54andcounting
-
Posts
3,906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by 54andcounting
-
-
karma is real!!! They can take it all the way to the Trust like I did but wait! The decision is final!!!
-
He's probably lived for the day where he could print his vile filth after what happened to us and his day eventually came. He must have known that there would have been no way he could have kept his Editorial position after that. He's had his day and will be a hero in the eyes of the unwashed, that'll be good enough for him and, in his eyes, reigning is a small price to pay.
Don't think he has paid the full price yet!
-
Works Edinburgh City Council (pensions)wrote/edited program and also called us h***! @ajscrawford1987.
-
-
Eh? I meant the fact the group would be neutral and you have to be recommended by a member. Wtf are you on about?
So that's the part you mean! thanks for clarifying as I had no idea "Wtf are you on about"
-
Sounds exactly like Vanguard Bears tbh.
And you would know! I right!
!!! -
No he was not!!!
That is not what the Trust concluded!
They said:
The Committee noted that it had been acknowledged by the Editor of Sport at BBC Scotland that the comments by Jim Spence describing John McClelland as “the chairman of the old club, some people will tell you the club, well the club that died” could have been better phrased within the live piece and had apologised for any offence caused by it.
The Committee also noted that the Editorial Complaints Unit had agreed that the words could have been better chosen and had stated in its finding:
“The ECU has acknowledged that there was a degree of ambiguity in the words used by Mr Spence and we agreed with BBC Scotland that his comments ‘could have been better phrased’. However, we remain of the view that his comments have to be considered in the context of the discussion that was taking place which was entirely about the composition of the board of The Rangers International Football Club plc and the running of The Rangers International Football Club plc.”
The Committee agreed with this view and noted that the Adviser had extended her apologies on its behalf for any offence that had been caused by the words of the presenter.
http://downloads.bbc...ns/2014/jan.pdf
Therefore he was wrong to say "club" as the Trust accepted, he was not “cleared” as they (three levels of the BBC ) had to apologise also as the Trust would have been unable to take the remedial action called for by most complainers (sack him) the apologises from the Editor of spot, the ECU and the reviewer were sufficient!
definition of apology.
1. an oral or written expression of regret or contrition for a fault or failing.
2. . an expression of regret for having committed an error or rudeness.
3. an expression of regret at having caused trouble for someone.
Are we clear now!
-
Planet Football
Celtic
Under pressure from regulators as well as the Treasury committee, the Co-operative Bank wasted no time adding the recent land sale by Glasgow city council to Celtic to the security held for the bank's £33m funding. A charge over the land near Celtic Park was granted on 19 December, seven days after the council approved the sale.
The Co-Op was big on football clubs, but Celtic has been probably the biggest beneficiary of that largesse - unrelated, no doubt, to the presence on that club's board of former Labour ministers John Reid (who has since left) and Brian Wilson (still there). But the new, more professional management at the bank may be less generous.
The Celtic facility consists of long-term loans of £21m and an overdraft facility of £12m. Both are cheap to run, being fixed at a little more than Libor/bank rate plus 1 percent. So the overdraft last year cost just 1.5 percent and the loans 1.65 percent. When those deals were done, base rate was much higher, but the deals are still sweet. Similarly, Celtic seems to gave benefited from favourable terms in its land deals with the traditionally Labour-dominated local council.
One interesting omission from the otherwise detailed Celtic accounts for 2013 relates to related party transactions during the year. There is reference to "a number of transactions, principally for the supply of goods and services" between the club itself, the subsidiary Celtic FC, with "organisations in which some directors have an interest, as directors or shareholders of the other contracting party".
Shareholders are assured that such transactions were "at arms length" and "of an insignificant nature". So no information is provided as to which directors, what goods and services and how much! Not exactly how the related party game is usually played. It should be up to shareholders to decide about the shortness of arms and significance and that requires full information. A yellow card.
'Slicker'
-
Timmy response!!!
-
I learnt everything i know about attack and slander from this website.
Funny how though there isnt anything wrong with the tweet, that it has been removed. Why is that - have they not got the courage of their convictions? Is this an admission that it was a stupid thing to do?
Not very good at it then!!!
-
So is this the doctored version? If it isnt it was a f88king stupid thing to put out when all the attention is finally on the yahoos.
Read the VB statement from VB admin in my post above! or do you work for the RFC hating media also????
-
See ET have joined in on the deflection from the GB by trying to bring VB into something that has no fact!
*** ADDENDUM from Admin ***
For the avoidance of doubt, and as pointed out on a number of previous articles, @VBCommunication is the ONLY official VB Twitter account.
We have not created a “Death List” or "Hit List" - which is the lie being spouted by the many Rangers-haters out there. In particular we would like to single out Scotzine Editor, serial Rangers-hater Andrew Muirhead for his vicious attack on us, twisting what any reasonable person considers an attempt at humour, from an unofficial Twitter account.
Mr Muirhead has a history of distorting the truth when it comes to his favourite obsession - The "offending" image that is currently circulating has been doctored from an original one we used in an article from February of this year. The original article highlighted those people and organisations (the logos of the BBC and ESPN featured on the original graphic - Is it even possible to 'kill' a company?) who, through their actions, we considered to be the enemies of Rangers FC.
The doctoring of our image was carried out by persons unknown, therefore beyond our control, however we would like to point out that our original graphic did not intend to, nor did it achieve any unwarranted attention towards our football club at the time of publication, and that anyone attempting to associate the club with this doctored version now is simply clutching at straws.
It is never our intention to harm our club in any way.
We also take exception to an inaccurate report in today's Daily Record which claims that our group are “Ultra's”. Our membership comprises of many individuals who form a significant part of the wider Rangers family – Vanguard Bears do not claim to be "Ultra's"
-
Delighted with this, a bit of good news for a change.
I still think though,that the beeb have sidestepped the issue with Spence.
Happy to win the small battles,which will eventually give us the victory in this media war
I am not finished! I am still going to the Trust about him (as I do not except the explanation) from them regarding his comments! the c**t meant it and I am determined to out him!!!
-
Fucking quoting the bits that suit you and leaving out the rest. The whole thing is saying that you're complaining about bugger all and you're all cunts for misunderstanding what was intended.
Oh Dear! if you are trying to be a smart arse you failed! BBC Scotland and all complainers got the draft report to consider two weeks ago! they did not object to this paragraph therefore they accept it! but what do I know!!! I was just one of the original complainers to the Trust!
By the way admin! ban the tim! ffs!!!
-
No need to shout, my man. I asked the question just as you were posting what I wanted to know.
I was SHOUTING about spence!!!
-
Ive read that twice over and im still confused.
Never mind all the window dressing this is the important part " The status of Rangers FC may be a matter of debate among rival fans but the facts have been established by a range of relevant bodies, as pointed out by many complainants"
-
Yeah mate, but do you know if it is genuine and how did VB get a hold of it?
Seems too good to be true.
EDIT. Ah, cheers.
It was sent to me and other complainers about Spence!!!
-
Help you out bears only so much can be posted on twitter!
Received today final BBC ECU conclusions don't budge on Spence but say " the facts have been established by a range of relevant bodies" off to Trust on Spence! RFC 1872
British Broadcasting Corporation White City, 201 Wood Lane, London, W12 7TS Telephone: 020 8743 8000 Email: ecu@bbc.co.uk
Editorial Complaints Unit
Sportsound, BBC Radio Scotland, 4 September 2013
The Editorial Complaints Unit issued its provisional finding on the complaints received about the above programme and invited further comments from complainants. We have now considered all the responses which were received and reached a final conclusion.
Many complainants made the point that it was not clear from the language used by Mr Spence that his comments referred to the company which owned Rangers FC (The Rangers International Football Club plc). They said his mention of “the old club” and “the club that died” could only be taken to refer to the football team, regardless of the broader context of the discussion or the specific point that he was making (the wisdom or otherwise of appointing to the board individuals who had presided over the old company which went into liquidation).
The ECU has acknowledged that there was a degree of ambiguity in the words used by Mr Spence and we agreed with BBC Scotland that his comments “could have been better phrased”. However, we remain of the view that his comments have to be considered in the context of the discussion that was taking place which was entirely about the composition of the board of The Rangers International Football Club plc and the running of The Rangers International Football Club plc.
The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines refer to “due accuracy” which means 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 appropriate signposting that may influence that expectation”. Bearing in mind the widespread coverage over many months of the change in ownership of Rangers FC, it was unlikely that listeners to this programme would be unaware of the changes which had taken place. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that regular listeners, and football fans in general, would be familiar with the story. We remain of the view that the likelihood of listeners being misled by the use of the word “club” in this context rather than the word “company” was extremely limited and would not have left the audience with an inaccurate or materially misleading impression. The status of Rangers FC may be a matter of debate among rival fans but the facts have been established by a range of relevant bodies, as pointed out by many complainants. We believe it follows that since the possibility that listeners would have misunderstood what Mr Spence said was limited, the scope for offence was equally limited.
Complainants who responded to the ECU’s provisional finding also made the point that Mr Spence must have known that the language he used would be regarded by Rangers supporters as provocative and evidence of bias. Many complainants pointed out that rival football supporters use such language in an attempt to “wind up” or antagonise Rangers fans and argued that Mr Spence would be aware of this. Complainants also referred to previous comments which have been made by Mr Spence (and other BBC Scotland members of staff)

about Rangers FC and argued that this was evidence of “a history of bias”. Many complainants said based on his previous public comments on the circumstances of Rangers FC, it was clear that Mr Spence was expressing a personal, biased view.
The ECU considered this point but took the view that whatever listeners might assume Mr Spence intended by his comments, the question we had to consider was how one might reasonably understand what he said on this occasion, in the context in which he said it. Our view was that it was reasonable to draw attention to the question of appointing new board members who had been involved in the demise of the old company. We noted that Mr Spence picked up on a previous comment from a contributor, Ewan Murray, that former chairman, John McClelland, could join the board.
Ewan Murray: John McClelland has been there before and has been chairman. My only issue with this would be – John McClelland was chairman in a regime that obviously went horribly wrong in the end. Now, and I say the same to an extent about Paul Murray, you know, they’ve been involved at Rangers at the past. What Rangers need to do, somehow, at some time, is move forward and again to me this doesn’t seem that this is happening. You know, the counterpoint is that they’ve had fresh names in the past and that’s gone horribly wrong but I would like to see them go, you know, fresh ideas, fresh people, instead of what this is going back to.
In conclusion, we have considered the various representations made by complainants but do not believe there are grounds to change our provisional finding. This document should therefore be considered in conjunction with our provisional finding as the ECU’s final decision not to uphold the complaints that have been made.
We appreciate that complainants may wish to pursue this matter further by asking the Editorial Standards Committee of the BBC Trust to review our decision. The Trust represents the third and final stage of the BBC’s complaints process.1 Correspondence for the Committee should be addressed to Christina Roski, Complaints Advisor, BBC Trust Unit, 180 Great Portland Street, London W1W 5QZ or you can send an email to trust.editorial@bbc.co.uk. The Trust normally expects to receive an appeal within four weeks of the date of this letter. It expects complainants to limit the details of their appeal to no more than one thousand words (although all previous correspondence in relation to the complaint will be forwarded to the Trust Unit as a matter of course).
1 http://www.bbc.co.uk...ts_and_appeals/

Well that puts BBC Scotland to bed!!!
-
Seams to me they are keeping both happy by saying the original Trust decision is right and that he has not contravened it! We have not got him however the original Trust decision is confirmed and that is very important given BBC Scotland view and a GIRFUY to the Drum.
"and we thought it legitimate to do so in terms which called to mind the upset caused to Rangers supports (or indeed the gratification caused to some supporters of rival clubs) by the old company’s demise"
Therefore, It would be wrong for him as a BBC Scotland employee to say we are not the same Club! Rangers 1872!!!
Let't not throw the baby out with the bathwater! I will go back to them and point a few thing out but I don't wont the original Trust decision challenged!!!
-
Maybe rehiring Media House wasn't such a bad idea after all. Kudos to the writer
This has Irvine's fingerprints all over it in my view.
Seems too good a response to have been drafted by Traynor. I still can't forgive that fucker for writing that our history was gone if we did not get CVA approved.
How he ended up at Ibrox after having the nerve to write that remains one of God's mysteries to me.
I have been more concerned by his Lack of activity however and for the record, he has stated that after researching the issue further and on consulting qualified lawyers he was wrong! for the benefit of any lurking Tims!
-
I got the same reply, nothing further to add. I sent another complaint stating I want my questions answered and I'm not happy with their blanket original and that excuse of a reply was nothing short of shocking. Sent this complaint to ecu@bbc.co.uk this time. I will continue to moan and groan until they show some common respect and act like the so called professional public body they claim to be.
Me too mate.
'__the BBC had not used clear, precise language and due accuracy had not been achieved where the distinction between an old and new Rangers had been made in output referring to, and related to, football and the club as opposed to the
old and new company'
The Editor of Sport, by replying to my complaint is such a manner, is not only demonstrating contempt for my complaint but also for the Trust ruling. I do not (as a licence payer) expect to be treated in such a dismissive way. I am also dismayed that, despite the Trust ruling, I am back complaining regarding BBC Scotland on an issue I believed had been resolved by the Trust. The issue is not about whether or not "I am sorry if you were offended by this"; it is about the fact that precise language and due accuracy had not been achieved by Mr Spence and the BBC programme.
Your assistance in this matter would be much appreciated.
Only by fighting will we ever win those that want to capitulate can! some of us will never surrender!!!
-
so happ G This reply from BBC ""We have nothing further to add" complaint at next stage and so happy that the club is taking them on now! thought I and my fellow RM complainer had another 14 months fight again!!!
-
For clarity this is what the trust ruling was!
'__the BBC had not used clear, precise language and due accuracy had not been achieved where the distinction between an old and new Rangers had been made in output referring to, and related to, football and the club as opposed to the old and new company'
-
Sorry posted this on other thread.
Compliant at next stage:
I received a reply but in order for me to come to a reasonable view
please answer the following: 
1.You said: "The phrase was used in the context of a live discussion " no other panel member referred to "old club" no caller either! so why mention it? and what relevance did it have to the discussion?
also:
2.Mr Spence and the program directly contravened the trust guidelines on accuracy what are the going to do to rectify this?
3. Do you except that the statement about "old Club" is not accurate and that Ranger 1872 in now plying football in SPFL 2?
4.What is meant by "better phrased within the live piece" what phrase should have been used?
For clarity this is what the trust ruling was!
'__the BBC had not used clear, precise language and due accuracy had not been achieved where the distinction between an old and new Rangers had been made in output referring to, and related to, football and the club as opposed to the old and new company'
!!!
BBC Complaints Dept Replies to a tim
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
This is the link to the Trust findings :
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
The judgement was made after I went through all the BBC appeals process over a 2 year period and was knocked back at every stage! my complaint was that they ( BBC Scotland ) kept saying that RFC 1872 are dead! I wanted a "distinction" between Club and Company!