Response regarding escalated complaint. It's clear they are protecting the rag who wrote this and are still treating complainants as gullible.
I am writing to let you know the outcome of the ECU’s investigation into your complaint about this posting on Match of the Day social media. I am sorry that you were not happy with the BBC’s response when you first raised this matter. I have considered your complaint against the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines concerning Harm and Offence.
Your complaint concerns 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. Some complainants have argued that it was unfair to appear to be mocking the particular gentleman in the picture. However, that is not something I can look into. Complaints of unfairness have to be brought by the person or organisation concerned or by their representatives. We don’t entertain unfairness complaints brought by third parties.
Having looked into the matter I don’t think the post amounts to a serious breach of the BBC’s editorial standards, which is the test we use to decide if a complaint should be upheld. However, before I explain why, I think it’s appropriate to set out 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 issue I have to take a view on is whether the use of the word “Bertie” to refer to a Manchester City supporter is a serious breach of the Harm and Offence guidelines. They say this:
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 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, I’m afraid that I don’t agree 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 the fans referred to. And I note that in deference to those who did take offence the caption was quickly removed when it was brought to the editor’s attention. That, it seems to me, is sufficient to dispose of the matter.
As I explained in my earlier email this is a provisional finding, and you have the opportunity to comment on it before it is finalised. If you wish to take that opportunity, I’d be grateful if you would let me have your comments by 10 April. In the meantime, thank you for writing to us and giving us the opportunity to investigate your concerns
