BBC Sahhaf - Absolute Comedy Gold

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

http://www.bbc.co.uk..._medium=twitter

The above response from BBC Scotland came as no surprise to me. It displays all the characteristics of an organisation I have dealt on a number of occasions over the last two years, and whose hatred, arrogance and lack of objectivity is dissipating any semblance of credibility it had left. And it didn't have a lot left I might add.

Apparently they know better than everyone else – The Advertising Standards Authority, UEFA, the SFA, the SPL, the European Clubs Association, even their own BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee. They also apparently know better than one of the most qualified legal minds in our country – Lord Nimmo Smith – who commented as follows :-

It will be recalled that in Article 2 "Club" is defined in terms of "the undertaking of an association football club", and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

http://www.scotsman....hief-1-2542646?

But rather than being angry with their latest response, I'm now finding it amusing. Very amusing in fact. This publicly funded media organisation are now operating at the level of the delusional. They are now ignoring legal rulings on the matter as well as the expert opinions of bodies who really matter – UEFA, the ECA amongst others.

They have now become the Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf of the media world. For those who need reminding, he was the Iraqi Minister For Information who broadcast to the world that the Iraqi army was repulsing the western infidels in rivers of blood. Unfortunately at the same time, the world he was addressing were watching the complete rout of the Iraqi army via television. I would respectfully suggest we rename BBC Scotland - BBC Sahhaf.

Furthermore it's clear from social media that those in the employment of BBC Scotland are clearly hurting. The petulant and churlish nature of some of their tweets today was a joy to behold. They were behaving like miscreant children with petted lips as a consequence of being disciplined.

The wider implications for the BBC are clear for all to see – with the exception of the delusional who operate from within their bunker at Pacific Quay. The damage they are causing the BBC nationally is considerable, but it is a rod of their own making. It would be a considerable irony if their response today to the BBC Trust Editorial Committee ruling proved to be the catalyst to the BBC Trust re-visiting and re-opening the complaint of institutional bias against Rangers FC which was also lodged against them.

But I'd like to thank BBC Sahhaf for what has been quite simply comedy genius, my sides are still aching at your behaviour today.

Which goes to show – Some mothers do 'ave 'em.

[wombatdropping 182]

D'art, perhaps there should be more of a concerted approach when making a complaint of institutional bias. I am certainly not faulting complainant B for his efforts ( more than most have done ) but maybe now that we know how the system works it would be prudent to use the very same mechanisms to our advantage when formulating a further complaint. Its not as if we don't have the material, perhaps we need someone to bring it all together in a more cohesive manner. I wonder who !!

[Hamie 4,849]

So Bbc Scotland goes against its own trust.

Not to mention all previous evidence.

still they are not 'anti-rangers bias'

Remarkable stuff.

[scarkev 3,540]

D'art something I noticed when reading the BBC response was that they actually challenged the idea that we were the same club....what explanation can the possibly give for this to justify the claim that they are impartial? What do they have to gain from us "being a new club" and going against the views held by all the different rulings and organisations you mentioned?

Also how can they get away with stating there were no legal guidelines when two legal rulings had already advised as to our position in terms if history/status etc?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

D'art something I noticed when reading the BBC response was that they actually challenged the idea that we were the same club....what explanation can the possibly give for this to justify the claim that they are impartial? What do they have to gain from us "being a new club" and going against the views held by all the different rulings and organisations you mentioned?

Also how can they get away with stating there were no legal guidelines when two legal rulings had already advised as to our position in terms if history/status etc?

I dont think they gain anything Kev - I honestly think its sheer disdain for our club.

You would think the fact the everyone else of influence and qualification are ruling this completely differently would have them reviewing their stance.

The fact they are not tells you all you need to know.

[govanblue 16,847]

[scarkev 3,540]

I dont think they gain anything Kev - I honestly think its sheer disdain for our club.

You would think the fact the everyone else of influence and qualification are ruling this completely differently would have them reviewing their stance.

The fact they are not tells you all you need to know.

Definitely mate but my concern is I'm not sure if the great work done by the fans, who wouldn't give this up, will actually alter the way this particular organisation view and portray our club....

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Definitely mate but my concern is I'm not sure if the great work done by the fans, who wouldn't give this up, will actually alter the way this particular organisation view and portray our club....

I think they will have to - but through gritted teeth. If they dont then they shall reap as they have sown...

[elephants stoned 2,994]

The arrogance of the Bent Bhoys Club is astonishing to think they can say and do what they like and ignore the ECA, Lord Nimmos judgement and even the sfa have acknowledged we have the same Rangers FC today as has existed since 1872. You would have though recent scandles had taught old auntie some humility. Obviously not.

[cushynumber 25,178]

Initially the terms oldco and newco never bothered me - its was obvious the media had to differentiate elements of the club post admin and liquidation and this seemed like a necessary evil. So there excuse that it ".....would add layers of complexity to reporting that would not be to the benefit of clear reportage or enhance the understanding of such issues by our audiences"., I actually understand.

At least initially.

However when the dust settled, the terms became irrelevant, but the continued use of the terms stayed - with the BBC doing more than most to keep stirring things and reason we all suspected they continued to use the terms was because of an institutional anti-Rangers bias - rubbing salt in our wounds effectively. I continue to believe thats why they carried on using the terms in almost every report they carried on us.

Therefore, where it says "It rejected parts of the complaints which alleged that use of the terms was a result of "anti-Rangers bias" grates with me.

We won the naming battle, but the war is still being fought as long as the same people are in employment at Pacific Quay.

[HeHaw 513]

I used to work with a guy whos misses worked for the Celtic View, she was Celtic daft and went to Ireland every year to the festivals commemorating a bunch of terrorist and a guy that used shite as wall paper.

Guess where she works now? The BBC Scotland Sports department.

[BlueAvenger 10,313]

BBC Scotland have no shame. Spiers, English, Cosgrove etc are all employed by this publicly funded organisation. Says it all really !

[elephants stoned 2,994]

Initially the terms oldco and newco never bothered me - its was obvious the media had to differentiate elements of the club post admin and liquidation and this seemed like a necessary evil. So there excuse that it ".....would add layers of complexity to reporting that would not be to the benefit of clear reportage or enhance the understanding of such issues by our audiences"., I actually understand.

At least initially.

However when the dust settled, the terms became irrelevant, but the continued use of the terms stayed - with the BBC doing more than most to keep stirring things and reason we all suspected they continued to use the terms was because of an institutional anti-Rangers bias - rubbing salt in our wounds effectively. I continue to believe thats why they carried on using the terms in almost every report they carried on us.

Therefore, where it says "It rejected parts of the complaints which alleged that use of the terms was a result of "anti-Rangers bias" grates with me.

We won the naming battle, but the war is still being fought as long as the same people are in employment at Pacific Quay.

I've noticed a couple of articles calling us a new club in the last few days one on goal.com and another on a Premier League related website talking about our revival today. After these lies seemed to of been put to rest it seems they are starting up again for some reason.

[rangersxfc 265]

wrong thread

[ZZed 4,510]

We need to report any of thier misreporting to the proper people. Can some one lay out who you write to too get a result as my compliants just got ignored.

[allgers 735]

Organisation, we need it, when they fail to uphold this and they will, they can't help themselves, we need to be ready to give them both barrels.

[ORANGE TATTY 6]

hohohoho i mind that cunt while shock and awe was happenin outside his door,great article again D'Art, we must keep on these bams

[1873bear 192]

How anyone can take the second biggest peodophile ring in the world seriously is beyond me....The BBC has no credibility left, the sooner the TV licence funding them is abolished the better

[Jack The Flipper 5,936]

surely we can take them to court?

if they're ignoring the findings of their own trust then surely it would be an open and shut case?

the only problem would be to prove the poor standard of reporting by the bbc has resulted in loss in revenues in some way.

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

I think they will have to - but through gritted teeth. If they dont then they shall reap as they have sown...

Any chance of a copy and paste of what they have been saying on Twitter today?

[paisleyroad 894]

D'Art you got any links to these bitter kents on twitter today?

[72barca 1,788]

D'Art, that was an entirely satisfying read. Do you think there would be any merit in laying out a template for other Bears to follow when they wish to complain? It would seem that there are a lot of Bears who are being stopped at preliminary complaint hurdles and don't know how to progress beyond them.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

BBC Scotland :lol: :lol:

[blueballss 2,972]

64 guests viewing?? i wonder why??

[ORANGE TATTY 6]

we must unite, all and sundry, a collective voice when these tarriers try and twist the slant, remember it's all about us, that is their weakness