Bbc News Goes In On Otib, Says Stadium Opponents Victimised (Merged Topics)

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

Hans Brrix? Oh no! Oh herrro. Great to see you again Hans!

"Stop bustin my baaalls, Hans Brix!"

[cider head]

Ah well I'll have some company in court then!

Free the bamboo/sniper 2 t-shirts,coming soon

[Mr Mosquito]

What bloody planet do you live on??

The BBC are the most biased,bigoted agenda pushing parasitical 'national' broadcaster since the Iraqi state television! (Everyone remembers the US tanks behind that dear little Colonel who was saying that 'We have crushed the Americans - they are nowhere near Baghdad - classic TV)

Pro-EU with a vengeance, pro-Islam and anti-Israeli, (The BBC and Guardian were the ONLY NEWS AGENCIES to not report the Rochdale MP and Police publically stating that the recent grooming imprisonments were religiously - muslim - caused,instead choosing to play the race card and say that the assailants were arrested because of their race!!!) They were rapists because they were Pakistani's NOT Islamic loonies in their words according to the BBC and Guardian FFS.

The Times,Telegraph,Independant and all tabloids quoted the Police,MP and even local Imans IN FULL that this was an Islamic problem.

Even when muslims openly admit other Muslims are responsible,the BBC still try to deflect this by basically accusing the Police and an MP of racism.

Unbelievable.

The BBC has not published an article that is not in its own interest for years.Thank God for international and independant news feeds on the web.

Brilliant comments and I totally agree with you. It's a shame because the BBC do transmit some brilliant Natural History and Science programmes but I can se there coming a time when the BBC has to be shut down due to their news editors peddling their various biased and bigoted agendas via their 'news' broadcasts.

[Mr Mosquito]

Under the heading of "Bullying at the BBC" he commented:

"In charge of the operation was Laura Ellis ... At her little corner of the BBC, dissent is ruthlessly stamped upon. The management at Tunbridge Wells - Laura Ellis, output editor Rod Beards and his assistant editor (and fiancée) Davina Reynolds - operate a nasty, vindictive climate of fear. It was not uncommon for people to be found in the toilets in tears. the stories they told me were deeply distressing. Several have been on long-term sick leave and have been treated for stress because of the vitriolic abuse they have had to endure. One woman is openly called "that bitch" by her superiors, who loudly complain that they must find a way to get rid of her. If anyone so much raised an eyebrow in dissent, they were told that their careers in television were over."

Excellent post. Under the heading "Bribery, Corruption and Fraud at the BBC - Stop paying your TV Licence fee NOW!"....there's a brilliant website explaining the various BBC corruptions at the link below.....it also explains and gives downloads on how BBC corruption can be combatted by us as BBC Licence fee payers......

http://tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees

[LSR]

notice you cant comment on the story either.

[Rich]

The person interviewed by the BBC in their investigation is I believe, the partner of the petitioner for a TVG.

He sometimes uses the pseudonym of Stillwaters or S waters when making FOI requests for his campaign, or when carrying out personal attacks on anyone posting a different viewpoint from his on the Ashton Gate Blogger.

He is a liar. He has lied in his requests for signatures for his partners petition.

When the petition was started, the plans for the stadium had already been passed. He lied when saying that the greenbelt was going to be developed for the stadium and hundreds of houses, as we all know the housing had been dropped from the plans. This didn't stop him providing a link which showed the plans in their original form, including the housing at Southlands, it didn't stop him mentioning his partners delibitating illness in the hope of a sympathy vote and it didn't stop him saying that the development was for profit. He also said that this was the only green space near to his home, he ommitted that there were other large areas to the south of his home at the sports ground and under black bridge free for recreational use, which is bigger and better than the former tip.

This misrepresentation/lie was pointed out to him but it didn't stop him continuing in posting requests for signatures on websites such as the RSPB and Hawkwind. He will do all he can for his cause, which includes lying and personal attacks, yet uses anonymity to protect himself from similar treatment.

The BBC have been taken in by this liar.

[del ete]

The person interviewed by the BBC in their investigation is I believe, the partner of the petitioner for a TVG.

He sometimes uses the pseudonym of Stillwaters or S waters when making FOI requests for his campaign, or when carrying out personal attacks on anyone posting a different viewpoint from his on the Ashton Gate Blogger.

He is a liar. He has lied in his requests for signatures for his partners petition.

When the petition was started, the plans for the stadium had already been passed. He lied when saying that the greenbelt was going to be developed for the stadium and hundreds of houses, as we all know the housing had been dropped from the plans. This didn't stop him providing a link which showed the plans in their original form, including the housing at Southlands, it didn't stop him mentioning his partners delibitating illness in the hope of a sympathy vote and it didn't stop him saying that the development was for profit. He also said that this was the only green space near to his home, he ommitted that there were other large areas to the south of his home at the sports ground and under black bridge free for recreational use, which is bigger and better than the former tip.

This misrepresentation/lie was pointed out to him but it didn't stop him continuing in posting requests for signatures on websites such as the RSPB and Hawkwind. He will do all he can for his cause, which includes lying and personal attacks, yet uses anonymity to protect himself from similar treatment.

The BBC have been taken in by this liar.

If you google stillwaters ashton vale you can see the extent of his forum posting. Amusing that like crispin he too is not originally from bristol but is holding us all back.

[chiddyj]

I cannot believe I have missed all this as I was on my honeymoon!! Thanks god for OTIB forums!

Have there been any updates from people’s complaints? Seen a few replies from Laura Ellis which where pretty much blunt replies, but has anyone got an update after her initial first reply?

Derek to do a Ferguson next season and boycott the BBC #justsaying can’t see it happening though.

[bcfcbs20]

I cannot believe I have missed all this as I was on my honeymoon!! Thanks god for OTIB forums!

Have there been any updates from people’s complaints? Seen a few replies from Laura Ellis which where pretty much blunt replies, but has anyone got an update after her initial first reply?

Derek to do a Ferguson next season and boycott the BBC #justsaying can’t see it happening though.

I e-mailed her back saying I wasn't happy with her response and got this back today.

I will refer your complaint to the Controller English Regions, David

Holdsworth who will reply to you directly.

Many thanks

Laura Ellis.

[CotswoldRed]

Haha yeah they might release the hounds

Who made the sniper post?

It looked like cotswolds avatar to me.

When have I said anything about that? What are you referring to Dolls?

[CotswoldRed]

Reading to the end of this thread this afternoon I am amazed.

Surely there is a big difference between ridiculously stupid and humorous comments and comments that could be construed as even remotely serious.

Does anyone really believe that a comment regarding the nuking of streets is a serious issue? Clarkson (of BBC fame) said we should shoot people in front of their familes. Was that now a serious suggestion?

I can't think of a single post where anyone has genuinely suggested that harm should come to anyone else. So long as the NIMBYs are playing by the rules they've as much right as us to fight their case. I just hope its a fair fight (though fear it won't be) in getting this through the courts.

[chiddyj]

I e-mailed her back saying I wasn't happy with her response and got this back today.

I will refer your complaint to the Controller English Regions, David

Holdsworth who will reply to you directly.

Many thanks

Laura Ellis.

Cheers for the reply! Please keep us updated! Lets hope the email doesn't come from Lincoln City's manager David Holdsworth

[II Wurzel II]

When have I said anything about that? What are you referring to Dolls?

You reply to Matty-H or Barrs court saying "nuke the surrounding streets"

They basically just scanned down a page of a certain thread and highlighted 2 Avatars, one being Barrs Court and the other yourself back in March 2011....your username was blurred though.

Not sure if its still available on iplayer but I posted a link on this thread (#236)

[CotswoldRed]

You reply to Matty-H or Barrs court saying "nuke the surrounding streets"

They basically just scanned down a page of a certain thread and highlighted 2 Avatars, one being Barrs Court and the other yourself back in March 2011....your username was blurred though.

Not sure if its still available on iplayer but I posted a link on this thread (#236)

Just been through that old thread. Just seems like a silly conversation.

The thread also says (paraphrasing) that nuclear bombs are difficult to get hold of so we could consider snipers. Goodness me.

[TRL]

Just been through that old thread. Just seems like a silly conversation.

The thread also says (paraphrasing) that nuclear bombs are difficult to get hold of so we could consider snipers. Goodness me.

Well if we can't get the nuke, at the vey least I demand plutonium tipped sniper bullets! No half arsed spud guns!

[eskay]

Just had a reply from the IPCC, it seems they do not deal with our type of complaint:

Thank you for your email

Our website www.pcc.org.uk explains how the Press Complaints Commission deals with complaints. A copy of the Editors’ Code of Practice which the PCC independently enforces is also available on our website.

As you will see, the PCC deals only with complaints about newspapers and magazines and their websites. It does not deal with complaints about television and radio broadcasting, or broadcasters’ websites.

The appropriate regulatory body to which you might like to direct your concerns is BBC Complaints. Its contact details are as follows:

BBC Complaints

PO Box 1922

Darlington DL3 0UT

Tel: 03700 100 222

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

Although I am sorry not to be of further assistance in this instance, I hope you will find our website helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you think we may be able to help in the future.

Yours sincerely

[Dorset_Cider]

Anyone know if the "bamboo pits" have been put in place yet?

What ........ you can get pitbulls made out of bamboo........those Chinese can really make anything can't they...... amazing

[Mr Mosquito]

"Bbc News Goes In On Otib, Says Stadium Opponents Victimised (Merged Topics)"

.....well, that's the title of this thread and I'm just wondering how the BBC editors are feeling now that various posters on this thread have 'gone in' by exposing BBC bias, BBC bigotry and BBC Cultural Marxism. Not at BBC licence fee payers and taxpayers' expense but in our own time.

[ciderup]

Had a reply from the second level of complaint within the BBC this morning after asking them to publish proof supporting their ludicrous story.

Dear Mr Kelly,

Thank you for your mail to Laura Ellis.

We are not prepared to publish full details of what we discovered in the course of our investigation as we believe this may put individuals at risk. I can however, tell you that we have seen and heard a significant amount of evidence which backs up our story. We maintain that our item is accurate and fair.

Best wishes,

BBC News website

Personally, I feel this is a total copout by the BBC and the last sentence is laughable IMHO.

I also had a very nice reply from David Lloyd regading the clubs view on the article plus his own. The club won't comment but David has used his regular contact with radio Bristol to speak his mind.

Top man David.

[TRL]

Had a reply from the second level of complaint within the BBC this morning after asking them to publish proof supporting their ludicrous story.

Dear Mr Kelly,

Thank you for your mail to Laura Ellis.

We are not prepared to publish full details of what we discovered in the course of our investigation as we believe this may put individuals at risk. I can however, tell you that we have seen and heard a significant amount of evidence which backs up our story. We maintain that our item is accurate and fair.

Best wishes,

BBC News website

Personally, I feel this is a total copout by the BBC and the last sentence is laughable IMHO.

I also had a very nice reply from David Lloyd regading the clubs view on the article plus his own. The club won't comment but David has used his regular contact with radio Bristol to speak his mind.

Top man David.

They haven't given the neccessary parts of FOI to turn you down, they have to refer you to the relevant parts within 20 days, if you disagree you can then forward the complaint to the information commisioner.

Ask for these details or the details you want to know under a FOI request. Clearly some they will not be able to give you such as peoples names and addresses, but other information they will have to look for.

Send each request as a seperate FOI, so they can't turn you down for the time it will take.

[BCFC Jordan]

I suggest that we kidnap a load of lions from Bristol Zoo and then let them run free on the village green.

*Waits to appear on BBC News*

[Harry]

Just had a reply from the IPCC, it seems they do not deal with our type of complaint:

Thank you for your email

Our website www.pcc.org.uk explains how the Press Complaints Commission deals with complaints. A copy of the Editors’ Code of Practice which the PCC independently enforces is also available on our website.

As you will see, the PCC deals only with complaints about newspapers and magazines and their websites. It does not deal with complaints about television and radio broadcasting, or broadcasters’ websites.

The appropriate regulatory body to which you might like to direct your concerns is BBC Complaints. Its contact details are as follows:

BBC Complaints

PO Box 1922

Darlington DL3 0UT

Tel: 03700 100 222

https://www.bbc.co.u...mplaints/forms/

Although I am sorry not to be of further assistance in this instance, I hope you will find our website helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you think we may be able to help in the future.

Yours sincerely

Eskay - perhaps you might like to reply to this fella and note the highlighted sentence. The Bristol Evening Post (or whatever they like to call themelves these days), went to print with the very same story, copy and pasted word for word!! So the PCC would therefore have a duty to respond to their story?

Worth a go?

[slartibartfast]

Just got a reply from my e-mail to PointsWest

Thank you for your email. I’m sorry you were angry about the story we did on Ashton Vale.

When a High Court Judge said in court there was ‘convincing evidence of incidents of intimidations and harassment towards stadium opponents’, on April 2^nd this year, we felt it was important to investigate.

Our team has looked in great detail at the evidence. We published the story at the first opportunity of that evidence having been properly analysed.

I can assure you that we have satisfied ourselves in a number of different ways through witness statements, corroborated accounts and documentary and photographic evidence that some of those who have opposed the stadium have been subjected to harassment because of their views – a view backed up by the judge involved in the civil proceedings,

We do not suggest that any specific individuals or groups are involved or that any behaviour is endemic or widespread but we do believe that a small number of those who support the stadium have engaged in behaviour tantamount to harassment.

We have worked closely with Avon & Somerset Constabulary on this matter and will continue to do so.

The stadium story is one we have followed closely for several years. I believe we have always done so in a measured and balanced way.

I hope that puts some context to our decisions.

Neil Bennett

Editor

BBC West

Oh well, that's all hunky dory then, ain't it !

[numbeast]

What annoys me is the reference to the Judge in the civil proceeding and quoting his remark of ‘convincing evidence of incidents of intimidations and harassment towards stadium opponents’. He made this remark having only seen one side of the "evidence" that of the objectors. The Police on the other hand have stated to the BBC that after investigating the incidences of criminal damage there was no evidence to link it to the supporters of the stadium. If the BBC wanted to provide a balanced report then surely they should have mentioned the claims of usage for social activities on an operational landfill site. This may have cast doubts on the authenticity of their claims of intimidation and harassment, in fact it would have cast doubt on their whole argument, but then why should the BBC be any different to the NIMBY's and allow the truth to get in the way of a good story.

[cider_and_toast]

Thanks Weeble but I was kind of hoping someone could give me a precis version of all that waffle.

Having read through the report as much as possible there are several things that stand out. Firstly, it would seem that the investigation found that it stands on the fact that the use of the land went un-challenged by the land owners throughout. So while members of the local area all claimed to have walked, played or whatever on the land even though it was owned by someone else the fact that they were never told they couldn't counts as much as the fact that they were never told they could. The report also states that even though the area was used for a land fill from 1985, as far as could be proven, all work had stopped or been completed by 1989 and besides which, none of the work restricted access to the site to the point at which these "leasure activities" could take place. The pricnciple argument from the locals seems to have been that Ashton Vale is a village in its own right and that this area constituted part of that village. The report rejected the fact that Ashton Vale was a village but did state that in the wording of the law for a "village green" application then it applied to communities not just villages. The thing I found most hilarious is that fact that statements from two of the witnesses for City's case were actually found to have provided more useful evidence for the applicants than the objectors. One of them was apprently asked, where in the area would he walk his dog and replied, The land fill site. This practically confirmed to the board that even those who object to the village green application consider the land to be open to the public !! Doh !!It would seem that Citys arguments were shakey from the start with one of the prime factors in our case being "you're only doing this to stop the ground being built" which isn't exactly a legal precendent. All the village green mob had to do was prove that they had un-broken access to the site for the purpose of walking the odd dog or picking a blackberry or two for the last twenty years and Bob's your mothers brother they had their case.The only thing going in our favour was that the verdict is not a binding one meaning that it will hold some weight in an application but it dosn't mean that it's all over. Scare mongering by misleading news items just adds further fuel to the fire and isn't going to help the cause.

[bcfcbs20]

Just got this back from David Holdsworth.

I received your complaint from Laura Ellis and my reply forms the second stage of the BBC's complaints procedure.

First of all, many thanks for your feedback, which is much appreciated

I have discussed the story with the journalists involved and I believe they have taken all reasonable steps to substantiate the claims of harassment. It may be that we did not make this sufficiently clear in the story and I will ask the Bristol team to add a line to this effect. We do not always reveal details of how we have sourced stories and provision is made for us to protect such details of our journalistic operation under the Freedom of Information Act.

In this particular case we are not prepared to reveal publicly any more detail of what we found in our investigation - as we have judged that this could put individuals involved at risk. I can assure you that we have satisfied ourselves in a number of different ways through witness statements, corroborated accounts and documentary and photographic evidence that some of those who have opposed the stadium have been subjected to harassment because of their views - a view backed up by the judge involved in the civil proceedings.

We do not suggest that any specific individuals or groups are involved or that any behaviour is endemic or widespread but the evidence suggests that a small number of those who support the stadium have engaged in behaviour tantamount to harassment. As context I'd want to stress that my inquiries show we have covered the story from a number of angles since it started, including an item which makes reference to the petition in support of the stadium.

With best wishes

David Holdsworth

Controller, BBC English Regions

[Frank Reynolds]

Let's say for one second that they have corroborated their 'evidence' and are confident enough to go ahead with this story.

Why then, have they not mentioned that it's a minority, and not 'endemic or widespread'? Will this be added to the 'line' of text to take this from a fool-hardy one-sided piece of hyperbolic nonsense to a balance article full of fact? Why have they used a picture of a smashed car windscreen with a Taunton sticker? Is that a car that has specifically been targeted, or was it used because it's a car with a smashed windscreen from an area as close to Bristol as they could find? Why have they used quotes from an internet forum, where the replies are likely to be one sided and of a comic nature? And if they really think that OTIB members want to snipe TVGers, why did they not use a picture of a sniper to add to the dramatic effect of the article? Or perhaps a picture of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to emphasise the nuking angle? Or even a picture of a big panda sharpening a bamboo stick ready for our pit (that way they can get us for animal cruelty too).

And why, in the interests of fairness and journalistic integrity, and so that there would be no accusations of bias, did they not give anyone the opportunity to give an opposing view on the matter? Other of course, than a football club that they're linking to violence and coercion by association, and a website that contains people mostly out to have a laugh and talk football and a common love of BCFC.

I wanted to be a journalist, and even worked for the BBC for a short spell in a regional department. Articles like this are why I am not one.