. Secondly the last time I checked Manchester City are not ‘cheats’ as we await a verdict on the case. Your refusal of seeing anything wrong with this particular post is consistent with - perhaps an inherent bias against Manchester City, which could reasonably be inferred from the general tone of your articles over a consistent period of time. Please review this again and advise accordingly, virtually every HYS is of a similar ilk of childish, libellous comments, which are not robustly or acceptably managed by your moderating teams (perhaps because they are sitting doing so in their full man u kit or similar). If you can’t run a feature such as HYS in a fair and neutral manner, as per your charter then perhaps you should consider ceasing having it. I look forward to hearing from you, as my options are moving to a different platform for my news / sports news. Additionally, whether I continue to require my licence fee which is increasingly looking poor value for money.

Their grudging reply:

Dear BBC User,

Thank you for contacting the BBC.

In this instance, we agree the comment should have been removed following your report so it has now been removed from the site.

Thank you for bringing it to our attention and please accept our apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Due to the volume of correspondence we receive, we are unable to discuss this matter further.

Regards,

BBC Moderation Services


Hopefully the HYS this weekend is equally bitter from the dippers…

Looks like you are better at getting results than me :-) Maybe if we all took a bit of time to object to some of the shit posted on line about our club they might actually think twice before publishing it?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It'll be some snot-nosed intern Rags fan.

The thing is, as the publisher of the site, the BBC are entirely culpable for any libelous comments they knowingly leave up, especially given their is documented evidence that a complaint has been made. This is why sites (including this one) have moderators, amongst other things, is in order to try and insulate site owners from potential legal action.

The first port of call for anyone who seeks to undertake legal action would be to ask them for a copy of their employee guidance for moderating such forums.



Ofcom? The worlds largest self-licking lollypop.

Agree that some of the people moderating comments are very junior staff who appear to have very little grasp of media law. The big problem is the lack of editorial scrutiny of the entire operation. For example who is siging off on the ridiculous PR output from Simon Stone? There is no attempt at balance.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Agree that some of the people moderating comments are very junior staff who appear to have very little grasp of media law. The big problem is the lack of editorial scrutiny of the entire operation. For example who is siging off on the ridiculous PR output from Simon Stone? There is no attempt at balance.

The BBC probably think their substantial tax payer funded legal department will be able to swat away most complaints without breaking into too much of a sweat.