Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

[Gary James]

Yet again something crops up that promotes MUFC unfairly. I take it everyone has seen the stuff about Stonewall and Unitec? While I applaud any club that gets involved in standing up for rights etc theBBC's boast that MUFC are the first to tie up with Stonewall is inaccurate. 11 years ago (yes as long ago as that) City teamed up with Stonewall and actually also paid Stonewallfor the Right - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5290534.stm Our national broadcaster really does need to get its act in order.

 

[squirtyflower]

Yet again something crops up that promotes MUFC unfairly. I take it everyone has seen the stuff about Stonewall and Unitec? While I applaud any club that gets involved in standing up for rights etc theBBC's boast that MUFC are the first to tie up with Stonewall is inaccurate. 11 years ago (yes as long ago as that) City teamed up with Stonewall and actually also paid Stonewallfor the Right - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5290534.stm Our national broadcaster really does need to get its act in order.

1. They're not interested in what other clubs do
2. They are unable to do any simple journalistic research
3. Imagine how bad it would look for United if it was reported they waited 11 years before bothering getting involved
4. We pay a tax that supports this nonsense

 

[cleavers]

1. They're not interested in what other clubs do
2. They are unable to do any simple journalistic research
3. Imagine how bad it would look for United if it was reported they waited 11 years before bothering getting involved
4. We pay a tax that supports this nonsense

Sadly, all true.

@Gary James , as the all knowledgeable person about City, can't you point out this 'mistake' to the author of the article and simply ask them to correct it ?

 

[Gary James]

Sadly, all true.

@Gary James , as the all knowledgeable person about City, can't you point out this 'mistake' to the author of the article and simply ask them to correct it ?

I've tweeted them and BBC Radio Manchester Sport has retweeted it and I know there will be people at Manchester who go and tell the sports people downstairs. So, hopefully, the message will start getting through.

 

[Gary James]

I've tweeted them and BBC Radio Manchester Sport has retweeted it and I know there will be people at Manchester who go and tell the sports people downstairs. So, hopefully, the message will start getting through.

Of course, once again, there wasn't a name attached to the article and so I guess they'll never know who wrote it as with Bertiegate. It must be great to work in a place where invisible people do all the work.

 

[chesterbells]

Of course, once again, there wasn't a name attached to the article and so I guess they'll never know who wrote it as with Bertiegate. It must be great to work in a place where invisible people do all the work.

That would be one easy change for them to make - name author everything, publicly

 

[quiet_riot]

Yet again something crops up that promotes MUFC unfairly. I take it everyone has seen the stuff about Stonewall and Unitec? While I applaud any club that gets involved in standing up for rights etc theBBC's boast that MUFC are the first to tie up with Stonewall is inaccurate. 11 years ago (yes as long ago as that) City teamed up with Stonewall and actually also paid Stonewallfor the Right - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5290534.stm Our national broadcaster really does need to get its act in order.

Thanks for that @Gary James, BBC, BBC Sport and Match of the Day have all tweeted the United/LGBT story multiple times today. Worse when you consider it's inaccurate.

 

[80s Shorts]

As MMA says, it's not about Pete or a personal attack on him. It's an attack on all City fans. Whether he's bothered or not doesn't come into this. If you were coming out of a away game with your mates and saw some opposition fans laying into a lone Blue, would you say "He looks like he can handle himself" or "It's not my problem" and just walk on?

I thought that was just what it is about. Many posts in this thread when I have dipped in and out have said as such.

I'm a blue through and through but could not give a fuck if some nomark arsehole via social media has apparently insulted me by association.

 

[snorky]

Just got a response to my secondary complaint. They admit that comment was added internally 'without the due diligence we would normally expect from any level of BBC journalism'. Tossers!
It continues. 'After internal discussions, we are satisfied that there was no malice intended towards the individual pictured, or City fans in general'. Lying tossers!
It then states 'We accept that this was a sloppy error and fell well below the journalistic standards the audience rightly expects from the BBC'. Sloppy tossers!
It ends. 'We apologise again for any offence caused.'
Next stage would be bbc editorial complaints units independant investigation.

 

[pirate]

Just got a response to my secondary complaint. They admit that comment was added internally 'without the due diligence we would normally expect from any level of BBC journalism'. Tossers!
It continues. 'After internal discussions, we are satisfied that there was no malice intended towards the individual pictured, or City fans in general'. Lying tossers!
It then states 'We accept that this was a sloppy error and fell well below the journalistic standards the audience rightly expects from the BBC'. Sloppy tossers!
It ends. 'We apologise again for any offence caused.'
Next stage would be bbc editorial complaints units independant investigation.

go to the next stage

go on