Who made the poppy a political symbol? For those who collected the flower from fields in France 90 years ago and many bereaved relatives at home it was a symbol of respect for loved ones lost, but it can be used politically and has been shamelessly politicised in Scotland in recent years, where the symbol of national loss has been exploited.
In itself, the poppy is not political, it occupies the same territory as the black armband, but even this worldwide symbol of respect has been exploited for political ends by footballers in the past.
I can understand why many in England are furious that Fifa consider the poppy a political symbol and have banned England for wearing it against Spain this week, but since a few live to exploit the flower for political ends, the Fifa decision is correct.
Before making the decision someone at Fifa would have undertaken cursory research into the subject. Searching Google for “poppy football” a few weeks ago would have returned this (now archived) result. I’m sure you recall; a banner at Celtic Park, which didn’t make the news on the day it was displayed, or on the next day, was badgered by someone into the news on day three. Celtic were the target of that exercise, the England team are now collateral damage.
977 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- ...
- 23
- »
Paul67 et al
The Red Poppy. Requiescat in Pace.
Jungle Jim says:
9 November, 2011 at 20:07
‘How is it possible to pay respect to the dead ?’
By ensuring that others aren’t conned into making the same mistake?
jhilday says:
9 November, 2011 at 19:55
No Problem.
The bigot in question is the insufferable KOJO.
If ANYBODY had posted on this site that he would FAVOUR people because they were NOT Catholics, we would RIGHTLY be incensed.
We cannot therefore accept the Catholic bigot reversing that logic.
Bigotry is not a one-sided concept.
The auld poppycock debate is designed to get a rise out of ye!
Manipulated are we CSC
V
Warning – long post!
Latest letter received from the Beeb re the ‘sectarian’ singing complaint:
Our ref: 825033
9 November 2011
Dear Mr
Sportscene, BBC One, 21 May 2011
I am responding to your appeal to the BBC Trust following the decision by the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) not to uphold your complaint. Your appeal concerns the use of the word ―sectarian‖ in the above programme.
First, I should explain that the Trust does not adjudicate on every appeal that is brought to it, and part of my role is to check that appeals qualify for consideration by the Trust (or one of its complaints committees) under the Complaints Framework. You can find full details of the Complaints Framework and Trust appeals procedures here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how_we_govern/protocols_policy/compliance_oversight.shtml.
Paragraph 3.10(d) of the Trust‘s editorial complaints and appeals procedures1 states that:
1 See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2010/complaints_fr
2 See para 5.3(e) of the Complaints Framework: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2010/e3_complaints_fr_work.pdf.
Your appeal must raise a matter of substance – in particular, that, in the opinion of the Trust, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to answer. Consideration will also be given to whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective for the Trust to address an appeal.
Having read the relevant correspondence and viewed the programme in question, I have decided that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that some—but not all—of the matters you raised on appeal satisfy the above criteria and should proceed before the Editorial Standards Committee (ESC). I should like to explain why I consider other elements should not proceed to the Trust on appeal.
Before doing so, I should mention that the Trust has received a large number of appeals that raise the same substantive issues as your appeal, and other issues too. So that we can be efficient in terms of cost and administration I am replying to all complainants with this consolidated response covering all the issues that have been raised.2 This is intended to ensure that the key reasons for my decisions are communicated in the most expedient manner.
Some complainants challenged the decision to consolidate this appeal. The Trustees considered their letters in the 2 November ESC meeting but concluded that it was 2
appropriate to consolidate the appeal. A ratified decision will be provided to those complainants following the December ESC meeting.
As this appeal is consolidated, this letter is all-encompassing, and may address issues in addition to those that you have raised, which I hope you will find of interest.
Before explaining the reasons for my decision, I have summarised the complaints made, including your complaint, and the BBC Executive‘s response.
Stage 1
You and other complainants contacted the BBC shortly after the Scottish Cup Final between Celtic and Motherwell on 21 May 2011, which BBC Scotland had broadcast live on Sportscene. Complaints arose from the use of the word ―sectarian‖ by presenter Rob McLean and studio guest Pat Nevin to describe singing by Celtic supporters. Complainants argued that the use of the term was inaccurate and misleading, the presenter and studio guest having failed to distinguish between conduct that some might consider offensive and conduct properly described as sectarian.
Several arguments centred on the definition of ―sectarian‖:
It was contended that the definition was controversial, and that it was inappropriate to have used the term without reflecting the debate surrounding it.
Some complainants cited a Sheriff Court case3 involving consideration of section 74 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, which concerns offences aggravated by religious prejudice. It was contended that the case had the force of legal precedent in relation to the interpretation of ―sectarian‖.
One complainant argued that ―sectarian‖ could refer only to a dispute between sects within the same religion or political group, which was not the case here.
3 Although many complainants did not cite the case by name, they appear to have been referring to the decision of Sheriff Michael Stewart in the Perth Sheriff Court in the case of PC Christopher Halaka, who was tried in March 2011: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12853156.
4 BBC Scotland subsequently acknowledged via the Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) that a message to the studio during the broadcast had been inaccurately paraphrased, suggesting that songs had been sung, whereas the broadcast had in fact contained only one song, namely The Boys of the Old Brigade. The ECU did not consider this inaccuracy to be particularly significant, the key issue being in its view whether any—not how many—sectarian songs may have been sung.
A number of complainants contended that the presenter had inaccurately referred to songs in the plural, whereas only one allegedly sectarian song, namely The Boys of the Old Brigade, had been sung.4 It was argued that, having no proof of the accuracy of this statement, the BBC had reported hearsay as fact.
As the presenter had not identified the songs to which he referred, complainants inferred that these were Amhrán na bhFiann (The Soldier‘s Song) and/or The Boys of the Old Brigade.
It was argued that neither song could accurately be described as sectarian: the former was the Irish National Anthem; the latter was a folk song honouring members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) who fought and died during the struggle for Irish 3
independence, and was not directed against or hostile towards others. Comparison was made with patriotic songs such as Flower of Scotland and Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau (Land of My Fathers), neither of which was commonly regarded as sectarian. It was also argued that God Save The Queen had historically contained a verse that was highly offensive to Scots, and yet was not considered sectarian. Several complainants noted that, on her recent state visit to Ireland, the Queen had paid her respects to those, including the eponymous ―Boys of the Old Brigade‖, who had fought and died during the struggle for Irish independence. They queried why, if singing the song were sectarian, her act of remembrance was not. One complainant noted that The Boys of the Old Brigade could be purchased on iTunes.
Some complainants believed that the presenter had described the conduct of not some but all Celtic supporters as sectarian, which they contended was unfair, inaccurate, biased and defamatory. Some noted that the tarnishing of Celtic supporters‘ reputation through the inaccurate depiction of their conduct could potentially have a deleterious financial effect on Celtic plc and its shareholders, through the loss of sponsorship revenue and otherwise.
Some complainants noted discrepancies between Sportscene‘s coverage of this match and its coverage of the Scottish League Cup Final two months earlier, when no mention had been made of Rangers supporters‘ singing of The Billy Boys and The Famine Song, which it was argued were sectarian songs, properly so called.5 On that occasion, the BBC had informed complainants that it was not and had never been custom and practice for commentators to offer opinions on chants from the crowd. Some complainants also noted that, earlier this year, Rangers had been fined by UEFA and its supporters banned from the club‘s next European away game for sectarian singing, which Celtic and its supporters had never been. Some contrasted the BBC‘s speed in apologising to Rangers manager Ally McCoist (for its allegedly unfair representation of his views on violence and sectarianism) with its slowness in offering an equivalent apology to Celtic fans. A number of complainants regarded the BBC‘s apparently inconsistent depiction of Celtic and Rangers supporters‘ conduct as evidence of institutional anti-Celtic, pro-Rangers bias.
5 Complainants noted that the former song had been expressly banned by UEFA, while in the case of Walls v Procurator Fiscal the latter song had been described by the Appeal Court of the High Court of Justiciary as ―racist in calling upon people native to Scotland to leave the country because of their racial origins‖: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2009HCJAC59.html.
In its Stage 1 response, the BBC argued that the decision to discuss the singing (which it stated had come from a minority of Celtic fans) was editorially appropriate in view of 4
―the incidents of recent weeks‖,6 Neil Lennon‘s statement on Celtic FC‘s website7 and the First Minister‘s assertion that tackling sectarianism would be a priority for the new Government.8 The BBC noted that sectarianism had been debated in five editions of Sportscene in April and May 2011, both generally and in relation to specific incidents such as the sending of parcel bombs and Rangers‘ UEFA fine. The BBC acknowledged that there was a range of definitions of ―sectarian‖, conceding that it would have been more accurate for the presenter to have referred to ―songs that some people believe to be an expression of sectarianism but which many people nonetheless find both offensive and provocative‖.
6 These included the making of death threats and the sending of parcel bombs and bullets to Celtic Manager Neil Lennon and others, and an attack on Mr Lennon during a match between Celtic and Hearts.
7 Manager calls for end to offensive chanting: http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=1091.
8 This matured into the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill.
Stage 2
A large number of complainants escalated the matter to the ECU, and it was decided that, for reasons of speed and efficiency, they would receive a consolidated response. Some complainants argued that the reference in the BBC‘s Stage 1 response to the topicality of the issue was irrelevant, as the same factors had been present at the time of the Scottish League Cup Final. It was also argued that the BBC‘s reference to Neil Lennon‘s statement, which concerned offensive chanting, illustrated the BBC‘s habitual conflation of songs that some people found offensive with songs that were sectarian.
The ECU identified the following common issues:
the use of the word ―sectarian‖ was inaccurate;
the programme was thus unfair to Celtic supporters; and
the programme had lacked impartiality by focusing upon allegations of sectarian behaviour by Celtic supporters and not referring to allegations of recent sectarian behaviour by Rangers supporters.
The ECU argued that, in common usage, the definition of ―sectarian‖ was not limited to exclusively religious factors, but included non-religious divisions such as those between rival political groups. The ECU contended that it was reasonable to use the term to refer to the web of inter-communal tensions in parts of Scotland of which both religion and politics formed major parts. Citing the reported views of Strathclyde Police to the effect that singing The Boys of the Old Brigade at a football match where it might be expected to give offence could lead to the singer‘s arrest, the ECU argued that the song could therefore reasonably be described as sectarian. The ECU did not therefore uphold the complaint that the use of the word had been inaccurate.
On that basis, the ECU did not uphold the second point of complaint, which alleged unfairness to Celtic supporters. Noting that Celtic supporters sometimes added the 5
words ―Provisional Wing‖ after ―I joined the IRA‖, the ECU believed that such ―add-ons‖ transformed what was originally a purely historical song into a sectarian and contemporary one. Although the ECU could not determine which version had been sung on this occasion, internet footage suggested that Celtic supporters‘ singing of the augmented version was common, which tended to undermine the claim that it was unfair to accuse Celtic supporters per se of singing sectarian songs. The ECU also noted that some Celtic fans had conceded in online postings that, in the context of football matches, the song had the potential to give offence and should not be sung.
On the issue of impartiality, the ECU pointed out that the broadcast had included references to sectarian singing by Rangers fans and to Rangers‘ punishment by UEFA. The studio guest had also stated that it did not matter who was singing, only that they were, and that he would criticise any supporters, including Rangers‘, for doing so. The ECU also pointed to the pre-match discussion, in which strong sympathy and support for Mr Lennon had been expressed. In the ECU‘s view, this undermined the argument that the programme had an anti-Celtic agenda. The third and final point of complaint was thus not upheld.
With regard to the allegation of institutional bias, the Head of Public Policy and Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland, stated that presenters and commentators did not routinely comment on every occasion where provocative or objectionable chants or songs emanated from the terraces. The discussion in this programme had taken place in the context of significantly heightened public and political interest, and there had been no change in editorial direction since the Scottish League Cup Final.
Appeal
You and a number of other complainants appealed to the BBC Trust. With reference to the ECU‘s reasoning, complainants argued that it was inappropriate for the ECU unquestioningly to have accepted the police‘s view of what was ―sectarian‖. It was also argued that the ECU‘s reference to ―add-ons‖ was irrelevant, especially in the absence of any evidence of these having been sung. Some complainants argued that, in citing online blogs and newspaper reports whilst omitting to cite relevant legal precedent, the ECU had missed the point. It was argued that the dismissal of the presenter‘s reference to songs in the plural as an ―error of paraphrasing‖ was unsatisfactory, and some complainants speculated that, having initially classified the Irish national anthem as a sectarian song, the BBC had subsequently realised its error and been embarrassed into a volte face. There were also complaints about the lack of bespoke replies, as some complainants felt that the BBC‘s generic responses had not addressed their particular concerns. Some complainants found the complaints system confusing, as different elements of the same complaint had to be referred to different parts of the BBC. Complaint was also made about response times.
My decision 6
As Head of Editorial Standards, my role is, first, to determine whether your appeal has engaged any of the BBC‘s Editorial Guidelines. I should emphasise that it is not my function to decide whether there has been a breach of the Editorial Guidelines, as that is a matter for the ESC. If I determine that any of the Editorial Guidelines has been engaged, I must then consider whether your appeal raises a matter of substance, and in particular whether there is sufficient evidence to suggest that it has a reasonable prospect of success and there is a case for the BBC Executive to answer. In reaching my decision, I must give consideration to whether it is appropriate, proportionate and cost-effective for the Trust to address your appeal.
I considered your appeal against the BBC‘s Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy (section 3), Impartiality (section 4), Fairness, Contributors and Consent (section 6) and Accountability (section 19). These can be found online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/guidelines/.
Accuracy
The relevant Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy are as follows:
3.1
The BBC is committed to achieving due accuracy. This commitment is fundamental to our reputation and the trust of audiences, which is the foundation of the BBC. It is also a requirement under the Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter.
The term ‘due’ means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.
Therefore, we do all we can to achieve due accuracy in all our output, though its requirements may vary. The due accuracy required of, for example, drama, entertainment and comedy, will not usually be the same as for factual content. The requirements may even vary within a genre, so the due accuracy required of factual content may differ depending on whether it is, for example, factual entertainment, historical documentary, current affairs or news.
Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.
Where appropriate to the output, we should:
gather material using first hand sources wherever possible
check and cross check facts
validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material
corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.
In news and current affairs content, achieving due accuracy is more important than speed. 7
…
3.2.1
We must do all we can to ensure due accuracy in all our output.
3.2.2
All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open about what we don‘t know and avoid unfounded speculation. Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.
…
3.4.11
We must not knowingly and materially mislead our audiences with our content. …
In my view, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a case for the Executive to answer on the accuracy of the use of the word ―sectarian‖. I have therefore determined that all complaints, so far as they relate to this particular issue, should proceed for consideration by the ESC. I have instructed an Independent Editorial Adviser to conduct an investigation and to prepare a Background and Considerations note for the hearing before the ESC. You will be sent a copy of the Independent Editorial Adviser‘s note and will have the opportunity to comment upon it, if you wish, before the hearing. I anticipate that this issue will be considered by the ESC at its meeting on 1 December.
Below, I consider the points of appeal relating to accuracy that I do not consider to have a reasonable prospect of success, and that I therefore do not propose to proceed with before the Committee.
With regard to the contention that the BBC had broadcast an inaccurate statement of which it had no proof and had therefore reported hearsay as fact, I am satisfied that, in the context of a live broadcast and unscripted discussion, the presenter had made it clear to the audience that his comments were based upon information that had been supplied to him and that he had not personally verified. The presenter prefaced his remarks with the words:
―… because those outside who can hear the songs being sung tell me …‖.
Viewers would therefore have been able to accord those comments their appropriate weight, and would not necessarily have regarded them as statements of fact.
With regard to the means by which the message that sectarian singing had taken place was reported to the production team and conveyed to the presenter and studio guests, this is an operational matter that does not engage any of the Editorial Guidelines, and is therefore ultimately the responsibility of the BBC Executive Board, not the BBC Trust. As you may be aware, the Royal Charter and the accompanying Agreement between the Secretary of State and the BBC draw a distinction between the roles of the BBC 8
Trust and the BBC Executive Board, led by the Director-General. The ―operational management of the BBC‖ is defined in the Charter (Article 38(1)(c)) as a duty that is the responsibility of the Executive Board, and one in which the Trust does not usually involve itself.
So far as the accuracy of the message is concerned, as the Executive has acknowledged that the presenter‘s reference to songs in the plural was an inaccurate paraphrase, I am satisfied that this issue is now resolved. In any event, I agree with the ECU‘s view that this inaccuracy was not particularly significant, as the key issue was not the number of songs that were sung but whether there had been any sectarian singing at all.
I am also satisfied that the presenter‘s words ―the Celtic supporters have been singing some sectarian songs during the first half‖ did not imply that each and every Celtic supporter present had been doing so, as such an implication would have been self-evidently hyperbolic and absurd. In my view, the phrase ―the Celtic supporters‖ served to distinguish Celtic supporters from those of Motherwell, and I note that, if viewers remained in any doubt, the studio guest‘s subsequent exhortation to ―good fans‖ to ―boo them out, to drown them out‖ clarified that a minority of supporters was involved. I am therefore satisfied that, taken in context, the statement would have been understood by viewers to mean that some but not all Celtic supporters had been engaged in the singing.
I am also satisfied that the ECU did not delegate its judgement to Strathclyde Police by unquestioningly accepting its view on the definition of ―sectarian‖, but merely cited the police‘s view in support of its argument.
With regard to the BBC‘s allegedly classifying Amhrán na bhFiann (The Soldier‘s Song) as a sectarian song, I note that neither during the programme nor in subsequent correspondence did the BBC do so.
So far as the allegation that the statement was a slur on the reputation of Celtic supporters (or even ―defamatory‖), as discussed above, the phrase ―the Celtic supporters‖ would not have been construed by viewers as denoting each and every Celtic supporter who was present at the match. As the statement did not refer to any identifiable individual, I cannot see that there has been a slur on any individual complainant‘s reputation (or, therefore, any ―defamation‖).
Impartiality
The Introduction to the Editorial Guidelines on Impartiality states:
Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC‘s commitment to its audiences.
It applies to all our output and services – television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, 9
considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.
The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy. But we go further than that, applying due impartiality to all subjects. However, its requirements will vary.
The term ‗due‘ means that the impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.
Due impartiality is often more than a simple matter of ‗balance‘ between opposing viewpoints. Equally, it does not require absolute neutrality on every issue or detachment from fundamental democratic principles.
With regard to ‗controversial subjects‘, the Guidelines state:
4.4.5
We must apply due impartiality to all our subject matter. However, there are particular requirements for ‘controversial subjects’, whenever they occur in any output, including drama, entertainment and sport.
A ‘controversial subject’ may be a matter of public policy or political or industrial controversy. It may also be a controversy within religion, science, finance, culture, ethics and other matters entirely.
…
4.4.7
When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
4.4.8
Due impartiality normally allows for programmes and other output to explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an opportunity for a single view to be expressed. When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’ this should be clearly signposted, should acknowledge that a range of views exists and the weight of those views, and should not misrepresent them.
Consideration should be given to the appropriate timeframe for reflecting other perspectives and whether or not they need to be included in connected and signposted output.
If such output contains serious allegations, a right of reply may be required, either as part of the same output, or in a connected and clearly signposted alternative.
I have noted the ECU‘s conclusion that the programme was not biased against Celtic, and the evidence the ECU cited in support of this finding (including the references 10
during the programme to Rangers supporters‘ conduct and to Rangers‘ punishment by UEFA). I have also noted the assertion of the Head of Public Policy and Corporate Affairs, BBC Scotland, that public and political interest was significantly heightened at the time of the programme, and that there had been no change in editorial direction since the Scottish League Cup Final.
Nevertheless, in my view:
the alleged inconsistency between Sportscene‘s reporting of allegedly sectarian singing in this match and its non-reporting of allegedly sectarian singing in the Scottish League Cup Final;
the alleged inconsistency between the BBC‘s previous statement (that it was not and never had been commentators‘ custom and practice to express opinions on crowd chants) and the discussion of such chants in this programme; and
the description of Celtic supporters‘ conduct in such a way as to allegedly equate it with Rangers supporters‘ conduct that had previously incurred UEFA sanctions
provide sufficient evidence to suggest that there is a case for the Executive to answer on Impartiality. I have therefore determined that this issue should also proceed for consideration by the ESC. I have instructed the Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate the issue of Impartiality further, and to include the results of that investigation in the Background and Considerations note.
With regard to the allegations of institutional bias, it seems to me that no evidence has been provided by complainants except in relation to the allegations set out in the three bullet points above. Therefore if the Trustees find a breach or breaches of the guidelines regarding impartiality I will ask the Trustees to also consider the allegations of institutional bias. Otherwise I will recommend that the Trustees should not uphold a complaint of institutional bias.
With regard to the complaint that the programme could have had a deleterious effect on the finances of Celtic plc and its shareholders, I note that, in the absence of any evidence of such financial prejudice, the risk remains merely hypothetical. This element therefore should not proceed on appeal.
A number of complainants have noted what they discerned as a change in editorial policy in relation to the reporting of allegedly sectarian singing or chanting between the Scottish League Cup Final and the Scottish Cup Final, and asked when and why this policy had changed. Apart from the allegations of bias noted above, any such change in editorial policy is an operational matter, and is therefore the responsibility of the Executive Board.
Fairness 11
Editorial Guideline 6.1 states:
The BBC strives to be fair to all – fair to those our output is about, fair to contributors, and fair to our audiences. BBC content should be based on respect, openness and straight dealing. We also have an obligation under the Ofcom Broadcasting Code to ―avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes‖. (Rule 7.1, Ofcom Broadcasting Code)
In order to establish a potential breach of the Fairness Guidelines arising from the presenter‘s statement that ―the Celtic supporters have been singing some sectarian songs during the first half‖, an individual complainant must show that they personally have been treated unfairly. I note that the presenter‘s statement makes no mention of any individual. I also note that the wording of the statement does not apply to complainants who are not Celtic supporters or who, being Celtic supporters, were not present at the match.
Consequently, any complainant seeking to establish a breach of this Guideline must show that they personally have suffered unfairness, by reference to the unfair treatment of Celtic supporters who were present at the match and who were not singing at all, or who were singing a song that was inaccurately described as sectarian, of whom they were one. As discussed above, the phrase ―the Celtic supporters‖ would not have been construed by viewers as denoting each and every Celtic supporter who was present at the match. Therefore, as it cannot conclusively be said of any such complainant that the statement applied to them personally, I cannot see how it can be maintained that they personally were treated unfairly. Nor do I see how it can be maintained that any such complainant was ―tarnished by association‖, as the statement in question was no more likely to apply to them than not. For these reasons, I do not think that any complainant has been able to show that they personally have been treated unfairly.
So far as any potentially unfair treatment of organisations is concerned, the Celtic Supporters‘ Clubs listed on the Celtic FC website9 could, for example, properly be described as ―organisations‖, whereas ―Celtic supporters‖, referred to generically, could not. I note that the broadcast did not make mention, express or implied, of any such organisations, and that no such organisation has complained that it was treated unfairly.
9 See: http://www.celticfc.net/fans_supportersclubs.
For these reasons, I do not believe that complainants have made a case for the Executive to answer on the issue of Fairness. I have therefore determined that there is no reasonable prospect of success for your appeal on this ground, and that your appeal should not proceed to the ESC for consideration.
Complaint handling and accountability 12
Paragraph 5.2(c) of the BBC‘s Complaints Framework states:
If a large number of complainants complain about a specific action, the BBC‘s Executive may compile a summary of the range of issues raised by the complaints. The complaints will then be considered together across the full range of issues identified.10
10 See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/regulatory_framework/protocols/2010/e3_complaints_fr_work.pdf.
I am satisfied that it was appropriate in principle for the Executive to issue generic responses to individual complainants at both Stages 1 and 2.
So far as the adequacy of those responses is concerned, a number of complainants felt that certain issues raised by their complaint had not been dealt with. It is in the nature of generic responses that, while seeking to cover all material issues, they can never address every nuance of the myriad forms in which individual complaints are expressed—and I have no doubt that this response is no exception. However, complainants were given the opportunity at Stage 2 to comment on the ECU‘s appraisal of the material issues, and the ECU engaged in correspondence with those who felt that an adequate appraisal had not been made of their complaint. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Executive‘s Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses dealt appropriately with the whole range of material issues that complainants had raised.
With regard to the timeliness of responses, the Editorial Guidelines on Accountability state:
19.4.1
…
Our commitment to our audiences is to ensure that complaints and enquiries are dealt with quickly, courteously and with respect.
19.4.2
The BBC Trust has created a complaints framework, which lays out practices for complaints handling:
…
Complaints should be responded to in a timely manner
In relation to initial Stage 1 responses, paragraph 2.5 of the Editorial complaints and appeals procedures states:
You will receive a response when our research is complete. We aim to reply within 10 working days depending on the nature of your complaint.
In relation to Stage 2 responses, paragraph 2.15 of the Editorial complaints and appeals procedures states: 13
The ECU aims to complete its investigation into your complaint within 20 working days of the summary of your complaint being sent to you (a target of 35 working days applies to a minority of cases which are judged to be unusually complex).
It should be borne in mind that these are performance targets rather than binding commitments, and there may be exceptional circumstances, for example where there is a particularly high volume of complaints or where detailed research is required, when it is not possible for the Executive to meet them.
In this case, although delays arose in responding to some complainants, I am not aware of any serious or substantial failure by the Executive to respond in a timely manner, and I do not therefore consider there to have been anything more than a minor breach of the Accountability Guidelines. I note that, in circumstances where delays have arisen, the Executive has acknowledged this and offered an apology. I therefore consider this matter resolved.
I have noted complainants‘ comments that the BBC complaints system is confusing, as a single complaint may raise issues that are the responsibility of different parts of the BBC. In his recent Review of BBC Governance,11 the Trust‘s Chairman, Lord Patten, undertook that the Trust would address the BBC‘s complaints and compliance systems, to make them faster, simpler and more transparent. The Director-General has agreed to create a new position of Chief Complaints Editor to co-ordinate complaints-handling activity across the BBC Executive. The Executive will establish a corrections page on the BBC website, outlining when significant editorial corrections have been made or apologies issued. The Trust will publish a single page guide explaining where complainants should go to complain about BBC broadcast content or services, and has undertaken to ensure that the test that it will apply to assess appeals is made clearer to complainants. The Trust anticipates that these measures will increase speed and transparency, and reduce complexity in the complaints process.
11 See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/bbc_governance.pdf.
Further steps
As some complainants have raised issues relating to fairness, I should point out that paragraph 3.53 of the Editorial Complaints Procedure states that ―the Trustees‘ decision is the final stage of the BBC Complaints Process. However, you may be able to complain to Ofcom …‖. Details of Ofcom‘s procedures for the consideration and adjudication of Fairness and Privacy complaints can be found at: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/guidance/854750/fairness-privacy-complaint.pdf. Please note that, if you wish to do so, you should refer your complaint to Ofcom as soon as possible and in any event within 20 working days of the final decision by the Trustees. 14
If you wish the Trustees to review my decision not to proceed with parts of your appeal, please reply with your reasons by 12pm on 24 November 2011 to Lucy Tristram, Complaints Advisor, at the above address or trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. If exceptionally you need more time, please write giving your reasons as soon as possible.
If you do ask the Trustees to review my decision not to proceed with parts of your appeal, I will then place your letter and this letter, and your original letter of appeal to the Trust before the ESC. I anticipate that they will consider your request at their December meeting. Their decision is likely to be ratified at their January meeting and you will be given their decision shortly afterwards.
The Trustees will consider any request to review my decision, prior to considering the Background and Considerations note referred to above (which shall also be considered at the December meeting). If the Trustees consider that the remaining parts of your case have no reasonable prospect of success then those parts of your case will close. If the Trustees disagree with my view then those parts of your case will also be given to an Independent Editorial Adviser to investigate and we will contact you with an updated time line. In this case, the Trustees will consider whether it is appropriate to consider the Background and Considerations note at the December ESC meeting, or to consider it at the next ESC meeting, once the Independent Editorial Advisor has investigated.
Yours sincerely
Francesca O’Brien
Head of Editorial Standards, Trust Unit
KINGLUBO says:
9 November, 2011 at 17:08
The writer made some great points in relation to any future debate about playing in England (something I personally am not in favour of )
Although we have our problems in Scotland with sectarianism I like to think racism although a smaller problem here it is not as widespread as it is England.
The writers main thrust I believe was to point out the reason why they don’t want Celtic and Rangers to play in England their usual reason is because of our sectarian baggage.
The writer points out this a pretty weak reason considering the history recent and past of racism in the grounds of English football so it’s almost as if the sectarian elements of our clubs and their clubs cancel each other out to a degree when compared under the moral spotlight.
It’s possible some of them just don’t want any Scots team playing in England because they just don’t like us and they use the sectarian problems we have as an excuse. If this is the case it only underlines the deep rooted problems they have with racism if even us Scots a UK nation with every right as themselves are not worthy of equality in their eyes
The next time they dare criticise our morality I will of course just point the finger back
As for the goat shagging apron wearers they are getting pretty thin on the ground these days and the affect they have on the grand scheme of things is akin to a gnat p*ssing on a forest fire
Hail Hail
Back to Basics – Glass Half Full at 20:00
The BBC is covered by FOI, and the question you raise may provide interesting numbers, but I’ll leave that to someone else. Several points I raised seem to have been side-stepped in the generic response – like it being OK to only monitor Celtic at the final and not Motherwell as sectarianism is an Old Firm problem (I paraphrase slightly unfairly, but only slightly) which I need to pursue.
ernie,
‘How is it possible to pay respect to the dead ?’
By ensuring that others aren’t conned into making the same mistake?
But everything that, even unintentionally, glorifies war, has precisely the opposite effect.
JJ
Oh a quick read back tells me you’re all still enjoying yir wee poppy debate.
Vmhan out!
Jungle Jim says:
9 November, 2011 at 20:07
I believe there are hundreds of ways depending on the circumstances.
With individual people, you pay respect to them by continuing to carry out a wish of theirs or something they had done. You can ensure those they left behind are looked after.
With a group of peoples, who maybe died prematurely fighting for something just, you can pay the ultimate respect by helping to ensure they did not die in vein.
Or am I off track with what you meant fella?
Big Nan says:
9 November, 2011 at 18:02
‘Got a reply from the BBC Trust but it is so long I would lose the will to live reading it just now but I think the gist of what Francesca O’Brien,’
Did Francesca mention if they’ve received a writ from Whytie’s lawyers yet?
any techies about,seen this offer on Groupon
HP 630 Laptop
HP laptop with three year manufacturer’s warranty Windows 7 Home Premium Three year Norton internet security for one user 3GB RAM 320GB hard drive 15.6″ TFT screen Intel Pentium P6200 processor
£385 inc delivery
looks like offer is available til 11 Dec
“Who wants to be a millionaire REMEMBRANCE special !
Whatever next?
A poppy is used because it was the first thing to grow after the slaughter and carnage of the First World War. Couple this with the idea of flag day: you gave a donation, got a pin and nobody pestered you for the rest of the day. Fast forward, now the poppy has to be worn for at least a fortnight, slebs have foliage, football players have it printed on their shirts and Cameron wants it put on the England shirt.
It was English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, American, and Colonial troops who made the ultimate sacrifice. The poppy is not an English symbol, it’s origin is American.
If governments want young people to put themselves in danger then they shouldn’t go cap in hand to the public, they should use taxpayers’ money.
This year in excess of 4000 people will die as result of occupational exposure to asbestos, what’s their symbol?
Eyes Wide Open
I appreciate your response but yes, you are off track with what I meant. Not your fault. The “fault” lies in the word “respect”. I see it as a dynamic word involving, emotionally, both the giver and the receiver. In the way it is used regarding the millions who died, my interpretation is not possible.
JJ
Folks I also see the ‘religious’ debate has crept in, even though technically that has nothing to do with the blog – but it happens.
Religion is the excuse people use to go to war, to discrimate, prejudice and generally express all of mans deadly sins towards and making themselves feel better about it by somehow trying to apply a reason, a justification for it.
The fact is those deadly sins are still inside those people willing to act on it.
If you took religion away, it would be replaced by colour. If you took both of those away it would manifest itself through social classes.
In this part of the world its easier for people to put catholics on one side and protestants on the other – its dead simple that way.
If you start to peel off the surface it becomes somewhat complex and a little uncomfortable for some because its a little too close to the bone.
I am a catholic – do I believe in everything the catholic church tells me to? Absolutely not.
If there is a protestant across the road you dont like – does he believe in everything whichever particular sect he belongs to preaches to him – probably not.
Come on – religion has got almost NOTHING to do with it.
In this part of the world, its about a culture and a peoples.
So lets stop coining the phrase because it really doesnt sit comfortably with me.
I am immensely proud of the fact Celtic have a protestant support – immensely proud. I take absolutely great pride in telling the narrow minded in the north of Ireland about this fact. Its something those who simply view Celtic and Rangers as two sectarian clubs poisoned to the both cores.
It must make them uncomfortable and somewhat isolated.
So again, can we stop.
Btw I have a general dislike of huns (but i dont give a hoot what religion you are as long as you arent one – my issue and I know that. you see I cant get my head around a normal and decent person supporting them – maybe one day il get over that, who knows, it aint gonna be tomorrow anyway!)
re. can anyone remember Charlie Grant ? posted 16.45
I can confirm that Charlie is indeed now manager of Blantyre Celtic who play in the amateur leagues.
Hail Hail Charlie and best of luck
HH
Eyes Wide Open
If we were to take being a Catholic as meaning someone who has actually looked at Catholicism and many other religions then concluded that the Catholic religion is definitely the one and goes on to follow that religion, then I suspect very, very few Celtic supporters are Catholics!!
JJ
Bada Bing……asked an experte and he says….the P6200 only has a 2.13 Ghz on a single core…..not double….so, basically it is slow…….plus the 320gb harddrive is small capacity………better off with i3 or above these days..(more cache…faster / more reliable and and only slighty dearer, if you search for a good deal
EWO
Are you a catholic?
I’m not I’m a Catholic :)
Back to Celtic
I see yet another player is running his mouth off the media about how we have turned the corner
Cha is added to the list of Stokes, Mark Wilson, Stokes, Lennon, Samaras, Mulgrew, Stokes, Brown and Stokes.
The fact they can consistently come out and say these things after one or two games I really do think is indicative of the attitude within the dressing room.
I still think every man in that dressing room is convinced we will win the league. I dont know where they get their confidence from. confidence itself isnt a problem, but when that confidence manifests itself into arrogance thats when you have a problem.
Thats when you start games in 1st gear utterly convinced that by simply turning up that has guaranteed you the win.
does that sound familiar?
hamiltontim says:
9 November, 2011 at 20:41
does your school know that!?
tyrehoops says:
9 November, 2011 at 20:35
sure hes only around 24/25…..
hamiltontim
I am catholic as is our club Celtic.
Funnily enough I also have Catholic heritage just like our club Celtic.
I like being catholic. I also like that our club is catholic.
I am also proud of the value instilled in me from my family’s Catholic heritage as I am proud of the values instilled in our club Celtic from it’s strong Catholic heritage.
I am not however Catholic and I do not believe our Club is Catholic either.
MWD
Mon the Blantyre Hoops !
Well its’ better than the bloody Poppy Red Nose debate.
MWD I’N IT.
Sadly, the poppy in this part of the world has not so much been politicised as “sectarianised” – or at least there are continuing ongoing attempts to sectarianise it.
I have always worn a poppy and always will, as a simple act of remembrance for members of my family who served and died, as well as for others who endured and continue to endure the horrors of industrial warfare. Growing up in Glasgow as part of an Irish Catholic family, I have no memory of poppy-wearing being a test or a measure of Irish republicanism, British patriotism or international pacifism. It was just something people did quietly, without fanfare.
But there is now an unpleasant intolerance surrounding the whole matter. TV personalities (and football managers) wearing poppies in mid-October is not only daft, it’s tasteless. I wouldn’t be surprised if the BBC got complaints tonight because the penguins on Frozen Planet aren’t wearing them!
In my view, the excitable, teenage Republican element of the Celtic support (you know who I mean!) have fallen into a trap set for them and, therefore, colluded with this matter becoming “sectarianised”.
For an intelligent debate on the poppy issue (as it relates to the Fifa ruling) try to get tonight’s C4 news on watch again. Kevin Maguire of the Mirror (wearing his poppy) makes some excellent points.
hamiltontim:
We should get on Tony for this:
I am a Roman Catholic…
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!
EyesWideOpen
I suggest you pay no heed to anything said by the players.
I suspect Celtic are required to provide comments from playing and managerial staff throughout the season hence the same song being sung on each occasion.
They of course could routinely trot out the view that the season is over, no chance of overhauling the lead the huns have and are surprised that supporters bother to turn up.
Jungle jim says:
9 November, 2011 at 20:39
Eyes Wide Open
If we were to take being a Catholic as meaning someone who has actually looked at Catholicism and many other religions then concluded that the Catholic religion is definitely the one and goes on to follow that religion, then I suspect very, very few Celtic supporters are Catholics!!
JJ
————————————————————————————
JJ onthat basis I don’t think a lot of Catholics are Catholics!
The wearing of the poppy of old and by that I mean a few years back pre gulf war was more of a solemn occasion than its commercial incarnation 2011. It was worn by people in remembrance of their fallen comrades and relatives. People, who were not directly affected also wore a poppy as way of showing their support and it was also a way to donate to charities associated with the military
Why did it not stay there in its more respectful past as something we could privately respect or ignore depending on our views of war.
The answer lies in another war of course
Call me an auld cynic but was it not the case when Gordon Brown was prime minister the commercialisation and popularisation of the poppy stepped upped a gear as a way of challenging the growing anti war feeling within the UK when we went ahead with Gulf War Weapons of Mass Destruction Part Deux
Could a cynic also say that it’s a way of saving a lot of taxpayers money in relation to the rehabilitation of injured soldiers if we are all more or less forced by public opinion to buy a poppy
Today in the media we have situation were no one dares to be seen on TV without one. I’m surprised the B listers wanting to regain the public affections and their money have not resorted to wearing two of them at the same time
To be honest the whole things turned into a farce imo
David Cameron today in the Commons said
:”This is not an issue of left or right or Labour or Conservative. We all wear the poppy with pride, even if we don’t approve of the wars people were fighting in … to honour the fact that these people sacrificed their lives for us.
So if we don’t approve of the wars were fighting in we should still wear a poppy with pride
Sorry David count me out of that one, can I wear a white one instead
EWO
Indeed they do my friend, indeed they do!
MWD
You had one too many Catholics in there or was that catholics…
Great memories croppybhoy.
Amazing to think he saw the hoops and soon after passed away.
macanbheatha – did not fupping believe it when I read it ! had to switch over and check. What the fupp is going on ? The poppy/remembrance has morphed into a weird media brand. How on earth is Tarrant compatible with solemn acknowledgement of sacrifice ? ITV making advertising money out of the poppy/remembrance, can’t get my head around that one. Would love to see what followfollow make of that.
Davythelotion
Excellent!
Now, as Homer (of the Simpsons!) would say: And that is my cue for leaving.
JJ
macanbheatha is mise neil says:
9 November, 2011 at 20:28
“Who wants to be a millionaire REMEMBRANCE special !
Whatever next?
The Militarys Got Talent
Lennybhoy
Tony?
He cannae spell kaflick….:)
MWD:
As you know catholic is univerally known for being just that…universal.
And you are right it is better than the yawning poppy or is that Poppy debate…:)
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!
Oh dear, another bliddy poppy debate, mixed in with religious tub-thumping.
See ya!