Club 1872 Statement

[Sweetheart 8,458]

36 minutes ago, Siam69 said:

IPSO and BBC Complaints

Club 1872 would like to inform members and the wider Rangers support that in the past day or so we have submitted several complaints to both the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and the BBC. These complaints are regarding the coverage of the final result in the ‘Big Tax Case’ and also the recent decision of the SPFL to draw a line under the calls from Celtic and other vested interests in Scottish football to further penalise Rangers for ...use of an Employee Benefit Trust scheme.

Some of these complaints are for lack of accuracy and others, specifically regarding BBC Scotland, are for what we consider to be biased reporting in favour of the previously mentioned vested interests. These reports are in our view designed to misinform and prejudice the general public against Rangers and have contained none of the balance required of the BBC.

We hope and expect these complaints to be upheld but do not envisage having a definitive outcome to any of them for several weeks or months as we work our way through the complaints processes. With respect for those processes we won’t make any further comment until the outcome is known.

It will not surprise anyone in the Rangers support to know that the IPSO complaint is for an article which appeared in the Daily Record newspaper. We would like to thank the Rangers community for the fantastic support we have had for our #ChangeTheRecord campaign. We intend to continue this campaign into the new season and hope that more and more Rangers fans are becoming aware of the need for us to fight for fairer coverage for our football club.

Issued by Supporters Voice Limited, a Club 1872 company.

They should write to the owners or shareholders of these newspapers also and insist for fairer news coverage for Rangers.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Get in 1872 ? 

Not one step back. 

[Sweetheart 8,458]

28 minutes ago, The Dude said:

They can mention anything they want when a complaint has been submitted, it's not like court where it could potentially be prejudicial.

The "unlawful" bit is an interesting one. The SPFL used that phrase in their statement so I'm not sure I can see any complaint upheld if they have directly quoted that, however, someone like Tom English's use of it (where he has specifically stated that it was the SPFL counsel's view) makes it a bit more of a dodgy position.

I'd also be curious to see what Record article it is they've complained about.

As someone who works for the DR could you please explain what category is used when reporting these stories, are they football, public interest or something different? Also does your newspaper have guidelines on how to report on Rangers. I ask as in the past newspapers have given out guidelines to negatively report on certain stories e.g 

http://www.reportingthebnp.org

 

[writingranger 1,413]

26 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It's not illegal not to pay the TV licence. You just have to do without 'live' TV broadcasts.

Radio?

[reallyruff 622]

Good statement, hopefully indicative of perseverance in pursuit of our unjust detractors.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, writingranger said:

Radio?

I believe there's a seperate licence if you only have access to radio (kinda like the old black & white licences)

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

As someone who works for the DR could you please explain what category is used when reporting these stories, are they football, public interest or something different? Also does your newspaper have guidelines on how to report on Rangers. I ask as in the past newspapers have given out guidelines to negatively report on certain stories e.g 

http://www.reportingthebnp.org

 

Given that my 'working' for them extends as far as me writing a blog and emailing them it or receiving a phone call which is then recorded and used for a podcast, I have no idea on how they are 'categorised'. In terms of guidelines for reporting on Rangers, I've certainly not been given any.

You are aware that link you've provided isn't from a newspaper but from the NUJ?

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Just now, The Dude said:

Given that my 'working' for them extends as far as me writing a blog and emailing them it or receiving a phone call which is then recorded and used for a podcast, I have no idea on how they are 'categorised'. In terms of guidelines for reporting on Rangers, I've certainly not been given any.

You are aware that link you've provided isn't from a newspaper but from the NUJ?

No probs, thought you may be able to shine a light on things from the other side. Yes, I am aware, you'll find it was a directive given to all reporters for newspapers if you research the story in depth. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

No probs, thought you may be able to shine a light on things from the other side. Yes, I am aware, you'll find it was a directive given to all reporters for newspapers if you research the story in depth. 

It was advice given from a trade union to their members. It was neverblanket issued by management or editorial teams to their reporting staff.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

16 minutes ago, The Dude said:

I believe there's a seperate licence if you only have access to radio (kinda like the old black & white licences)

You don't need a licence to listen to your radio at home.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

5 minutes ago, The Dude said:

It was advice given from a trade union to their members. It was neverblanket issued by management or editorial teams to their reporting staff.

The bosses of the NUJ did not object to it. It was a directive given to all NUJ reporters for newspapers. The point I was making is that reporting negatively on certain stories has been done before, That organisation made a legal challenge to the way they were being reported on and they won. 

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, RFC Eagle said:

You don't need a licence to listen to your radio at home.

Is it just commercial premises? I know a place I lived & worked needed one but that may have been as it was officially a commercial site despite having live-in staff.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, Sweetheart said:

The bosses of the NUJ did not object to it. It was a directive given to all NUJ reporters for newspapers. The point I was making is that reporting negatively on certain stories has been done before, That organisation made a legal challenge to the way they were being reported on and they won. 

The NUJ IS the trade union.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Is it just commercial premises? I know a place I lived & worked needed one but that may have been as it was officially a commercial site despite having live-in staff.

It is just commercial/business premises. I think its a PRS issue in those cases.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

Just now, The Dude said:

The NUJ IS the trade union.

Yes, and they still gave the directive, go check it out 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Sweetheart said:

Yes, and they still gave the directive, go check it out 

An NUJ directive has no impact on editorial decisions. Phil McGillivan is a big champion of theirs.

[thebooler 4,509]

I could handle more of this. At least they're now doing something like what they're supposed to be doing.

More like a fans' group now.

[KingKirk 25,647]

56 minutes ago, The Ibrox Derry said:

Well there you are guys, even more power to our elbows. Thanks Dude. Every day's a school day.

I dont believe you didn't know that

[Sweetheart 8,458]

11 minutes ago, The Dude said:

An NUJ directive has no impact on editorial decisions. Phil McGillivan is a big champion of theirs.

It did have an impact on editorial decisions. There was never any favourable reporting towards that organisation hence why they challenged it for discrimination and won their case. The point I was making is that  a directive to report negatively on certain stories has been done before. Are Rangers subject to one of these directives. I thought you may know as your in that field of work.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

It did have an impact on editorial decisions. There was never any favourable reporting towards that organisation hence why they challenged it for discrimination and won their case. The point I was making is that  a directive to report negatively on certain stories has been done before, and are Rangers subject to one of these directives. I thought you may know as your in that field of work.

Who was their case against? What you have cited isn't a directive from any newspaper but from a trade union. If you're going to claim there was a directive to misreport a story then give an example which actually reflects that.

[Siam69 26,927]

Just now, The Dude said:

Who was their case against? What you have cited isn't a directive from any newspaper but from a trade union. If you're going to claim there was a directive to misreport a story then give an example which actually reflects that.

A Union directive it just that, a directive from a Union.

Members of the said Union don't even have to adhere to, abide by, or even take any notice of it if they don't want to, except Union Reps or those employed by the Union, much less anyone else.

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

I'm pleased they are taking these steps.    I'm presuming they will pursue the complaints to the fullest possible extent.

If, as seems likely, the SPFL are hell-bent on instituting a review then this sort of action by Club 1872 is only going to be the first skirmish in a much needed campaign to get the Rangers view well represented, heard, and heard forcefully.   They may yet need to get far more active in correcting biased and hostile reporting and in defending the name, trophies and reputation of the Club.    Same goes for King and the directors. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Siam69 said:

A Union directive it just that, a directive from a Union.

Members of the said Union don't even have to adhere to, abide by, or even take any notice of it if they don't want to, except Union Reps or those employed by the Union, much less anyone else.

It's really that simple. I've worked a few places now where the union have said X but employer has said Y. And in every case, what the employer wants goes.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Who was their case against? What you have cited isn't a directive from any newspaper but from a trade union. If you're going to claim there was a directive to misreport a story then give an example which actually reflects that.

I believe it was the Newspaper Society asked the NUJ has republished it's directives.

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2008/news/bnp-row-prompts-journalists-union-to-re-publish-race-reporting-guide/

Your missing my point though, are Rangers subject to one of these directives.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

I like this and want to see plenty more of it every time those mhedia beasts step out of line, along with any other hating group or individual. 

Keep the pressure up.

I just wish the Club would do more. Given the right circumstances and context, sometimes it is good for the Club to step back and let fan groups like C1872 take the lead, but we are too quiet most of the time. Let's hope if and when this board do strike it is for a serious biggy and title stripping is one of them, so maybe keeping their powder dry in the meantime.!