Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Walterbear last won the day on August 13

Walterbear had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

458 Excellent

About Walterbear

  • Rank
    Youth Team

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Simply put dB BBC Scotland sports department is out of control. They are biased and unreasonable and do not allocate the money Rangers fans give them in a way that fairly reflects our interests. As you can see from exchanges the BBC is largely unaccountable to the public. However London does ultimately control BBC Scotland and complaints are made to London. People there (I hope) will start to question people here, but only if we keep complaining. Don't let them think we don’t know what is going on. Their reputation is sinking and their listeners are falling. This will continue with their low budget Scottish channel. Don’t let them off the hook.
  2. Last night in highlighting the impressive goal tallies of them and Rangers so far this season we had the commentary from 6 or 7 Celtic goals and one Rangers goal.
  3. I have a new request underway relating to referrals to the Compliance Officer by the BBC. In no way can it be interpreted as relating to BBC output. Of course they may not have referred anyone from last season but if the art, literature, journalism argument is used then I will appeal that.
  4. Firstly apologies for the length of the text below but some interesting observations may be drawn from the lack of accountability of the BBC and the use of their interpretation of journalistic freedom. Anyone using the FOI route in the BBC should be interested and this may help you decide how to approach the BBC. The BBC rejected my request and I appealed to the Information Commissioner. We all know the answer to the question I asked but it’s important to keep highlighting to London the dissatisfaction with their service. Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)Your FOIA request to the BBC I am writing from the Information Commissioner’s Office to explain the Commissioner’s preliminary conclusion with respect to your complaint. The Commissioner is satisfied that the BBC has correctly handled your request for information under the FOIA. Summary of the correspondence You made a request for the following information: "Please can you advise me how much of BBC Scotland budget was allocated to cover ‘away matches’ in the group stage Europa League matches involving Celtic and Rangers in football season 2018/19? For example how much money was spent on fees to subcontracted staff, hotel and travel expenses including subsistence, overtime, additional broadcasting costs for technical and operational necessities, hiring of equipment or facilities. I do not need the figure broken down by expense type but an overall total sum of money or budget allocated to those matches will suffice.”On 8 March 2019 the BBC responded to your request. The BBC explained that it did not believe that the information was caught by FOIA because it was held for the purposes of ‘art, journalism or literature’. Some key principles about the operation of FOIA Although the BBC is listed as a public authority in the FOIA it applies to the BBC only to a limited extent. The BBC is a public authority for the purposes of the FOIA – “in respect of information held for purposes other than those of journalism, art or literature.” This is known as the Schedule 1 derogation. This means that information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature is not covered by the FOIA but is derogated. The Commissioner can only consider concerns within the scope of the FOIA. The Commissioner is unable to compel the public authority to provide information outside its obligations under FOIA. The operation of the derogation is explained in more detail below. How the derogation works Since the FOIA came into force, the issue on derogation has created considerable litigation about what this means. The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have explained their views about when the derogation will apply and their decisions are binding on the Commissioner. In summary, if the information is held and relates to ‘output’ then it falls outside FOIA. In 2012, the Supreme Court in Sugar (Deceased) v British Broadcasting Corporation and another [2012] UKSC 4 gave a clear definition of what the phrase ‘journalism, art or literature’ means in FOIA and what types of information it will cover; the Supreme Court found that, “…the composite expression ‘journalism, art or literature’ seems to be intended to cover the whole of the BBC’s output in its mission (under article 5 of its Royal Charter) to inform, educate and entertain the public. On that comprehensive approach the purposes of journalism, art or literature would be, quite simply, the purposes of the BBC’s entire output to the public.” (Lord Walker at para 70). In relation to journalism the Supreme Court accepted the Information Tribunal’s definition of journalism as comprising three elements: • The first is the collecting or gathering, writing and verifying of materials for publication. • The second is editorial. This involves the exercise of judgement on issues such as: * the selection, prioritisation and timing of matters for broadcast or publication; * the analysis of, and review of individual programmes; and * the provision of context and background to such programmes. • The third element is the maintenance and enhancement of the standards and quality of journalism (particularly with respect to accuracy, balance and completeness). This may involve the training and development of individual journalists, the mentoring of less experienced journalists by more experienced colleagues, professional supervision and guidance, and reviews of the standards and quality of particular areas of programme making.” Also the Supreme Court found (in a 4:1 majority) that if the information is held by the BBC to any significant degree for the relevant purposes (i.e. journalism, art, literature) it is exempt from production under FOIA, even if the information is also held for other purposes[1]. Therefore provided there is a relationship between the information and one of the purposes listed in Part VI of Schedule 1 – which are to be read to mean ‘output’ – then the information is derogated. The information relevant to the request need not be journalistic, artistic or literary material itself. All that must be evidenced is that the information requested has a relationship with the BBC’s output. Is there a relationship between the information requested and ‘output’? The information you have requested, relating to the budget for coverage of away matches is information held for the purpose of 'journalism, art or literature'. This is because this information is linked to the BBC’s output, in particular its decisions regarding how much of its budget to allocate to cover away matches and therefore what information is broadcast in this area. As a result I am satisfied that in this case the Commissioner has no jurisdiction in this matter and therefore no statutory power to order disclosure. You may wish to read some decision notices regarding the application of the derogation at the link below by selecting the BBC under the ‘Authority’ tab: http://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice The Commissioner’s preliminary conclusion in this case As a preliminary conclusion, the Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is derogated and therefore the BBC is not obliged to comply with Parts I to V of the FOIA with respect to this request. Progression of this case and actions required Please consider the following options: 1. It may be case that you are prepared to withdraw this complaint at this point given the information above. This does not mean that you are satisfied with the situation, but that you understand that any decision notice you will receive will be highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC and find against you. Should you agree to withdraw your complaint without a decision notice you would not then be able to appeal this case to the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights).2. The alternative is that you want to proceed to a decision notice and as explained above it is highly likely to uphold the position of the BBC and find against you. Both parties will however have a right of appeal at the First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights) where there are grounds to do so. If you require a decision notice I would ask you to provide your arguments about why you disagree with the preliminary view that is outlined above and encourage you to read through the material that I have referenced.
  5. The answer with Clyde is to not tune in. Unlike the BBC who take all our money if we watch 1 second of live telly Clyde would suffer almost immediately if their listening figures dropped of a cliff. If every Bear gave them a miss for a month the message would get through.
  6. I think we’re probably on the same wavelength here Buster. However I am not aware of a compensation claim case that has been made. I’m aware of threats to take them to court but those are early positioning statements from P Maguire, Celtic refuse to open a dialogue and no court papers exist. Nothing is happening in a formal legal compensation case therefore BBC have not actually got much to report on regarding a compensation claim. They would point to their Daly work in demonstrating they were generally taking the whole business seriously. Of course Daly could do a lot more now given all the stuff crawling out the woodwork. Even Celtic admit they held an inquiry into the Boys Club but no one such as the BBC have asked to see their papers. It’s very clear BBC Scotland is not applying as much airtime or other media output to this scandal as would be expected and perhaps there are complaints to be raised there but it’s hard to see what the case would be ie specifically what part of the BBC Charter would they be falling foul of. Whether they are deliberately editing in favour of either pre trial compensation position is hard to prove and I would suggest would be a lot of effort in vain and I’m not clear how you would prove the point. Without a whistleblower it’s virtually impossible to validate. A complaint of that nature would be easy to rebut at this stage imo unless you have very clear wordings in output from the BBC (or a whistleblower).
  7. The BBC have their own skeletons in this particular cupboard. They ignored Saville and the rest of them for years despite strong suspicions.
  8. Need to bin it imo. The only reason we have this process is because Celtic always felt cheated. Let the refs referee and get them in from other leagues to improve the standard. Celtic are very quiet about Simunovic given their quest for sporting integrity.
  9. She should apologise to Rangers for intimating it was somehow a slur to be seen in our Directors box.
  10. I agree in the main but what is missing from the Simunovic verdict is a clear and rationale explanation and that is worth highlighting. His incident should also be compared to those in the 4Lads article. This is not as you suggest however the example to judge Whyte on as she referred it - unless she referred it with an emphasis on something different.
  11. Good stuff from the Academy. Good luck lads.
  12. What I really like is when he’s not playing well (and he made a lot of errors against Celtic on Sunday) he buckled down, used his pace and tenacity and got tore in and was a real pest. Nightmare to play against folk with that attitude. I reckon £5m is about right but I’d hope Liverpool threw us another couple of good loanees as part of it.
  13. Given the European CL set up and the exclusion of clubs like ours in the future we may well end up needing a close relationship with the likes of Liverpool. We are massive and if we played in their league we would match them but the reality check here is that if we can connect to a club in a bigger market then Liverpool isn’t the worst option. I hate it but that’s the way it’s going.
  14. Liverpool say £12m. I’m happy with that. Bring good players to us and we increase their value.
  15. Apparently they didn’t see it so they can do this but the only evidence is what everyone else has seen which is inconclusive. It’s an absolute joke. Brown played him. Flanagan moves his elbow on Browns first run and Brown saw that and played for a repeat. That is one highly plausible interpretation but it can’t be proved just like it can’t be proved or disproved he was elbowed in the face. The evidence didn’t exist.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.