Jump to content
IGNORED

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

Olé

By Olé
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

  • Admin
Ian M

Ian M

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

Ban them from matches

We can't ban their cameras but we can certainly refuse to do any interviews with them. I'm not sure what they hope to achieve in cosying up to thirtyish people against progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fodbarmyarmy

Fodbarmyarmy

Posted
Posted

Ban them from matches

I think GJ did that for a while.........well interviews at least....

At the end of the day peeps the "threats" being "reported" were actualy stated on this forum and we cannot be surprised that the nimbys are using them against the plans by bringing media attention to them....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TRL

TRL

Posted
Posted

Yeah ban them from matches, man them from interviews.

Who will be the first to complain when we have no live comentary from home or away matches?

It is a bland column filler, not quite sure how peole are getting so wound up about it. As long as you have the ability to read you can see it for what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kid in the Riot

Kid in the Riot

Posted
Posted

I think GJ did that for a while.........well interviews at least....

Think that was the Evening Post.

The article in question above reads like a complete contradiction. A BBC investigation has found that opposers to the stadium were subject to harrassment...followed by the Old Bill saying there is no link whatsoever between the stadium and incidents of criminal damage in the local area!

BBC ****ed up here, jokers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kid in the Riot

Kid in the Riot

Posted
Posted

It is a bland column filler, not quite sure how peole are getting so wound up about it. As long as you have the ability to read you can see it for what it is.

You are over-estimating the ability of most people I think. Most will just see the headlines, shake their head and tut 'same old football fans' or not read as far as the last paragraph which confirms there is actually no evidence backing up the headline or opening paragraph!

It's misleading at best...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StGeorge

StGeorge

Posted
Posted
Between February and November 2011 police received five reports of criminal damage in Silbury Road, all of which were thoroughly investigated

During the same period there were also 29 reports of antisocial behaviour, 17 reports of Violent Crime which includes offences against the person such as common assaults, GBH and sexual offences.

I would suggest that the 5 reports of criminal damage are more likely to be in line with and linked to the rest of crime in area rather than anything to do with City fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RED4LIFE

RED4LIFE

Posted
Posted

Dont normally complain but had to fire one off to the BBC for that which I have posted below.

Very poor piece of 'journalism' which smacks of a Hatchet job to me.

To suggest that 5 incidents of vandalism over a 10month period is 'evidence' of acts of aggression and intimidation towards Anti-Stadium supporters from Pro-stadium supporters is just ludicrous from a so-called impartial news agency.

Your investigation must have literally taken all of 10 minutes, or did you just get a memo from a certain former labour councillor that has always been anti-stadium (even though he is not from the area)?

If you had done enough research into the matter, you would have found glaring inconsistencies in their side of the argument as well as intimidation by the anti-stadium brigade, both to members of the local council (witnessed by thousands) and towards Pro-stadium supporters themselves. Squeeky clean they are most certainly not.

You would have also found that the anti-stadium brigade have tried and mostly succeeded to halt a development (that would bring much needed jobs and regeneration to an area of Bristol where it is sorely needed) by abusing laws designed for other purposes, i.e The Town and Village Green Law.

I could go on and on about the nefarious tactics the 30-40 anti-stadium people have used, but will leave it there as there has been enough muck thrown around without wanting to add to it.

I usually support the BBC and haven't had cause to complain in the past, but this report is so glaringly inaccurate I felt I had to say somethingI

I have asked for a response from them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhilC

PhilC

Posted
Posted

Anyone who wants to complain should go here: http://www.pcc.org.u...acomplaint.html

You can also contact them via:

Press Complaints Commission

Halton House

20/23 Holborn

London EC1N 2JD

Helpline: 0845 600 2757

Switch Board: 020 7831 0022

And don't think just because it's the BBC they won't treat it seriosuly...

Also, http://www.bbc.co.uk...lenboaden.shtml

can be contacted via: Helen.Boaden@bbc.co.uk

Edit: Although the BBC have covered their backsides by saying "There is no evidence to suggest that the offences are linked to objections to Bristol City Football Club's plans for a new stadium." You can still report this as a mis-leading / inaccurate article. (Especialy with those OTIB quotes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
i_am_red

i_am_red

Posted
Posted

If I was to guess what happened (well I say Guess), some of those acts of vandalism were due to a personal vendetta and led to somebody leaving the area (who happened to be anti-stadium), but the Nimbys have passed it off that it was down to the pro-stadium supporters.

They have twisted everything and fully abused the legal system. Common sense and Justice will prevail.

As for the BBC that is a very poorly written peice and not one I expect from them, by all means report it but without such a misleading title. Remiscent of the EP story on Bradley Orr being hit by a fan and filling most of the article about how Orr was arrested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
eskay

eskay

Posted
Posted

Sent to the PCC, I would urge others to do something similar:

This is a very, very poor story worthy of a tabloid newspaper at best, not the BBC.

The article contains very little fact and consists almost entirely of here-say. It even goes on to say that the police say that there was no evidence of intimidation, so this is a nothing story.

The story can only undermine the football club's stadium plans further.

The BBC have been duped by the very clever anti-stadium protesters and have published a very naive article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aizoon

Aizoon

Posted
Posted

the BBC should be impartial so to publish such a one sided story without foundation suggests the Nimbys have a very highly placed contact in the company

Well, duh! Who do you think lives in "Lower Clifton"?

Amazingly, this piece of NIMBY propaganda is one of the featured stories on the BBC iPhone app.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davros

Davros

Posted
Posted

Your Complaint

Type of complaint:

BBC Online

What is your complaint about:

BBC News Online

URL:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-18193878

Complaint category:

Factual error or inaccuracy

Contacted us before:

No

Complaint title:

Its very bias and misleading.

Complaint description:

The article takes some quotes from an informal, fun and not to be taken seriously forum and posts them as if they were proper facts. Things have been taken massively out of context and have been put a very one sided view. In regards to the police and violence, crime towards people. "Between February and November 2011 police received five reports of criminal damage in Silbury Road, all of which were thoroughly investigated," a spokesman said. "There is no evidence to suggest that the offences are linked to objections to Bristol City Football Club's plans for a new stadium." In regards to the judge ruling on said intimidation Judge Anthony Thornton dismissed them as unfounded. REMOVE THIS ARTICLE NOW!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aizoon

Aizoon

Posted
Posted

Complaints here - https://ssl.bbc.co.u.../?reset=#anchor

I've made my complaint and I urge the other 29,999 to do the same.

Just for info, this is what I wrote:

============================================================================================

This article was clearly set up by the BBC's incomer friends in "Lower Clifton" (Southville to the rest of us).

It is a shamefully biased article, carefully timed to precede the Judicial Review. It gives just the NIMBY view, with no attempt to give the other side of the case, and there has been no attempt to check their allegations.

Off-the-cuff comments from a bulletin board have been treated as if they were statements by the football club, and all the NIMBY propaganda has been taken at face value. It could have been written by a member of the anti-stadium group, and very probably was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...