Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I have just sent a further complaint to the BBC regarding this. Tried to word it a little different to prevent the BBC providing completely generic responses.

Thank you for your initial response to my complaint regarding the ridiculing on social media of a Manchester City supporter. Complaints Ref: CAS-4218774-2NC23M.

Within the response it was stated that the picture and accompanying derogatory caption was uploaded to the BBC website 'after it had been filed by a national picture agency, captioned Bertie'.

From my own investigations it appears the picture was captured by PA Images (Martin Rickett). However, from visiting the company's website there was not a reference to 'Bertie' but a caption 'A Manchester City fan before the Premier league match at the Etihad Stadium'. A caption I would have expected to accompany the picture on the BBC website.

Within my initial complaint it was categorically stated that the BBC was not responsible for the picture or caption, please could you provide the following information to enable the matter to be pursued further:

Confirmation the agency listed above was responsible for the picture and caption or alternatively provide information of the agency responsible for the caption.

Provide details on how the BBC vets information from secondary sources to reassure TV License holders like myself, that the most stringent of checks are being undertaken to prevent any future ridiculing of the most vulnerable members of society.

Sadly your initial response did not reassure me that the BBC was neither responsible for the content or, alternatively, had suitable vetting procedures for secondary sources of content to uphold the standards of a National Broadcaster which is publicly funded by the taxpayer.

Therefore I would like to escalate my complaint due to this lack of detail of how such offensive material found itself onto the BBC website, whether sourced from a National Agency or, as I suspect a BBC employee.

Awesome response. This should have the f***ers scampering off to their legal team. Their original cut and paste response is utter nonsense, and completely disingenuous.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

still can't resist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/2b3914df-c185-4458-8573-3ce5a9eafe63

Totally different to the rest of this thread. As the only team in history to do it, it is an entirely appropriate parallel to draw.

 

[schfc6]

I have just sent a further complaint to the BBC regarding this. Tried to word it a little different to prevent the BBC providing completely generic responses.

Thank you for your initial response to my complaint regarding the ridiculing on social media of a Manchester City supporter. Complaints Ref: CAS-4218774-2NC23M.

Within the response it was stated that the picture and accompanying derogatory caption was uploaded to the BBC website 'after it had been filed by a national picture agency, captioned Bertie'.

From my own investigations it appears the picture was captured by PA Images (Martin Rickett). However, from visiting the company's website there was not a reference to 'Bertie' but a caption 'A Manchester City fan before the Premier league match at the Etihad Stadium'. A caption I would have expected to accompany the picture on the BBC website.

Within my initial complaint it was categorically stated that the BBC was not responsible for the picture or caption, please could you provide the following information to enable the matter to be pursued further:

Confirmation the agency listed above was responsible for the picture and caption or alternatively provide information of the agency responsible for the caption.

Provide details on how the BBC vets information from secondary sources to reassure TV License holders like myself, that the most stringent of checks are being undertaken to prevent any future ridiculing of the most vulnerable members of society.

Sadly your initial response did not reassure me that the BBC was neither responsible for the content or, alternatively, had suitable vetting procedures for secondary sources of content to uphold the standards of a National Broadcaster which is publicly funded by the taxpayer.

Therefore I would like to escalate my complaint due to this lack of detail of how such offensive material found itself onto the BBC website, whether sourced from a National Agency or, as I suspect a BBC employee.

Top response!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I have just sent a further complaint to the BBC regarding this. Tried to word it a little different to prevent the BBC providing completely generic responses.

Thank you for your initial response to my complaint regarding the ridiculing on social media of a Manchester City supporter. Complaints Ref: CAS-4218774-2NC23M.

Within the response it was stated that the picture and accompanying derogatory caption was uploaded to the BBC website 'after it had been filed by a national picture agency, captioned Bertie'.

From my own investigations it appears the picture was captured by PA Images (Martin Rickett). However, from visiting the company's website there was not a reference to 'Bertie' but a caption 'A Manchester City fan before the Premier league match at the Etihad Stadium'. A caption I would have expected to accompany the picture on the BBC website.

Within my initial complaint it was categorically stated that the BBC was not responsible for the picture or caption, please could you provide the following information to enable the matter to be pursued further:

Confirmation the agency listed above was responsible for the picture and caption or alternatively provide information of the agency responsible for the caption.

Provide details on how the BBC vets information from secondary sources to reassure TV License holders like myself, that the most stringent of checks are being undertaken to prevent any future ridiculing of the most vulnerable members of society.

Sadly your initial response did not reassure me that the BBC was neither responsible for the content or, alternatively, had suitable vetting procedures for secondary sources of content to uphold the standards of a National Broadcaster which is publicly funded by the taxpayer.

Therefore I would like to escalate my complaint due to this lack of detail of how such offensive material found itself onto the BBC website, whether sourced from a National Agency or, as I suspect a BBC employee.

Excellent response Frank.

 

[nefynblue]

Following my correspondence with the club, and my earlier criticism of them for not recognising my email of complaint, there is news. I've received a reply from Vicky Kloss. I think the following email from her will answer most of the questions raised on this now lengthy thread. Credit where it's due, and I draw comfort from the fact that the club is indeed engaging the relevant departments at the BBC, press and media in general to robustly defend and challenge potentially damaging matters that affect our club.

David,
Thanks for the email. We, like you, were obviously concerned to see this instance of Pete being labelled as ‘Bertie’ on the BBC website. The inference was as clear to us as it was to you (and others on some of our fan forums).
As soon as it was brought to our attention, we immediately contacted the Head of Football at the BBC (in writing and on the phone) to formally raise our objections. The BBC agreed with ours (and the fans) views on this posting, ensuring it was removed immediately and that the matter was to be looked into internally.
My team also undertook a regular and detailed dialogue with senior members of the Supporters Club throughout this process, who, in turn, liaised with the fans about our position/action via one particular bluemoon thread on this topic.
The current position is that we understand that the BBC are apologising in writing to anyone offended by this posting. This, coupled with the removal of the post, is the response we would have been looking for from any media outlet publishing an untruth.
Beyond that, my team are proactive with issues of clear misrepresentation in relation to Manchester City FC and our supporters and in relation to Simon Heggie in particular, the reason you didn’t get a response is that the email address was incorrect so it was never received.
Kind regards
Vicky Kloss

Vicky Kloss
Chief Communications Officer
City Football Group

I think you would all agree that was excellent work from Vicky and her team. Her department receives its fair share of criticism on here. So it's only right and proper to promote the department when a lot of their work involves a quiet diplomacy most of the time. Now back to the BBC complaints department.

 

[kaz7]

Someone has been reading this thread,good work everyone

 

[AntonDonJuan]

Following my correspondence with the club, and my earlier criticism of them for not recognising my email of complaint, there is news. I've received a reply from Vicky Kloss. I think the following email from her will answer most of the questions raised on this now lengthy thread. Credit where it's due, and I draw comfort from the fact that the club is indeed engaging the relevant departments at the BBC, press and media in general to robustly defend and challenge potentially damaging matters that affect our club.

David,
Thanks for the email. We, like you, were obviously concerned to see this instance of Pete being labelled as ‘Bertie’ on the BBC website. The inference was as clear to us as it was to you (and others on some of our fan forums).
As soon as it was brought to our attention, we immediately contacted the Head of Football at the BBC (in writing and on the phone) to formally raise our objections. The BBC agreed with ours (and the fans) views on this posting, ensuring it was removed immediately and that the matter was to be looked into internally.
My team also undertook a regular and detailed dialogue with senior members of the Supporters Club throughout this process, who, in turn, liaised with the fans about our position/action via one particular bluemoon thread on this topic.
The current position is that we understand that the BBC are apologising in writing to anyone offended by this posting. This, coupled with the removal of the post, is the response we would have been looking for from any media outlet publishing an untruth.
Beyond that, my team are proactive with issues of clear misrepresentation in relation to Manchester City FC and our supporters and in relation to Simon Heggie in particular, the reason you didn’t get a response is that the email address was incorrect so it was never received.
Kind regards
Vicky Kloss

Vicky Kloss
Chief Communications Officer
City Football Group

Vicky.Kloss@cityfootball.com

I think you would all agree that was excellent work from Vicky and her team. Her department receives its fair share of criticism on here. So it's only right and proper to promote the department when a lot of their work involves a quiet diplomacy most of the time. Now back to the BBC complaints department.

Apologising in writing is the generic email everyone has had.

It's bollocks

 

[manchester blue]

Thanks for sharing @nefynblue.
Good to see that Vicky Kloss has indeed picked this up and is as concerned as us. Could I suggest you remove her direct numbers?

 

[BlueMojito]

I have just sent a further complaint to the BBC regarding this. Tried to word it a little different to prevent the BBC providing completely generic responses.

Thank you for your initial response to my complaint regarding the ridiculing on social media of a Manchester City supporter. Complaints Ref: CAS-4218774-2NC23M.

Within the response it was stated that the picture and accompanying derogatory caption was uploaded to the BBC website 'after it had been filed by a national picture agency, captioned Bertie'.

From my own investigations it appears the picture was captured by PA Images (Martin Rickett). However, from visiting the company's website there was not a reference to 'Bertie' but a caption 'A Manchester City fan before the Premier league match at the Etihad Stadium'. A caption I would have expected to accompany the picture on the BBC website.

Within my initial complaint it was categorically stated that the BBC was not responsible for the picture or caption, please could you provide the following information to enable the matter to be pursued further:

Confirmation the agency listed above was responsible for the picture and caption or alternatively provide information of the agency responsible for the caption.

Provide details on how the BBC vets information from secondary sources to reassure TV License holders like myself, that the most stringent of checks are being undertaken to prevent any future ridiculing of the most vulnerable members of society.

Sadly your initial response did not reassure me that the BBC was neither responsible for the content or, alternatively, had suitable vetting procedures for secondary sources of content to uphold the standards of a National Broadcaster which is publicly funded by the taxpayer.

Therefore I would like to escalate my complaint due to this lack of detail of how such offensive material found itself onto the BBC website, whether sourced from a National Agency or, as I suspect a BBC employee.

Respect! You do the blue cause proud.

 

[RayCTID]

Keep up the good work