FOI request.

[Walterbear 557]

My latest FOI. Basically BBC says they do not collect information on whether or not they report incidents to CO therefore not obliged to create data therefore their assumption is there were no referrals. Their response to my original request was quite bizarre. I have edited for brevity. No Relevant detail excluded. These do get reviewed in London and eventually they will realise all is not well at the subsidiary branch. It’s not a complex process and always appeal to get coverage in London even if it is usual dismissal. 

30 September 2019 

On 13 August 2019, you requested that the BBC provide the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (‘the Act’):
“Scottish football operates a disciplinary system whereby controversial incidents not seen by an referee or assistants and relating to player discipline, can be retrospectively referred to the Scottish Football Association’s Compliance Officer. Referrals to this disciplinary process can be initiated by a variety of people and organisations.
During season 2018-2019 how many times did BBC Scotland refer incidents occurring in the SPFL or SFA competitions to the SFA Compliance Officer? Which incidents involving which players from which clubs were referred by BBC employees or BBC staff whether in interim, permanent or consultative roles such as ‘football pundits.”

On 11 September 2019, the BBC responded that:
“We can confirm that neither BBC Scotland nor BBC staff submit disciplinary reports to the Scottish Football Association’s Compliance Officer.”

On 11 September 2019, you sought internal review of the BBC’s decision. In particular, you said that:
“I note that you have not responded to the actual question I asked, which was simply which “incidents” have been referred to the SFA Compliance Officer by the BBC staff or those employed in an official BBC capacity (interim or permanent).
The answer you gave me was that no “Disciplinary Reports” were submitted. That response does not make contextual sense in terms of the question I asked. I did not imagine the BBC submitted “Disciplinary Reports” (whatever they may be). I am asking whether or not “incidents occurring” in football matches are referred by the BBC or its employees (permanent or interim) to the Compliance Officer and if so in what context have those referrals been made and which players and teams were the subject of those referrals in season 2018/19.
I am appealing against your initial rebuttal of my request as it appears your response is out of context with the actual question I asked and does not allay my concerns that BBC staff in Scotland are interfering or involving themselves with the disciplinary process in Scottish football. In fact the response looks misleading and designed to confuse due to the alteration of context..”

 

The issue for review
The issue for review is whether the BBC handled your request in accordance with its obligations and duties under the FOI Act. In particular, as required by sections 1(1)(a) and (b), did the BBC confirm or deny that it holds the requested information and, if held, have that information communicated to you.
Decision
I am satisfied that the BBC complied with its obligations under the FOI Act in handling your request. The reasons for my decision are set out below.
Reasons for decision
The FOI Act provides a general right of access to recorded information that is held by a public authority at the time that a request is received. A public authority is not required to create new information to respond to a request.
I have reviewed the file for the BBC’s initial response.
I can confirm that neither the BBC nor BBC personnel have referred any incidents to the Scottish Football Association’s Compliance Officer. 
I am satisfied that the information you have requested is not held by the BBC. I am therefore satisfied that the BBC complied with its obligations under section 1(1)(a) of the FOI Act.

[Walterbear 557]

My final response to them below. 
 

Thank you.

 

I will not appeal to the Information Commissioner. I note with respect that you are unable to confirm or deny whether or not the Compliance Officer has been contacted by the BBC Scotland sports team based on data analysis as you do not collect data, but rather you assert faith in the impartiality of BBC Scotland. Not quite the same thing and please note BBC Scotland have had to make several formal apologies to Rangers FC in respect of inaccurate editing and unequal or unfair reporting. 

 

Yours sincerely. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Walterbear

[Frankie 8,146]

KUTGW mate! 

 

[Bill 13,717]

Seems to me there are quite a few people like @Walterbear doing sterling work interrogating the likes of the BBC about activities detrimental to Rangers. When you look at this forum's own "Pacific Quay Musings",for example, there's a terrific catalogue of injustice. It's just a pity their work wasn't more widely publicised. We know the mainstream media are more likely to be complicit in these activities than to report them and it beggars the question what else might be done.

 

Many businesses use online target marketing devices to reach out to a wide but defined audience and I always thought that Rangers fans could be doing something similar at a very moderate cost, certainly a lot less than buying a couple of million Rangers shares, and reaching out to thousands of people on a weekly or monthly basis, including well beyond the boundary of the Rangers support. Preaching to the unconverted can sometimes have remarkable effects. To my mind this should be core business for a supporters' organisation.

[Walterbear 557]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

Seems to me there are quite a few people like @Walterbear doing sterling work interrogating the likes of the BBC about activities detrimental to Rangers. When you look at this forum's own "Pacific Quay Musings",for example, there's a terrific catalogue of injustice. It's just a pity their work wasn't more widely publicised. We know the mainstream media are more likely to be complicit in these activities than to report them and it beggars the question what else might be done.

 

Many businesses use online target marketing devices to reach out to a wide but defined audience and I always thought that Rangers fans could be doing something similar at a very moderate cost, certainly a lot less than buying a couple of million Rangers shares, and reaching out to thousands of people on a weekly or monthly basis, including well beyond the boundary of the Rangers support. Preaching to the unconverted can sometimes have remarkable effects. To my mind this should be core business for a supporters' organisation.

I agree Bill. I think it’s well worth taking all of the work from that thread, consolidating it to a readable compelling format and consider the best way to publish it within and beyond the converted.  The observations in that thread are too important to lose and point to shocking impartiality. The issues to be overcome are that the info doesn’t fall neatly within FOI although it’s possible to be creative and claims of impartiality is easily batted off with the stock response of editorial privileges.
 

If someone could consolidate into one long text document with the actual dates of incidents I’d be happy to do further work in terms of creating a more readable document which could then be used more powerfully. 

[Bill 13,717]

Just now, Walterbear said:

I agree Bill. I think it’s well worth taking all of the work from that thread, consolidating it to a readable compelling format and consider the best way to publish it within and beyond the converted.  The observations in that thread are too important to lose and point to shocking impartiality. The issues to be overcome are that the info doesn’t fall neatly within FOI although it’s possible to be creative and claims of impartiality is easily batted off with the stock response of editorial privileges.
 

If someone could consolidate into one long text document with the actual dates of incidents I’d be happy to do further work in terms of creating a more readable document which could then be used more powerfully. 

Have a look at a self-updating mailing device such as Mailchimp or similar that could be used not only to transmit information globally but would also provide feedback on who reads it, how many reads you get, etc etc. While there may be sense in sending out everything historical at once, looking forward it might be much more effective to have regular updates, which is where something like Mailchimp comes into it's own.

[Scott7 5,135]

24 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

The observations in that thread are too important to lose and point to shocking impartiality

The impartiality is shocking by its absence. Partiality on the other hand is rife.

[compo 6,109]

I am old enough to remember when the BBC was the doyen of broadcasting I seldom turn it on these days .

And they also spoke in the Queen's  English not blinking regional accents  .

[Rousseau 9,359]

2 hours ago, Frankie said:

KUTGW mate! 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Keep up the good work