The BBC Exposed!

[Quiet Jim 897]

Original report dated on the 20th of November 2012.

BBC Headline - Former Rangers Football Club wins Big Tax Case appeal

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-20414804

My reason for complaint :

Sensationalism, incitement and deliberate falsification of facts directly resulting in financial loss.

Justification :

"The Rangers Football Club is an entity that has significant value.

Your report insinuates that there is no value in The Rangers Football Club.

There is an ongoing financial issue, regarding a share issue.

Your report undermines this process.

The football club and the holding company are two different entities.

I as a shareholder in the current holding company request that you issue an apology for inaccurate reporting and refrain from insinuating that The Rangers Football Club is no longer in existence.

Any further slander by your corporation will result in legal proceedings."

The Response:

Reference CAS-1791988-Q03Q3K

Thank you for your e-mail of 21 November regarding our coverage of Rangers.

In all of our reporting of the circumstances surrounding Rangers football club, on and off the field, we have sought to ensure our journalism is fair, accurate and impartial. In respect of that, we do not accept the interpretation you place on how we have reported the story.

For clarity, when we refer to the business dealings of the club, in its previous and its current form, we will refer to the ‘oldco’ and the ‘newco’; when referring to the activities of the team on the field, we will refer to the team as ‘Rangers’.

Thank you for getting in touch with us to raise this matter.

Details of the BBC complaints process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk...ts/handle.shtml

Kind Regards

Patrick McManus

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

This is an absolutely disgraceful response that attempts to defend a factually inaccurate article, that has the potential to provoke 'Social Unrest', whilst directly devaluing a company's flotation.

I would urge all investors to contact the BBC or Mr Patrick McManus regarding possible breaches of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000:

Citing Section 118 - Market Abuse:

Subsection (8) The seventh is where the behaviour (not falling within subsection (5), (6) or (7))—

(a) is likely to give a regular user of the market a false or misleading impression as to the supply of, demand for or price or value of, qualifying investments, or

(b)would be, or would be likely to be, regarded by a regular user of the market as behaviour that would distort, or would be likely to distort, the market in such an investment, and the behaviour is likely to be regarded by a regular user of the market as a failure on the part of the person concerned to observe the standard of behaviour reasonably expected of a person in his position in relation to the market.

Legislation;

http://www.legislati...0/8/section/118

http://www.fsa.gov.u...arket_abuse.pdf

Is it Criminal, Negligent or Bigoted?

Time to ask Mr Patrick McManus or the BBC!

QJ

[elephants stoned 2,994]

Patrick McManus

[wearethepeople1 3,897]

Paddy McManus? What the fuck did u expect!!

[Gaffbear 4,174]

Paddy McManus

[Quiet Jim 897]

Patrick McManus

Could not make it up!

But a corporation that devalues a company's flotation is the story.

The holding company has assets, but when the largest compulsory funded news organisation reports that The Rangers Football Club is no longer in existence, this directly devalues the holding companies assets;

Therefore either they are correct, or they are in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

I am sure Charles Green has a case against the BBC for negatively influencing the share issue.

QJ

[elephants stoned 2,994]

Could not make it up!

But a corporation that devalues a company's flotation is the story.

The holding company has assets, but when the largest compulsory funded news organisation reports that The Rangers Football Club is no longer in existence, this directly devalues the holding companies assets;

Therefore either they are correct, or they are in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

I am sure Charles Green has a case against the BBC for negatively influencing the share issue.

QJ

I certainly hope Mr Green looks into this as a delibrate slander of not only a business and its assets but a living breathing football club on the way back from a year of torment.

[bluechip 359]

Original report dated on the 20th of November 2012.

BBC Headline - Former Rangers Football Club wins Big Tax Case appeal

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-20414804

My reason for complaint :

Sensationalism, incitement and deliberate falsification of facts directly resulting in financial loss.

Justification :

"The Rangers Football Club is an entity that has significant value.

Your report insinuates that there is no value in The Rangers Football Club.

There is an ongoing financial issue, regarding a share issue.

Your report undermines this process.

The football club and the holding company are two different entities.

I as a shareholder in the current holding company request that you issue an apology for inaccurate reporting and refrain from insinuating that The Rangers Football Club is no longer in existence.

Any further slander by your corporation will result in legal proceedings."

The Response:

Reference CAS-1791988-Q03Q3K

Thank you for your e-mail of 21 November regarding our coverage of Rangers.

In all of our reporting of the circumstances surrounding Rangers football club, on and off the field, we have sought to ensure our journalism is fair, accurate and impartial. In respect of that, we do not accept the interpretation you place on how we have reported the story.

For clarity, when we refer to the business dealings of the club, in its previous and its current form, we will refer to the ‘oldco’ and the ‘newco’; when referring to the activities of the team on the field, we will refer to the team as ‘Rangers’.

Thank you for getting in touch with us to raise this matter.

Details of the BBC complaints process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk...ts/handle.shtml

Kind Regards

Patrick McManus

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

This is an absolutely disgraceful response that attempts to defend a factually inaccurate article, that has the potential to provoke 'Social Unrest', whilst directly devaluing a company's flotation.

I would urge all investors to contact the BBC or Mr Patrick McManus regarding possible breaches of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000:

Citing Section 118 - Market Abuse:

Subsection (8) The seventh is where the behaviour (not falling within subsection (5), (6) or (7))—

(a) is likely to give a regular user of the market a false or misleading impression as to the supply of, demand for or price or value of, qualifying investments, or

(b)would be, or would be likely to be, regarded by a regular user of the market as behaviour that would distort, or would be likely to distort, the market in such an investment, and the behaviour is likely to be regarded by a regular user of the market as a failure on the part of the person concerned to observe the standard of behaviour reasonably expected of a person in his position in relation to the market.

Legislation;

http://www.legislati...0/8/section/118

http://www.fsa.gov.u...arket_abuse.pdf

Is it Criminal, Negligent or Bigoted?

Time to ask Mr Patrick McManus or the BBC!

QJ

Get stuck in there Quiet Jim. Keep up the good work. Maybe copy in Charles Green on your email

[Quiet Jim 897]

I certainly hope Mr Green looks into this as a delibrate slander of not only a business and its assets but a living breathing football club on the way back from a year of torment.

There is a definite case.

All assets where purchased as a going concern.

Some news outlet acknowledges our history;

http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/rangers/

Others bitter bastards will follow.

Rather have our history than theirs!

But the BBC must be brought to task first.

Lies, Damned Lies, Bigoted Lies and Sectarian Lies.

[annanbear 5]

This isn't slander.

[Quiet Jim 897]

This isn't slander.

The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20414804

Why not?

[Hird 2]

There is no such thing as "slander" in Scotland gents. Its called defamation.

[Quiet Jim 897]

This isn't slander.

Or a false or malicious statement that is libelous?

Maybe eyes maybe nose?

[Ritchie Rich 27]

Because it's in print and it is the more serious crime of libel .

[Quiet Jim 897]

There is no such thing as "slander" in Scotland gents. Its called defamation.

Good, we have a lawyer on board!

Anything wrong with this article?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20414804

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Well done QJ.

Pure co-incidence of course that BBC Scotland gave a platform to Craig Whyte, (a man they had spent hundreds of journalistic hours discrediting previously) at the same time CG was launching his share issue.

[Colin Stein 4 EVA 8]

Well done Quiet Jim,

You know you are 100% in the right so don't get drawn into playground battles trying to explain yourself to nit pickers.

[Quiet Jim 897]

Well done QJ.

Pure co-incidence of course that BBC Scotland gave a platform to Craig Whyte, (a man they had spent hundreds of journalistic hours discrediting previously) at the same time CG was launching his share issue.

I am sure our new poster Hird will help with the legal issues.

This single article is evidence that the BBC is not impartial or is incompetent http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20414804 and their response is not impartial or is incompetent.

Either way, their opinion breaches the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as it was non factual and may fall under the Market Abuse Rule, by publishing non factual information that directly affects a share issue.

QJ

[Bears r us 31,406]

Keep up the good work QJ.

[annanbear 5]

Or a false or malicious statement that is libelous?

Maybe eyes maybe nose?

Ritchie Rich got it in one!

[Dutchy 1,200]

I'm no expert in the law, obviously, but there certainly seems to be some skulldugery involved in this type of reporting.

Given the nature and tenor of the report, there certainly seems to be a case to answer, but maybe the law is over-run by septic supporting bams as well these days.

I always find it strange that whoever complains of unfairness in society, then get power use the very same techniques they were complaining about in the first place, re-writing history in process.

As I was trying to explain in my article in the debating chamber.

[Quiet Jim 897]

I'm no expert in the law, obviously, but there certainly seems to be some skulldugery involved in this type of reporting.

Given the nature and tenor of the report, there certainly seems to be a case to answer, but maybe the law is over-run by septic supporting bams as well these days.

I always find it strange that whoever complains of unfairness in society, then get power use the very same techniques they were complaining about in the first place, re-writing history in process.

As I was trying to explain in my article in the debating chamber.

There is a definite case of defamation with malicious intent or severe negligence regarding the published article.

There is no former Rangers Football Club as the club is an entity that was transferred as a going concern.

This intentional or negligent article breaches the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 either way.

QJ

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

Original report dated on the 20th of November 2012.

BBC Headline - Former Rangers Football Club wins Big Tax Case appeal

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-20414804

My reason for complaint :

Sensationalism, incitement and deliberate falsification of facts directly resulting in financial loss.

Justification :

"The Rangers Football Club is an entity that has significant value.

Your report insinuates that there is no value in The Rangers Football Club.

There is an ongoing financial issue, regarding a share issue.

Your report undermines this process.

The football club and the holding company are two different entities.

I as a shareholder in the current holding company request that you issue an apology for inaccurate reporting and refrain from insinuating that The Rangers Football Club is no longer in existence.

Any further slander by your corporation will result in legal proceedings."

The Response:

Reference CAS-1791988-Q03Q3K

Thank you for your e-mail of 21 November regarding our coverage of Rangers.

In all of our reporting of the circumstances surrounding Rangers football club, on and off the field, we have sought to ensure our journalism is fair, accurate and impartial. In respect of that, we do not accept the interpretation you place on how we have reported the story.

For clarity, when we refer to the business dealings of the club, in its previous and its current form, we will refer to the ‘oldco’ and the ‘newco’; when referring to the activities of the team on the field, we will refer to the team as ‘Rangers’.

Thank you for getting in touch with us to raise this matter.

Details of the BBC complaints process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk...ts/handle.shtml

Kind Regards

Patrick McManus

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

This is an absolutely disgraceful response that attempts to defend a factually inaccurate article, that has the potential to provoke 'Social Unrest', whilst directly devaluing a company's flotation.

I would urge all investors to contact the BBC or Mr Patrick McManus regarding possible breaches of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000:

Citing Section 118 - Market Abuse:

Subsection (8) The seventh is where the behaviour (not falling within subsection (5), (6) or (7))—

(a) is likely to give a regular user of the market a false or misleading impression as to the supply of, demand for or price or value of, qualifying investments, or

(b)would be, or would be likely to be, regarded by a regular user of the market as behaviour that would distort, or would be likely to distort, the market in such an investment, and the behaviour is likely to be regarded by a regular user of the market as a failure on the part of the person concerned to observe the standard of behaviour reasonably expected of a person in his position in relation to the market.

Legislation;

http://www.legislati...0/8/section/118

http://www.fsa.gov.u...arket_abuse.pdf

Is it Criminal, Negligent or Bigoted?

Time to ask Mr Patrick McManus or the BBC!

QJ

Who is Mr Patrick McManus?

Is he the top guy at the BBC? I take it this is BBC Scotland?

[Quiet Jim 897]

Who is Mr Patrick McManus?

Is he the top guy at the BBC? I take it this is BBC Scotland?

First line complaints.

Have disagreed with his answer, citing the legal implications of the article in question.

Complaint has been passed to second line.

At least I have bypassed the standard answer for grouped complaints.

I think the legal issue may be of concern to them, which may be an issue they cannot ignore / fob off.

[SectionRedHMS 190]

Original report dated on the 20th of November 2012.

BBC Headline - Former Rangers Football Club wins Big Tax Case appeal

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-20414804

My reason for complaint :

Sensationalism, incitement and deliberate falsification of facts directly resulting in financial loss.

Justification :

"The Rangers Football Club is an entity that has significant value.

Your report insinuates that there is no value in The Rangers Football Club.

There is an ongoing financial issue, regarding a share issue.

Your report undermines this process.

The football club and the holding company are two different entities.

I as a shareholder in the current holding company request that you issue an apology for inaccurate reporting and refrain from insinuating that The Rangers Football Club is no longer in existence.

Any further slander by your corporation will result in legal proceedings."

The Response:

Reference CAS-1791988-Q03Q3K

Thank you for your e-mail of 21 November regarding our coverage of Rangers.

In all of our reporting of the circumstances surrounding Rangers football club, on and off the field, we have sought to ensure our journalism is fair, accurate and impartial. In respect of that, we do not accept the interpretation you place on how we have reported the story.

For clarity, when we refer to the business dealings of the club, in its previous and its current form, we will refer to the ‘oldco’ and the ‘newco’; when referring to the activities of the team on the field, we will refer to the team as ‘Rangers’.

Thank you for getting in touch with us to raise this matter.

Details of the BBC complaints process are available online at http://www.bbc.co.uk...ts/handle.shtml

Kind Regards

Patrick McManus

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

This is an absolutely disgraceful response that attempts to defend a factually inaccurate article, that has the potential to provoke 'Social Unrest', whilst directly devaluing a company's flotation.

I would urge all investors to contact the BBC or Mr Patrick McManus regarding possible breaches of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000:

Citing Section 118 - Market Abuse:

Subsection (8) The seventh is where the behaviour (not falling within subsection (5), (6) or (7))—

(a) is likely to give a regular user of the market a false or misleading impression as to the supply of, demand for or price or value of, qualifying investments, or

(b)would be, or would be likely to be, regarded by a regular user of the market as behaviour that would distort, or would be likely to distort, the market in such an investment, and the behaviour is likely to be regarded by a regular user of the market as a failure on the part of the person concerned to observe the standard of behaviour reasonably expected of a person in his position in relation to the market.

Legislation;

http://www.legislati...0/8/section/118

http://www.fsa.gov.u...arket_abuse.pdf

Is it Criminal, Negligent or Bigoted?

Time to ask Mr Patrick McManus or the BBC!

QJ

Patrick McManus...........for fucks sake!

[Spectre 1,663]

Because it's in print and it is the more serious crime of libel .

It's not a crime.