Complaint to BBC regarding Pete the Badge

[paulchapo]

So it's not down to the tweet, it's just not liking the BBC anyway.

For what it's worth I made my views clear about 80 pages ago. BBC sport should apologise and admit they got it wrong. But complaining that this breaches the charter is like complaining that your rights under the NHS constitution have been abused because the GP receptionist was a bit short with you.

No, you like the BBC are wrong. The tweet caused the outrage and rightly so. The discontent with the rest of the media and the BBC had been simmering for a while that much is true. The other tossers we don't pay for unless we choose to, the BBC we have little choice and as such it is supposed to be impartial and it isn't. Not only that but it had been having sly digs and reporting unfavourably on anything related to us for a while, mainly unchecked. Like all bullies they believed that they could then get away with more and more unchallenged until we reached the absolute low point of the picture and comments regarding Pete.

The analogy between the doctor's receptionist and NHS is total bollocks and you know it. The corporation is abusing it's position by reporting on our club unfairly and unfavourably and has publicly taken the piss, on a site funded by us, out of an elderly fan who deserves plaudits not ridicule. They haven't apologised properly, just a bog standard 'Smooth it over' letter which was sent in private. I suggest we fight them as hard as possible until they too feel uncomfortable and are exposed for what they are. You of course do not have to do so but don't try lecturing the ones that are willing to do so or trying to imply our reasons are different to what we claim.

 

[urban genie]

1000 comment thread and I don't even understand the insult.

Someone care to explain?

Snowflake was a term to describe white supemicists especially in the old confederate states for centuries, and still is amongst many, however in the last few years it has been usurped by the alt-right to try and mock those that disagree with, which is ironic as they are probably the most mard arsed bunch in the world when they don't get their way.

 

[crooky]

Snowflake was a term to describe white supemicists especially in the old confederate states for centuries, and still is amongst many, however in the last few years it has been usurped by the alt-right to try and mock those that disagree with, which is ironic as they are probably the most mard arsed bunch in the world when they don't get their way.

Ah good bit of trivia to know thanks. I was actually referring to the original post but I understand now and I've updated my post before.

 

[urban genie]

Ah good bit of trivia to know thanks. I was actually referring to the original post but I understand now and I've updated my post before.

Ah you was on about bertie, sorry bertie magoo the bitter blue a sad name the rags gave us, lost a lot of it's irksome.in recent times and it bothers them when we us it as a term of endearmemt to each other, and tbf I know a few blues who refer to each other as bert when in each others company.

It is different though for a national broadcaster to refer to us as that though.

 

[City Raider]

Oh this is a beaut!

 

[hawkhurst]

Oh this is a beaut!

Because they're using the same page to report on the CL games immediately afterwards. Might find out if you actually clicked it and read it!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Because they're using the same page to report on the CL games immediately afterwards. Might find out if you actually clicked it and read it!

So you clicked and read a thread about the rags? Sniff, sniff.

 

[crooky]

Ah you was on about bertie, sorry bertie magoo the bitter blue a sad name the rags gave us, lost a lot of it's irksome.in recent times and it bothers them when we us it as a term of endearmemt to each other, and tbf I know a few blues who refer to each other as bert when in each others company.

It is different though for a national broadcaster to refer to us as that though.

I couldn't really give a toss what sly digs we get from any part of the media, life's too short for stuff like that. I just enjoy watching the games, the stuff on the pitch, the thing that actually matters etc. Like you say it's quite a cute insult as well, hardly something that immediately brings up negative thoughts. On the flip side calling someone a rag doesn't need to be explained. Even the least educated of football fan knows that's a insult!

 

[hawkhurst]

So you clicked and read a thread about the rags? Sniff, sniff.

You got me. I'm even based in London. I'd ban me if I were you.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Made a few complaints recently to the BBC and always get the same bullshit response , as someone posted previously there will a spotty pencil necked youth typing these tweets with his shithead Rag mates egging him on and generally taking the piss out of our club and then logging on to this forum to see our reaction , because basically the "pencil neck" is a talentless f*cking coward who thinks he is untouchable .Historically the BBC have turned a blind eye to their employees continual indiscretions and which in turn explains why people Saville / Hall etc. and many others are left to their own devices with absolutely no hinderance , the British Broadcasting Corporation is as corrupt as any other Media company , the only difference is we have to pay £150 a year to these f*ckers so they can continuously deride our football club

 

[City Raider]

Because they're using the same page to report on the CL games immediately afterwards. Might find out if you actually clicked it and read it!

No thanks.

 

[pace89]

No, you like the BBC are wrong. The tweet caused the outrage and rightly so. The discontent with the rest of the media and the BBC had been simmering for a while that much is true. The other tossers we don't pay for unless we choose to, the BBC we have little choice and as such it is supposed to be impartial and it isn't. Not only that but it had been having sly digs and reporting unfavourably on anything related to us for a while, mainly unchecked. Like all bullies they believed that they could then get away with more and more unchallenged until we reached the absolute low point of the picture and comments regarding Pete.

The analogy between the doctor's receptionist and NHS is total bollocks and you know it. The corporation is abusing it's position by reporting on our club unfairly and unfavourably and has publicly taken the piss, on a site funded by us, out of an elderly fan who deserves plaudits not ridicule. They haven't apologised properly, just a bog standard 'Smooth it over' letter which was sent in private. I suggest we fight them as hard as possible until they too feel uncomfortable and are exposed for what they are. You of course do not have to do so but don't try lecturing the ones that are willing to do so or trying to imply our reasons are different to what we claim.

It's not 'the BBC' that did this, there was no editorial decision or board meeting. It was some rag twat being a prick. It's not dissimilar to when City's programme re-printed City fans singing 'same old m*nichs always cheating' after the 2000 Maine Road derby (they were cheating). David Bernstein, the board, Joe Royle and Shaun Goater didn't sign off on the content of the programme, somebody who should have known better slipped it in and the Editor missed it. It was an error and City apologised, but in reality it was nothing to do with anyone with any authority at the Club.

The complaint should be taken seriously and the social media bellend should be taken to task. That might already have happened but we'll never really know because it's an employment issue and protected by data protection. But this complaint is one of many hundreds that the BBC will get every day from people of all descriptions who believe the BBC is biased because they don't always reflect their own prejudices. Bonkers, Muslims, Christians, Tories, Corbynites, socialist workers brexiteers, remainers and supporters of numerous football clubs are among the many groups convinced that the BBC is biased.

You don't need to tell me that BBC Online run by rags as its obvious, but every media organisation that reports on football prioritises the Rags and runs rag friendly news as that generates hits and clicks.

 

[cheekybids]

But complaining that this breaches the charter is like complaining that your rights under the NHS constitution have been abused because the GP receptionist was a bit short with you.[/QUOTE]

I think it's more like getting your arse felt by the junior doctor whilst being told no one will believe you, then no one believes you.

 

[paulchapo]

It's not 'the BBC' that did this, there was no editorial decision or board meeting. It was some rag twat being a prick. It's not dissimilar to when City's programme re-printed City fans singing 'same old m*nichs always cheating' after the 2000 Maine Road derby (they were cheating). David Bernstein, the board, Joe Royle and Shaun Goater didn't sign off on the content of the programme, somebody who should have known better slipped it in and the Editor missed it. It was an error and City apologised, but in reality it was nothing to do with anyone with any authority at the Club.

The complaint should be taken seriously and the social media bellend should be taken to task. That might already have happened but we'll never really know because it's an employment issue and protected by data protection. But this complaint is one of many hundreds that the BBC will get every day from people of all descriptions who believe the BBC is biased because they don't always reflect their own prejudices. Bonkers, Muslims, Christians, Tories, Corbynites, socialist workers brexiteers, remainers and supporters of numerous football clubs are among the many groups convinced that the BBC is biased.

You don't need to tell me that BBC Online run by rags as its obvious, but every media organisation that reports on football prioritises the Rags and runs rag friendly news as that generates hits and clicks.

That is too simplistic even if aspects of it may be true. This is the BBC sports website, accessible worldwide and paid for by you and me and every other licence payer. It isn't a two bit City programme written and run by pro City people [ We presume.] The BBC by what it stands for and being funded by the public should be vetted more stringently than the City programme. When the original picture of Pete appeared there was no mention of Bertie at all. I know because I saw it as it appeared live online on my phone as I was heading to the game. The piss taking comments was added later.

Yes every other media outlet push the rags, the dippers and the London luvvies before us for the clicks but they rely on advertisement revenue, the BBC does not. They have been overstepping the line for some time now and the treatment of Pete was a leap over that line too far.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That is too simplistic even if aspects of it may be true. This is the BBC sports website, accessible worldwide and paid for by you and me and every other licence payer. It isn't a two bit City programme written and run by pro City people [ We presume.] The BBC by what it stands for and being funded by the public should be vetted more stringently than the City programme. When the original picture of Pete appeared there was no mention of Bertie at all. I know because I saw it as it appeared live online on my phone as I was heading to the game. The piss taking comments was added later.

Yes every other media outlet push the rags, the dippers and the London luvvies before us for the clicks but they rely on advertisement revenue, the BBC does not. They have been overstepping the line for some time now and the treatment of Pete was a leap over that line too far.

The stench from the hack writers at the BBC sports site is bad, but I agree with pace89 - in this case it's someone doing something which either wasn't recognised or wasn't authorised. PB tells us (at least I think he told us) that it's been taken to someone fairly senior, and the person responsible will be identified. It's then down to the BBC internal processes to follow their own guidelines and to do their best to prevent a repetition.

It's highly unlikely to be a sackable offence - it's obviously unprofessional and insulting to City fans, but it isn't one of the -isms that truly need clamping down on.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I agree with PB on many things but I have no issue with the BBC.

There are some genuinely horrible media outlets out there that pump out dangerously slanted content and boarder line fake news day after day. The BBC is not one of them and in the current climate it needs our full support. Social media is what it is (fast paced and unedited) and there will be issues like this that arise but I’m not going to see my arse over it.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

It's not 'the BBC' that did this, there was no editorial decision or board meeting. It was some rag twat being a prick. It's not dissimilar to when City's programme re-printed City fans singing 'same old m*nichs always cheating' after the 2000 Maine Road derby (they were cheating). David Bernstein, the board, Joe Royle and Shaun Goater didn't sign off on the content of the programme, somebody who should have known better slipped it in and the Editor missed it. It was an error and City apologised, but in reality it was nothing to do with anyone with any authority at the Club.

The complaint should be taken seriously and the social media bellend should be taken to task. That might already have happened but we'll never really know because it's an employment issue and protected by data protection. But this complaint is one of many hundreds that the BBC will get every day from people of all descriptions who believe the BBC is biased because they don't always reflect their own prejudices. Bonkers, Muslims, Christians, Tories, Corbynites, socialist workers brexiteers, remainers and supporters of numerous football clubs are among the many groups convinced that the BBC is biased.

You don't need to tell me that BBC Online run by rags as its obvious, but every media organisation that reports on football prioritises the Rags and runs rag friendly news as that generates hits and clicks.

I understand that point and it's a reasoned and well argued post. I don't agree with it though, the problem is as much the editorial slant consistently taken by an organisation whose impartiality brief is quite unambiguous and lucid. The fact is the 'Pete incident' has simply acted as a very reasonable tipping point.

 

[BigJoe#1]

It's not 'the BBC' that did this, there was no editorial decision or board meeting. It was some rag twat being a prick. It's not dissimilar to when City's programme re-printed City fans singing 'same old m*nichs always cheating' after the 2000 Maine Road derby (they were cheating). David Bernstein, the board, Joe Royle and Shaun Goater didn't sign off on the content of the programme, somebody who should have known better slipped it in and the Editor missed it. It was an error and City apologised, but in reality it was nothing to do with anyone with any authority at the Club.

The complaint should be taken seriously and the social media bellend should be taken to task. That might already have happened but we'll never really know because it's an employment issue and protected by data protection. But this complaint is one of many hundreds that the BBC will get every day from people of all descriptions who believe the BBC is biased because they don't always reflect their own prejudices. Bonkers, Muslims, Christians, Tories, Corbynites, socialist workers brexiteers, remainers and supporters of numerous football clubs are among the many groups convinced that the BBC is biased.

You don't need to tell me that BBC Online run by rags as its obvious, but every media organisation that reports on football prioritises the Rags and runs rag friendly news as that generates hits and clicks.

Ultimately the BBC are responsible for their employees and their actions whilst they are at work and being paid, even if it is a "Rag twat being a prick". The rag twat being a prick will probably have a supervisor, a manager, a department head and a director. If the action was deemed to be offensive against the individual and/or Manchester City then it should not be swept under the carpet.

 

[casserole of nonsense]

One thing puzzles me. I get the "thick rag clickbait" thing for pushing the scum through various media outlets. But what I don't get is why the BBC need to do this? They don't need to attract advertising revenue, their output is funded regardless of audience volumes, so why?


BBC website running a poll now on where the rug head should go next. No option to vote for my septic tank, how biased is that?. Mind you, staying at the scum is an option and that's an even worse fate.

 

[Phil1]

I agree with PB on many things but I have no issue with the BBC.

There are some genuinely horrible media outlets out there that pump out dangerously slanted content and boarder line fake news day after day. The BBC is not one of them and in the current climate it needs our full support. Social media is what it is (fast paced and unedited) and there will be issues like this that arise but I’m not going to see my arse over it.

It's only the northwest sports department of the BBC I have a problem with. Not sure how anyone can say there's not a huge disparity in the way ourselves and them nobheads are reported on, or in many cases, not reported on at all.