Collymore, Complaint to Ofcom

[neverred76]

Ive been watching City for 40 years but having listened to Talk Sport i feel i must warn other Blues....apparently if you re-arrange the letters Manchester City it spells al Qaida terrorist. I for one will not be going again. Thankyou Talk Sport and keep up the informative balanced sporting comments .

 

[M18CTID]

Embarrassing thread.

I bet Ofcom love having some of their important and vital work interupted by having to give lip service to some complaints about "a nasty man having a bullshit opinion about a football club that I like."

Woe is me society at its best.

While I wouldn't dream of complaining about this to Ofcom myself, I will say this however:

It's not as embarrassing as crying like a fucking baby and complaining to the whole of Bluemoon about the slight rise in season ticket prices.

It's not as embarrassing as jumping over every single thread about our previous manager and constantly foisting your opinions of him onto everyone else despite the fact that the vast majority of City fans have long since moved on from all that.

It's not as embarrassing as railing against approximately 99% of City fans when slagging off the lads who had the "Ruining football" banner confiscated.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone in particular?

 

[SWP's back]

Embarrassing thread.

I bet Ofcom love having some of their important and vital work interupted by having to give lip service to some complaints about "a nasty man having a bullshit opinion about a football club that I like."

Woe is me society at its best.

While I wouldn't dream of complaining about this to Ofcom myself, I will say this however:

It's not as embarrassing as crying like a fucking baby and complaining to the whole of Bluemoon about the slight rise in season ticket prices.

It's not as embarrassing as jumping over every single thread about our previous manager and constantly foisting your opinions of him onto everyone else despite the fact that the vast majority of City fans have long since moved on from all that.

It's not as embarrassing as railing against approximately 99% of City fans when slagging off the lads who had the "Ruining football" banner confiscated.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone in particular?

It's that sad twunt

 

[leewill31]

Embarrassing thread.

I bet Ofcom love having some of their important and vital work interupted by having to give lip service to some complaints about "a nasty man having a bullshit opinion about a football club that I like."

Woe is me society at its best.

While I wouldn't dream of complaining about this to Ofcom myself, I will say this however:

It's not as embarrassing as crying like a fucking baby and complaining to the whole of Bluemoon about the slight rise in season ticket prices.

It's not as embarrassing as jumping over every single thread about our previous manager and constantly foisting your opinions of him onto everyone else despite the fact that the vast majority of City fans have long since moved on from all that.

It's not as embarrassing as railing against approximately 99% of City fans when slagging off the lads who had the "Ruining football" banner confiscated.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone in particular?

pmsl at his could not of said it better myself!

 

[abu13]

I have forwarded my views.

 

[Franny Lee's Barrel Chest]

I don't really listen to Talkshite, so haven't heard his comments, although it seems that him criticising all things City is a regular theme.

However, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

With regard to the complaints to Ofcom, that's all well and good and I wouldn't criticise anyone for doing it, but I just wonder if there is much basis for a complaint. Collymore expresses his opinion which just happens to be crap, but if the only people complaining are City fans, then Ofcom are going to wonder why no one else has made a complaint. In essence, that means that the complaints are not objective complaints.

Also, City would appear to be on the ball with regard to anything of a legal nature, and I'm sure that if someone had said or done something illegal, then they would take action. I suppose they do allow the media a certain amount of slack but when they feel particularly aggrieved they will then act.

But the best way of getting back at Collymore is to ring the guy up. Be constructive, and articulate, and challenge his "opinion" and put to him that he has slandered someone by expressing something as fact, when he knows its not the case.

 

[Anonymous]

Embarrassing thread.

I bet Ofcom love having some of their important and vital work interupted by having to give lip service to some complaints about "a nasty man having a bullshit opinion about a football club that I like."

Woe is me society at its best.

From the home page of the OFCOM website;-


"Audience complaints

Sometimes you may see something on TV – or hear a programme on radio – which you find offensive or think is harmful."

I guess the key words are "which you find offensive or think is harmful."

Maybe it's simple explanation is designed for the "thickies" amongst us...but it's purpose seems pretty clear.
Just as Collymore and Durham are entitled (by the letter of the law) to provoke,influence and inflame a situation on a national,licensed commercial platform for their own financial ends-so is the "victim" (direct or otherwise) feeling that they had no other means of unbiased,balanced recourse available to them-surely allowed respond in a way that they see fit,using the organ provided?

Seems fair enough to me.

 

[bluefish]

done mine...got headache cos it took ages to compose..but it's not a bad 'un if i say so myself.

 

[bluestevei]

Overreaction anyone?

Saw a journo tweet that City fans seem paranoid these days. Beginning to wonder if he's right.
This just adds to the incident and if it gets picked up by any media outlets it will help keep the story going

I can tell you that the club are absolutely fuming over some of the press reaction to this. So are they over-reacting?

but are the club doing any thing about it, it really is up to the club to ban talk sport from match radio from coms. they really need to put out a statement about this.

 

[Blue_Moon]

I hope Nige takes out a personal law suit on this woman beating piece of shite

Exactly that. surely it's classed as slander??

 

[Soulboy]

Embarrassing thread.

I bet Ofcom love having some of their important and vital work interupted by having to give lip service to some complaints about "a nasty man having a bullshit opinion about a football club that I like."

Woe is me society at its best.

And here was me thinking you were all for free speech...


... as well as free season tickets!

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

Embarrassing thread.

I bet Ofcom love having some of their important and vital work interupted by having to give lip service to some complaints about "a nasty man having a bullshit opinion about a football club that I like."

Woe is me society at its best.

While I wouldn't dream of complaining about this to Ofcom myself, I will say this however:

It's not as embarrassing as crying like a fucking baby and complaining to the whole of Bluemoon about the slight rise in season ticket prices.

It's not as embarrassing as jumping over every single thread about our previous manager and constantly foisting your opinions of him onto everyone else despite the fact that the vast majority of City fans have long since moved on from all that.

It's not as embarrassing as railing against approximately 99% of City fans when slagging off the lads who had the "Ruining football" banner confiscated.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone in particular?

It tells me that someone is keeping a diary. Very strange.

All the above are genuine opinions that I will happily debate with anybody on a rational basis.

It seems that riles you and reduces you to the above post.

That's what I'd call embarrassing.

And I have debated them on here with fair minded people who can hold a debate with opposing opinions without freaking out. Don't ask me to name who those people were though. I'm not weird enough to make a note of people just because they hold an opposite opinion.<br /><br />-- Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:38 pm --<br /><br />

While I wouldn't dream of complaining about this to Ofcom myself, I will say this however:

It's not as embarrassing as crying like a fucking baby and complaining to the whole of Bluemoon about the slight rise in season ticket prices.

It's not as embarrassing as jumping over every single thread about our previous manager and constantly foisting your opinions of him onto everyone else despite the fact that the vast majority of City fans have long since moved on from all that.

It's not as embarrassing as railing against approximately 99% of City fans when slagging off the lads who had the "Ruining football" banner confiscated.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone in particular?

It's that sad twunt

3,000 post son here in just over a year.

Daily unavoidable slanging matches

Constant insults of anyone holding a view you don't like

Constantly spotted harbouring grudges with anonymous usernames

I'll stick with my version of 'sad', thanks.

I think I prefer it.

But, hey, as I've said before, don't let me stop you constantly posting insults after me. If that's how you get your kicks, great. It might provide some respite for the dozens of other you do the same to.

 

[Soulboy]

While I wouldn't dream of complaining about this to Ofcom myself, I will say this however:

It's not as embarrassing as crying like a fucking baby and complaining to the whole of Bluemoon about the slight rise in season ticket prices.

It's not as embarrassing as jumping over every single thread about our previous manager and constantly foisting your opinions of him onto everyone else despite the fact that the vast majority of City fans have long since moved on from all that.

It's not as embarrassing as railing against approximately 99% of City fans when slagging off the lads who had the "Ruining football" banner confiscated.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone in particular?

It tells me that someone is keeping a diary. Very strange.

All the above are genuine opinions that I will happily debate with anybody on a rational basis.

It seems that riles you and reduces you to the above post.

That's what I'd call embarrassing.

And I have debated them on here with fair minded people who can hold a debate with opposing opinions without freaking out. Don't ask me to name who those people were though. I'm not weird enough to make a note of people just because they hold an opposite opinion.

Now while I generally couldn't give two shits about Stan the Man, the people on this thread are, whether you like it or not, giving "genuine opinions"... so why not... "happily debate with anybody on a rational basis"... with them, rather than having an apparent hissy fit and calling them an embarrassment.

I really have come to expect better from you... please don't disappoint me again.

;-)

 

[bluesoup]

This is a classic Auction. Well done for taking a stance in this perspective.

Disagree to all those who call this paranoid. Where are your balls to complain to the moderators of the media. Colymore crossed the line. What he said was quite inciteful stuff especially, on national radio.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

It tells me that someone is keeping a diary. Very strange.

All the above are genuine opinions that I will happily debate with anybody on a rational basis.

It seems that riles you and reduces you to the above post.

That's what I'd call embarrassing.

And I have debated them on here with fair minded people who can hold a debate with opposing opinions without freaking out. Don't ask me to name who those people were though. I'm not weird enough to make a note of people just because they hold an opposite opinion.

Now while I generally couldn't give two shits about Stan the Man, the people on this thread are, whether you like it or not, giving "genuine opinions"... so why not... "happily debate with anybody on a rational basis"... with them, rather than having an apparent hissy fit and calling them an embarrassment.

I really have come to expect better from you... please don't disappoint me again.

;-)

There's really quite little to debate on whether complaining to Ofcom about a man's view on football is embarrassing or not.

The body isn't designed for football fans (possible, as a whole, one of the most petty, narrow minded, one eyed groups of people in the country) to air their annoyance at the opinion of one man on football. If there was a body designed for that then it would need round the clock manning by thousands as fans of every club (many of them one eyed and biased) will always be able to cite opinions that they see as proof of a vendetta against or a hatred of their club. Even down to minor clubs.

You either view it as a vehicle for football fans to complain about a view they don't like, in which case you probably support a complaint. Or you don't, in which case it can only be embarrassing and a complete misuse of what the body was intended for.

If you want to debate Collymore's stance, then that is a different matter. I personally think that he often ties himself in knots and his comments regarding De Jong are misplaced.

But that is a different issue entirely.

 

[SWP's back]

While I wouldn't dream of complaining about this to Ofcom myself, I will say this however:

It's not as embarrassing as crying like a fucking baby and complaining to the whole of Bluemoon about the slight rise in season ticket prices.

It's not as embarrassing as jumping over every single thread about our previous manager and constantly foisting your opinions of him onto everyone else despite the fact that the vast majority of City fans have long since moved on from all that.

It's not as embarrassing as railing against approximately 99% of City fans when slagging off the lads who had the "Ruining football" banner confiscated.

Does any of the above remind you of anyone in particular?

It tells me that someone is keeping a diary. Very strange.

All the above are genuine opinions that I will happily debate with anybody on a rational basis.

It seems that riles you and reduces you to the above post.

That's what I'd call embarrassing.

And I have debated them on here with fair minded people who can hold a debate with opposing opinions without freaking out. Don't ask me to name who those people were though. I'm not weird enough to make a note of people just because they hold an opposite opinion.

-- Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:38 pm --

It's that sad twunt

3,000 post son here in just over a year.

Daily unavoidable slanging matches

Constant insults of anyone holding a view you don't like

Constantly spotted harbouring grudges with anonymous usernames

I'll stick with my version of 'sad', thanks.

I think I prefer it.

But, hey, as I've said before, don't let me stop you constantly posting insults after me. If that's how you get your kicks, great. It might provide some respite for the dozens of other you do the same to.

Anonymous usernames? Please explain....

I don't harbour grudges, just read the forum and call it as I see it, not my fault if you go against everything I agree with.

Still, I'm sure you will put me right with a long and winding riposte.

 

[loffers]

Whilst I admire the OP's plucky intent I doubt whether Stan has broken any rules , apart of course from every grammatical rule in the book.

A few years ago I would have applauded this action but you do change with age folks and although you never lose the passion you also see the other side of the coin. In this case Collydogger is simply doing his job , a job which is demeaning but financially rewarding.
He will not be remembered when he inevitably gets fired for some degenerative act or other but City will move onwards and upwards

 

[persvenality cult]

There's really quite little to debate on whether complaining to Ofcom about a man's view on football is embarrassing or not.

Ahhh, your particular gift for repackaging a situation. Remove that packaging and there is clearly a lot of room to debate about how much fairness and accuracy we might expect from the media, and when it is reasonable to complain.

Your 'embarrasment' is your own. Do you find partisan views as whole, to be embarrasing, I wonder?

The body isn't designed for football fans (possible, as a whole, one of the most petty, narrow minded, one eyed groups of people in the country) to air their annoyance at the opinion of one man on football. If there was a body designed for that then it would need round the clock manning by thousands as fans of every club (many of them one eyed and biased) will always be able to cite opinions that they see as proof of a vendetta against or a hatred of their club. Even down to minor clubs.

What does football have to do with it? Ofcom don't care wether it's football or carrots. The subject matter is entirely irrelevant.

You either view it as a vehicle for football fans to complain about a view they don't like, in which case you probably support a complaint.


Or you don't, in which case it can only be embarrassing and a complete misuse of what the body was intended for.

If you want to debate Collymore's stance, then that is a different matter. I personally think that he often ties himself in knots and his comments regarding De Jong are misplaced.

But that is a different issue entirely.

How fair and reasonable does he have a responsibility to be, under the laws of the land, and the terms of the broadcasting license? Where is the line drawn... what amounts to unacknowledged/uncorrected factual inaccuracy? Defamation?

Collymore is doing more than expressing a 'view' on 'football'.

He is talking about an actual event, an actual person.

This means he is subject to rules regarding factual inaccuracies and so on. If I'm a presenter, I could present a view that Blair was a warmonger, that is a view. All that has to happen is for that view to balanced editorially (that's why they want you to phone in to disagree). However, if I said that Blair personally shot an Iraqi child, that's an inaccurate statement, and the error would have to be acknowledged, and a correction made.

Defamation is much more complicated to define.

Did Collymore cross the line, did he make factual inaccuracies? Did he make a defamatory remark?

One easy way to find out, is to complain to Ofcom and see what they say.

That is one of the reasons for their existence and is something they encourage.

They don't expect you to cite a regulation. They expect you to contact them when something broadcast upsets you, or strikes you as unfair!




Personally, I never listen to the bugger, much easier.

The whole issue leaves me non-plussed, but I wouldn't deign to tell people what they should and should not do, or imply that they are stupid, immoral, 'little people', whose concerns and feelings do not matter, and are in fact 'All that is wrong with society'

.... at least not without thinking about it a bit better :o)

 

[Marvin]

I agree with JMA

You don't complain to the regulator if you don't like someone's opinion - you challenge it. It's called Freedom of Speech, and we should uphold the right of people to be "offensive".

Football journalism is all about creating a sensation and headline, and pandering to the majority so it's no surprise that Rich Ciddy are getting a bashing at the moment. But I'd rather have bad jounalism than no journalism at all, and that's what you'd get if you tie people's hands about what they can say.

And remember that this message board, and various other City blogs are expressing a view so you'll just make life even more awkward if you want to cry "slander"

 

[persvenality cult]

I agree with JMA

You don't complain to the regulator if you don't like someone's opinion - you challenge it.

at a pound a minute. it's what they want you to do, to provide 'editorial' balance.

so.

let me get this straight.

they purposefully pick on something dear to someone. present as unbalanced a view as possible, possibly without any care to factual accuracy, in order to rile someone into 'challenging' it. the more extreme the view that we present, allows them to go even further in what they say, whilst retaining 'editorial' balance.

so we should 'challenge it', by helping them satisfy the code whilst remaining unbalanced, all the while, helping them make money.

It's called Freedom of Speech, and we should uphold the right of people to be "offensive".

it's actually called commercial broadcasting. they pay money for their license in order to make more money.

Football journalism is all about creating a sensation and headline, and pandering to the majority so it's no surprise that Rich Ciddy are getting a bashing at the moment. But I'd rather have bad jounalism than no journalism at all, and that's what you'd get if you tie people's hands about what they can say.



And remember that this message board, and various other City blogs are expressing a view so you'll just make life even more awkward if you want to cry "slander"

agree with all that but broadcasters and mass media are different.

broadcasters have to be granted a license, granted in return for money, which applies conditions and regulations to the content of their broadcasts. that license makes them a profitable business. they have to work under the regulations that parliament saw fit to apply.

ofcom, presumably like hearing from people who are upset so they can make a realistic judgement of what people think about a station's output. this will help them reflect the public's views when they grant the next round of licenses. there are only a few available, and many bidders, so our choice is already limited. it's commerce, and choice... not freedom of speech. you can say what you like, but you don't have the automatic right to do so 24/7, on a licensed, national radio broadcast! freedom of speech is something quite different.