I wish to escalate the above referenced complaint to the Editorial Complaints Unit due to the completely unsatisfactory and untruthful responses received to the initial complaint and for clear breaches of the Editorial Guidelines.
The summarised facts are as follows:
· On the morning of the Premier League match between Manchester City & Swansea, the BBC MOTD Facebook page published a picture of a recognisable and well-known Manchester City fan by the name of Pete Green.
· Pete is a City fan of very long-standing, is a friendly and articulate man but it’s believed he has Asperger’s Syndrome.
· The picture was captioned using the name “Bertie” which is a derogatory term used by some Manchester United fans to refer to Manchester City fans.
· There were numerous complaints from City fans (and one from the club itself I believe) about this and the caption was first changed to a less offensive one, then the picture was withdrawn completely from the page.
· Following formal complaints, the initial response was that the picture had been purchased from an agency with the offending caption already attached and that the significance of the term Bertie wasn’t understood.
· This was completely untruthful from whoever provided the response and it was easily shown that the picture had been sourced from the Press Association with a completely different caption and that the BBC Sport website had published a specific article about the use of the term “Bertie” about 12 months earlier.
· After a number of us replied to this insulting and untruthful response, pointing out the lies, the response changed to it being an “error”, a response which was only marginally less insulting and untrue as it must have been done deliberately by an employee or agent of the BBC in full knowledge that it was a derogatory term.
The original action, being on a publicly accessible Facebook page operated by the organisation, led to a number of offensive and insulting posts ridiculing Pete, who dresses in a very recognisable fashion along with a trademark lunch-box and ‘bum-bag’, from fans of other clubs. This alone was a clear breach of the Editorial Guideline regarding causing harm & offence to individuals.
The substance of this referral is that:
1. It’s quite obvious that someone did this deliberately (and sources tell me that the BBC management know who it was and that it was done with deliberate intent).
2. It was in clear breach of a number of editorial guidelines so one has to ask what editorial controls are in place and whether they are adequate.
3. There has been a concerted cover-up of this and bare-faced lies told to licence paying viewers.
There needs to be a full investigation (although I’m told that happened quite quickly if my sources are correct), the individual responsible identified and dealt with appropriately under your disciplinary code and serious questions asked as to why blatant and easily discoverable lies were told in an attempt to evade admitting the true situation.
Having received a second unsatisfactory response to the above referenced complaint, I believe I can now escalate it to the Editorial Complaints Unit (although the response to my second complaint didn’t mention this). This complaint was about blatant advertising via a number of BBC web-based outlets, in particular contravention of section 14.4.4 of the Editorial Guidelines.
This complaint arose from a commercial promotion put on by Manchester United at Old Trafford, in respect of their partnership with Tag Heuer, the Swiss watch company. A BBC Sport reporter, Simon Stone, went along to cover this event which was promoting the launch of an “Official Club Watch” retailing at £1,300. The event consisted of players competing to score the highest number of points from kicking a ball around a large enclosure designed to look like a Tag Heuer watch. This was prominently branded and there were a number of videos and photographs on the reporter’s Twitter timeline. That alone broke the guideline on undue brand prominence in my opinion as there was no real editorial justification for publicising this event. I received a response saying there was great interest in the growth of United’s commercial revenues but this was quite simply a promotional event for a specific product from a specific club partner.
The following day saw the release of Manchester United’s second quarter (and therefore half-year) figures and there is clearly undeniable editorial justification for reporting these. However the article (at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38904511) included a blatant plug for the watch, which was completely unnecessary in the context of the results announcement. Having spoken to some relevant sources, I believe it’s customary for attendees to be invited to such events on condition that they plug the product or brand being promoted. While that’s acceptable for a commercial media outlet, there can be no excuse for the BBC to agree to such an explicit piece of product promotion. In fact I’m not sure I’ve even ever seen anything so overt on the BBC in respect of a commercial product being promoted by a third party.
Simon (who I know having dealt with him when he was at the Press Association in the past) attempted to justify his attendance on the grounds that they were offered interviews with first team players but it seems these didn’t actually materialise. Even if they had, there was still no connection between this prospect and the blatant advert for Tag Heuer attached to Bill Wilson’s report. I’ve no issue with him attending any event but that should not lead to what is in my view a clear breach of Editorial Guideline 14.
I've just escalated my two complaints to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The first was about Pete:
The other was about their blatant plugging of the rags' new "Tag Heuer Official Club Watch" costing £1,300:
We'll see what happens
made the same complaint regarding stones and tag heur and they replied it was stones's personal twitter account and therefore they have no issue with the content.CAS-4253766 .Their reply to the cold war programme when i complained there was not a representative form the blue side of manchester whilst three rags contributed , their reply was that in their view it was a fair cross section of opinion CAS 4264681 .
They have absolutely no intention of changing their favouritism towards the Rags and will in fact escalate their bias , they know if they are annoying blues /dippers and others , then alternatively they will be impressing their core Rag viewers/readers , our complaints just receive the standard/reply apology and they will carry on regardless
Shame it wasn't around a few years ago. Then your dad wouldn't have needed to marry your mother to have sex.I think you fellas be have a little too much time on your hands, have you tried Youporn?
Shame it wasn't around a few years ago. Then your dad wouldn't have needed to marry your mother to have sex.
Shame it wasn't around a few years ago. Then your dad wouldn't have needed to marry your mother to have sex.
i bet guys draw is full of odd socks :)
I've just escalated my two complaints to the Editorial Complaints Unit. The first was about Pete:
The other was about their blatant plugging of the rags' new "Tag Heuer Official Club Watch" costing £1,300:
We'll see what happens
Shame it wasn't around a few years ago. Then your dad wouldn't have needed to marry his sister to have sex.
You are not saying PB is full of something are you :-)Great work PB. If you're still looking for a new user ID - TenaCity would be appropriate!
He's certainly getting a bit pissy of late.You are not saying PB is full of something are you :-)
http://www.incontinencechoice.co.uk...aA0YDp6AAkBrH9eZYfWwNerOfgy94jVK6sBoCscvw_wcB
He's certainly getting a bit pissy of late.
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
Now that bimbo deserves a good slap.Even the older rags are getting in a spot of bother
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ince-miller-manchester-united-sacked-12804000
Just twat would do. Imagine TWAT we salute you, wonder if they would print that ?Mmmm, perhaps the longer term solution is for us to go on the offensive (literally). We already use the term rags but what about "Thick as shit Fred the deluded red"!