| Shocking BBC article. 20:10 - Oct 12 with 20263 views | boromat |
In case you've not seen it. Good on the DaleTrust jumping on it. |  |
| |  |
| Shocking BBC article. on 08:20 - Oct 14 with 4686 views | HullDale |
The fact that one bit has been edited so far suggests that:
(A) there is an acknowledgement from the journo (or his boss) that at least some of the article isn't accurate and
(B) as Sandy has pointed out, is there a feline being let out of a carrier in the bit that has been removed? & was there a Morton House play a long time before we knew about it?
If the journo had been honest and held his hands up, he could've taken the article down, done more research and republished with an apology. Yes, he's had a bit of grief on social media (some genuinely abusive that I don't agree with) but he could've admitted he had been given duff info from previously reliable sources & he was happy to rewrite with added accuracy. As it is, by leaving the article (& associated social media links) up, implying that he spoke to the Trust & the Club before publishing, and burying his head in the sand hoping it goes away, all he is doing his chipping away at his credibility and keeping further questions raised with the EFL. A BBC ban sounds like a good idea but in practise I can't see it happening - are there not EFL rules in place around allowing journalists in etc? If there are, surely we're not in a position to pay a fine for banning them. Could do more harm than good in the long run. [Post edited 14 Oct 2021 8:23]
|  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 09:33 - Oct 14 with 4510 views | James1980 |
What is the usual process with NDA's? Does one have to be signed before/after each meeting?
Does 15-25 NDA's over a 3 year period sound normal? It seems like a lot to me. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 09:41 - Oct 14 with 4492 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Shocking BBC article. on 00:37 - Oct 14 by Sandyman |
"In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders. No representatives of Morton House were allowed into the meeting because their purchase had not been recognised. With the atmosphere turning increasingly toxic, Curran stepped away. The EFL began an investigation."
is now...
"In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders.
With the atmosphere turning increasingly toxic, Curran stepped away. The EFL began an investigation."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58883213
Ooooh, Simon got a squeaky bum edit? You'll have to correct a lot more to show a semblance of integrity in your reporting. We have the original. We're watching. |
BBC Journalist in post-factual edit of piece after statement of challenge by RAFC
Esteemed BBC journalist, Simon Stone was forced into an embarrassing climb down last night having made a number of edits to a piece published just 24 hours before.
Having confirmed on Twitter that he had approached both Rochdale and the Trust, the edits bring into question the credibility of the piece and the factual accuracy of what remains. Both Rochdale and the Trust had not state they have not provided information to Simon Stone.
The edits to the piece also happened AFTER Rochdale AFC released a statement saying the piece was factually incorrect and that they had complained to the BBC.
The revised piece this morning, still has a significant number of factual inaccuracies in it, as posts on this messageboard have highlighted.
Simon Stone was approached, but was unavailable for comment. [Post edited 14 Oct 2021 9:42]
|  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 10:21 - Oct 14 with 4409 views | wozzrafc |
| Shocking BBC article. on 09:41 - Oct 14 by RAFCBLUE |
BBC Journalist in post-factual edit of piece after statement of challenge by RAFC
Esteemed BBC journalist, Simon Stone was forced into an embarrassing climb down last night having made a number of edits to a piece published just 24 hours before.
Having confirmed on Twitter that he had approached both Rochdale and the Trust, the edits bring into question the credibility of the piece and the factual accuracy of what remains. Both Rochdale and the Trust had not state they have not provided information to Simon Stone.
The edits to the piece also happened AFTER Rochdale AFC released a statement saying the piece was factually incorrect and that they had complained to the BBC.
The revised piece this morning, still has a significant number of factual inaccuracies in it, as posts on this messageboard have highlighted.
Simon Stone was approached, but was unavailable for comment. [Post edited 14 Oct 2021 9:42]
|
How ironic it would be if that part of the article that has been edited, had some element of truth that we weren’t supposed to know about IE A deal between Morton House and some shareholders had been brokered before the EGM and it inadvertently let the cat out of the bag!! Did someone not want the truth to come out??
Unfortunately I only copied elements of the original article to use in my complaint to the bbc so can’t say if anything else has been or will be edited.
Did anyone get a full transcript of the original article? | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 10:52 - Oct 14 with 4329 views | judd |
| Shocking BBC article. on 10:21 - Oct 14 by wozzrafc |
How ironic it would be if that part of the article that has been edited, had some element of truth that we weren’t supposed to know about IE A deal between Morton House and some shareholders had been brokered before the EGM and it inadvertently let the cat out of the bag!! Did someone not want the truth to come out??
Unfortunately I only copied elements of the original article to use in my complaint to the bbc so can’t say if anything else has been or will be edited.
Did anyone get a full transcript of the original article? |
Yes |  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 10:58 - Oct 14 with 4312 views | AtThePeake |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:27 - Oct 13 by judd |
simon.stone@bbc.co.uk |
Has anyone received a reply from this email as yet? |  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 11:01 - Oct 14 with 4310 views | AtThePeake |
| Shocking BBC article. on 18:32 - Oct 13 by krafty80 |
I work as an editor of a business publication which has moved its focus from print to online. It's not in the mainstream media or sport, but I am going to try to offer a bit of insight into what I suspect could have happened here. Note this is just an educated guess. I have no inside info about the BBC or any other news outlet.
It's the international break. From my experience listening to BBC Radio Five Live, Simon Stone's work is mainly focused on the two Manchester clubs, primarily United I think. But when it's international break, there's is much less 'news' from the big clubs knocking about. Does that matter? Yes. In print days, newspapers could manage pagination etc to mitigate loss of content. In the digital era, even as big an organisation as the BBC can't allow its news feeds to run dry. It affects search engines, audience stats and so on. So stories have to be found.
It would not surprise me if in this case, the journalist rang up a few contacts who'd helped him on other stories in the past. These people are likely to be in the Manchester area and may be regarded not so much as football sources but PR specialists. Again I have no knowledge of this story's provenance, but it would not shock me if a PR person or two were involved. Others have speculated about where the information contained in it may have ultimately been sourced from.
The other thing that would not surprise me is a journalist starting to write a story knowing that it has to be finished, come what may. It has to be filed, it cannot fall apart. So could that sway how sources are regarded? For example, if you know a relevant organisation might provide bundles of information that contradicts your almost-done draft, are you really busting a gut to get hold of them, or do you just hunker down and hit your deadline and story quota? The word 'churnalism' was invented for a reason...
The continued use of the passive voice and odd, hard to decipher phrases like 'highlighted negativity' in this particular article lead me to think that the writer himself may not have been wholly convinced by what he was drafting. But like I say, that's just a gut feeling.
I understand people being angry with the BBC over apparent unprofessionalism, and this story's failure in particular to get the Trust's viewpoint across is a major flaw. But let's also not pretend the BBC has the same resources as other news outlets. Yes there is a licence fee, but it doesn't cover much beyond the big ticket TV and radio operations.
The contrast between this piece and the two articles run by The Athletic on the Dale takeover is absolutely glaring. But of course, the Athletic is a paying subscription-only service dedicated to a handful of sports. No wonder the depth and quality is better. You get what you pay for in the media, and dubious pieces like this will appear time and again as long as most of the audience expects news for free in perpetuity.
The best thing about Stone's article is that for all its efforts to rewrite recent history, there isn't a scrap of evidence included to explain why Dale fans were wrong to be suspicious of Morton House and co. In that sense, whoever the contacts were who set the story up, they've failed again. If they can't justify the acquisition of a majority shareholding, who on earth can?! |
"The continued use of the passive voice and odd, hard to decipher phrases like 'highlighted negativity' in this particular article lead me to think that the writer himself may not have been wholly convinced by what he was drafting. But like I say, that's just a gut feeling."
I also work in online publishing and occasionally sub-edit articles and pages that I know my colleagues don't especially enjoy writing. This sentence is pretty much word for word what I was thinking when I first read the article. It reads like something the writer didn't particularly want to write.
However that's no excuse for publishing a potentially damaging article without fact-checking and without speaking to very obvious sources like the Dale Trust. Educate, Inform, Entertain? This article does the opposite of all three. I suspect Simon Stone expected he could publish this under-researched piece to fill the content gap with little consequence as after all, it's only about little Rochdale.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 11:03 - Oct 14 with 4304 views | judd |
| Shocking BBC article. on 10:58 - Oct 14 by AtThePeake |
Has anyone received a reply from this email as yet? |
Yes | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Shocking BBC article. on 11:17 - Oct 14 with 4265 views | wozzrafc |
| Shocking BBC article. on 11:03 - Oct 14 by judd |
Yes |
Well judd what did he say? | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 11:28 - Oct 14 with 4229 views | judd |
| Shocking BBC article. on 11:17 - Oct 14 by wozzrafc |
Well judd what did he say? |
I don't have it with me at present. I'll post it up later | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 12:51 - Oct 14 with 4069 views | D_Alien |
The trouble with all this is, that without a published acknowledgement of error (as prominent as the original article) those who might be inclined to read the article will already have done so
For the general reader, the impression they'll be left with has been made and therefore damage has been done
A retraction is required, not an edit (which isn't even acknowledged as an edit) |  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:09 - Oct 14 with 4001 views | wozzrafc |
| Shocking BBC article. on 12:51 - Oct 14 by D_Alien |
The trouble with all this is, that without a published acknowledgement of error (as prominent as the original article) those who might be inclined to read the article will already have done so
For the general reader, the impression they'll be left with has been made and therefore damage has been done
A retraction is required, not an edit (which isn't even acknowledged as an edit) |
Fully agree, a sly edit here are there is nothing more than arse covering where you have realised your facts are utterly wrong.
The tone of the article has not changed, and remains biased towards Morton House and co. As you say the damage has been done. | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:58 - Oct 14 with 3886 views | James1980 |
'After Halsall had been given a presentation by the club, he was introduced to the Rochdale Supporters' Trust (Dale Trust). They were unimpressed at Halsall's view he should have a charge on the club in exchange for putting his money in.'
Was this meeting with The Dale Trust, subject to a NDA? | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 15:31 - Oct 14 with 3717 views | 49thseason |
Iirc Bottom did a presentation for potential investors at the Swindon game. I imagine everyone attending was asked to sign an NDA prior to the meeting. It would be interesting to know what the NDA covered given what MH, Jarvis and Southall have put into the public domain about our finances. |  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 17:25 - Oct 14 with 3514 views | judd |
| Shocking BBC article. on 11:17 - Oct 14 by wozzrafc |
Well judd what did he say? |
Rochdale: Why is League Two club at heart of share ownership wrangle?
By Simon StoneBBC Sport
Last updated on12 October 202112 October 2021.From the sectionRochdale
Rochdale have not won a game since beating Tranmere 1-0 on 11 September
It has not been an easy season so far for Rochdale.
Relegated after seven years in League One at the end of last term, Dale were beaten 1-0 at home by Crawley on Saturday.
They have now lost five matches in a row in all competitions and failed to score in their past four.
Rochdale have slipped to 18th in League Two, five points ahead of bottom-placed Scunthorpe. Without an upturn in fortunes an unbroken century of Football League football will be at risk.
But it is not only on the pitch where problems are mounting at the Crown Oil Arena.
Behind the scenes, a dispute has erupted over future direction and share ownership that has led to bitterness, threats and splits, destroying Rochdale's image as a stable, lower-league club.
The search for investment
To get to the crux of the issue, you only need to read the small print from the Crawley game. Attendance: 2,268.
BBC Sport has been told Rochdale's playing budget this season is £1.5m. Receipts from season ticket sales were £280,000.
The £400,000 earned from the sale of Ollie Rathbone to Rotherham in August, plus a similar sum from the second tranche of the sell-on from Craig Dawson's move from West Brom to Watford will help plug the gap. But, with other bills to pay, more needs to be found.
In 2019-20, Rochdale played an EFL Cup tie against Manchester United at Old Trafford. They went on an FA Cup run that included two televised games, one of which, against Newcastle, went to a replay at St James' Park. In addition, they earned £750,000 from the sale of teenager Luke Matheson to Wolves. From this bonanza, the club made a £1.4m profit.
Rochdale have earned money from a sell-on clause inserted into the deal when they sold defender Craig Dawson, who is now at West Ham, to West Brom in 2010
However, the club's board felt the financial position was unsustainable. They had made it a priority to seek outside investment. They were not, it has been stressed, looking for someone to plough money into the first-team squad.
Their focus was more on a decent training facilities. The club do not own a training ground and their academy, on which so much importance rests in terms of generating revenue, use local school pitches and an external indoor facility.
It is estimated that between 2018 and 2021, between 15 and 25 non-disclosure agreements were issued to interested parties. The board thought they had found the right man in entrepreneur and motorbike team owner Martin Halsall. Another businessman Andrew Curran had been identified as "a very useful backstop".
After Halsall had been given a presentation by the club, he was introduced to the Rochdale Supporters' Trust (Dale Trust). They were unimpressed at Halsall's view he should have a charge on the club in exchange for putting his money in.
When Halsall backed away, Curran and his Morton House group became the board's number one choice.
Fan resistance
The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders. But former chairman Andrew Kelly did not complete, which left Morton House with 42%.
Individually, none of the six completed transactions were subject to English Football League approval. However, as a whole, they took Morton House above the 30% threshold required for submission to the EFL's owners and directors' test.
It was the club's responsibility to submit the paperwork. This was not done and an essential element of becoming a significant club shareholder was never completed.
By now, the Dale Trust had got themselves mobilised. They had seen what had happened to local rivals Bury - who were expelled from the EFL in August 2019 following ongoing financial problems - and were instinctively distrustful of the motives of anyone with no connection to the club offering to invest.
They felt the club had a sustainable model - buy players cheaply and sell at a profit. They want to be fan owned.
If Morton House had been open and transparent, BBC Sport has been told, they would have been welcomed by Rochdale fans. But they were not. The fans did not know where the money was coming from.
A number of people associated with the Morton House bid, including Curran and his relatives, were targeted. Online abuse was vicious.
In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders.
With the atmosphere turning increasingly toxic, Curran stepped away. The EFL began an investigation.
Matt Southall previously had a spell as chief executive at Charlton Athletic
In the meantime, Morton House agreed to sell 25% of the club to Matt Southall, who was formerly chief executive at Charlton and heavily involved in their ownership dispute that attracted so much controversy in 2020.
BBC Sport understands Southall, who has recently moved to Dubai with his family, has no desire to get involved in the day-to-day running of Rochdale.
However, it is also known Southall has an agreement to increase his stake in Dale should Morton House get hold of Kelly's shares - which are now the subject of a legal dispute - and take its holding over 50%.
Southall feels there is no reason why he would fail the EFL owners and directors' test. Rochdale's fans, prompted by Charlton supporters who have highlighted negativity, are keen to make sure it does not get that far and are determined to keep Southall away. A recent virtual meeting between the two parties found no common ground.
All sides now agree the current picture is one of confusion and legal debate, not helped by the fact there are almost 398,000 'golden shares' lying dormant, which the club could try to raise money by selling.
However, there is uncertainty about whether they have to be offered on a pro-rata basis to current shareholders and, for those currently running the club, that is fraught with problems.
If, for instance, Morton House bought 42% of the new shares but some of the rest went unsold, that could take them above the overall 50% threshold that might trigger a sale to Southall.
Morton House have refused to cooperate with the EFL inquiry. However, the EFL has already interviewed a number of significant people involved in the situation and their work is on-going. According to their regulations, deals done without seeking prior approval when required are regarded as misconduct, which has the potential to attract fines for individuals depending on who is viewed as being responsible.
Meanwhile, Rochdale, with Simon Gauge - like Bottomley, a long-time supporter - as chair, try to navigate their way through choppy waters, on and off the pitch.
All sides are adamant they have the long-term future of the club in mind. Evidently, they have very different visions of what the future looks like.
At a time where Newcastle fans are celebrating the influx of 'new' money and Derby's administrators are dealing with the consequences of an owner who spent too much, lower down the pyramid, Rochdale are approaching a crossroads.
For a proud, historic Football League club, who regard themselves as a community asset in much the same way as Bury - local rivals just six miles down the road - did, their very existence could hinge on them making the right choices. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 20:47 - Oct 14 with 3211 views | EllGazzell |
| Shocking BBC article. on 17:25 - Oct 14 by judd |
Rochdale: Why is League Two club at heart of share ownership wrangle?
By Simon StoneBBC Sport
Last updated on12 October 202112 October 2021.From the sectionRochdale
Rochdale have not won a game since beating Tranmere 1-0 on 11 September
It has not been an easy season so far for Rochdale.
Relegated after seven years in League One at the end of last term, Dale were beaten 1-0 at home by Crawley on Saturday.
They have now lost five matches in a row in all competitions and failed to score in their past four.
Rochdale have slipped to 18th in League Two, five points ahead of bottom-placed Scunthorpe. Without an upturn in fortunes an unbroken century of Football League football will be at risk.
But it is not only on the pitch where problems are mounting at the Crown Oil Arena.
Behind the scenes, a dispute has erupted over future direction and share ownership that has led to bitterness, threats and splits, destroying Rochdale's image as a stable, lower-league club.
The search for investment
To get to the crux of the issue, you only need to read the small print from the Crawley game. Attendance: 2,268.
BBC Sport has been told Rochdale's playing budget this season is £1.5m. Receipts from season ticket sales were £280,000.
The £400,000 earned from the sale of Ollie Rathbone to Rotherham in August, plus a similar sum from the second tranche of the sell-on from Craig Dawson's move from West Brom to Watford will help plug the gap. But, with other bills to pay, more needs to be found.
In 2019-20, Rochdale played an EFL Cup tie against Manchester United at Old Trafford. They went on an FA Cup run that included two televised games, one of which, against Newcastle, went to a replay at St James' Park. In addition, they earned £750,000 from the sale of teenager Luke Matheson to Wolves. From this bonanza, the club made a £1.4m profit.
Rochdale have earned money from a sell-on clause inserted into the deal when they sold defender Craig Dawson, who is now at West Ham, to West Brom in 2010
However, the club's board felt the financial position was unsustainable. They had made it a priority to seek outside investment. They were not, it has been stressed, looking for someone to plough money into the first-team squad.
Their focus was more on a decent training facilities. The club do not own a training ground and their academy, on which so much importance rests in terms of generating revenue, use local school pitches and an external indoor facility.
It is estimated that between 2018 and 2021, between 15 and 25 non-disclosure agreements were issued to interested parties. The board thought they had found the right man in entrepreneur and motorbike team owner Martin Halsall. Another businessman Andrew Curran had been identified as "a very useful backstop".
After Halsall had been given a presentation by the club, he was introduced to the Rochdale Supporters' Trust (Dale Trust). They were unimpressed at Halsall's view he should have a charge on the club in exchange for putting his money in.
When Halsall backed away, Curran and his Morton House group became the board's number one choice.
Fan resistance
The plan had been for Morton House to take a majority stake in Rochdale through private, independent deals with seven shareholders. But former chairman Andrew Kelly did not complete, which left Morton House with 42%.
Individually, none of the six completed transactions were subject to English Football League approval. However, as a whole, they took Morton House above the 30% threshold required for submission to the EFL's owners and directors' test.
It was the club's responsibility to submit the paperwork. This was not done and an essential element of becoming a significant club shareholder was never completed.
By now, the Dale Trust had got themselves mobilised. They had seen what had happened to local rivals Bury - who were expelled from the EFL in August 2019 following ongoing financial problems - and were instinctively distrustful of the motives of anyone with no connection to the club offering to invest.
They felt the club had a sustainable model - buy players cheaply and sell at a profit. They want to be fan owned.
If Morton House had been open and transparent, BBC Sport has been told, they would have been welcomed by Rochdale fans. But they were not. The fans did not know where the money was coming from.
A number of people associated with the Morton House bid, including Curran and his relatives, were targeted. Online abuse was vicious.
In June, at a five-hour meeting, Rochdale directors David Bottomley and Graham Rawlinson were voted off the board by shareholders.
With the atmosphere turning increasingly toxic, Curran stepped away. The EFL began an investigation.
Matt Southall previously had a spell as chief executive at Charlton Athletic
In the meantime, Morton House agreed to sell 25% of the club to Matt Southall, who was formerly chief executive at Charlton and heavily involved in their ownership dispute that attracted so much controversy in 2020.
BBC Sport understands Southall, who has recently moved to Dubai with his family, has no desire to get involved in the day-to-day running of Rochdale.
However, it is also known Southall has an agreement to increase his stake in Dale should Morton House get hold of Kelly's shares - which are now the subject of a legal dispute - and take its holding over 50%.
Southall feels there is no reason why he would fail the EFL owners and directors' test. Rochdale's fans, prompted by Charlton supporters who have highlighted negativity, are keen to make sure it does not get that far and are determined to keep Southall away. A recent virtual meeting between the two parties found no common ground.
All sides now agree the current picture is one of confusion and legal debate, not helped by the fact there are almost 398,000 'golden shares' lying dormant, which the club could try to raise money by selling.
However, there is uncertainty about whether they have to be offered on a pro-rata basis to current shareholders and, for those currently running the club, that is fraught with problems.
If, for instance, Morton House bought 42% of the new shares but some of the rest went unsold, that could take them above the overall 50% threshold that might trigger a sale to Southall.
Morton House have refused to cooperate with the EFL inquiry. However, the EFL has already interviewed a number of significant people involved in the situation and their work is on-going. According to their regulations, deals done without seeking prior approval when required are regarded as misconduct, which has the potential to attract fines for individuals depending on who is viewed as being responsible.
Meanwhile, Rochdale, with Simon Gauge - like Bottomley, a long-time supporter - as chair, try to navigate their way through choppy waters, on and off the pitch.
All sides are adamant they have the long-term future of the club in mind. Evidently, they have very different visions of what the future looks like.
At a time where Newcastle fans are celebrating the influx of 'new' money and Derby's administrators are dealing with the consequences of an owner who spent too much, lower down the pyramid, Rochdale are approaching a crossroads.
For a proud, historic Football League club, who regard themselves as a community asset in much the same way as Bury - local rivals just six miles down the road - did, their very existence could hinge on them making the right choices. |
Here is a snapshot of the page as of 12.10.2021 18:11:00
https://web.archive.org/web/20211012181106/ https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/58883213
In case Wayback Machine drops that link, I screen grabbed it and stuck it in my public cloud space here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zQ8_vRiFlfOHUdWh_EukQ4Yv2ySJ2879/view?usp=shari [Post edited 14 Oct 2021 20:50]
|  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:14 - Oct 15 with 2869 views | tony_roch975 |
Come on Robbie - off the park we fans are playing a stormer and beating all opposition; time for you boys on the park to step up | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:31 - Oct 15 with 2823 views | wozzrafc |
Shall we hold our breath for an apology or an amended more balanced article? The damage has been done just removing it with no explanation is just as bad!!! | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:55 - Oct 15 with 2771 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Shocking BBC article. on 14:31 - Oct 15 by wozzrafc |
Shall we hold our breath for an apology or an amended more balanced article? The damage has been done just removing it with no explanation is just as bad!!! |
As good an admittance of wrongdoing as you’ll ever see.
It’s a good job that many fans have the PDF of both articles - the original from 12th October and the slightly edited 2nd version from 13th October.
The club said they had complained and that complaint appears to have grounds, certainly enough for the BBC to pull the false article. | |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 15:22 - Oct 15 with 2709 views | BigKindo |
Perhaps Stone has had his knuckles rapped or his fingers burned. In future, if he has any future in sports journalism, he should be wary of those that drip feed inside information without his approaching those at the Club and/or Trust who are prepared to assist in a proper and correct manner. A broadsheet newspaper would be expected to print a retraction and apologise to readers. But this is the publicly funded BBC perhaps run by a bureaucracy and establishment whose incompetence knows no bounds.
So Stone here is a tip. Have a look through your contact lists and perhaps delete some of the details you have with past Dale employees.
Edited out of respect for Sir David Amess. [Post edited 16 Oct 2021 9:07]
|  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 23:05 - Nov 10 with 1851 views | Sandyman |
Bog standard obfuscation:
Received tonight - 21:25
We are contacting you to apologise that we’ve not been able to reply to your complaint within the time period we aim for. Although we manage this for most complaints, we regret it’s not been possible so far because we have been dealing with a higher than normal number of cases.
If you wish to refer this delay and the substance of your complaint to the BBC’s regulator Ofcom, you can do so online at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint/bbc-tv or by post to: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA. Please include for Ofcom your latest correspondence from and to the BBC and any BBC case reference numbers which you have been given.
Full details of the BBC’s complaints process can be found by visiting https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint, and details of Ofcom’s complaints process are available at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/guidanc
In the meantime we appreciate your patience and will respond as soon as we can.
Kind regards
BBC Complaints Team
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. |  | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:47 - Nov 11 with 1485 views | Zac_B |
I have just received this:
Thank you for contacting us about an article on the BBC Sport website.
After hearing from fans and the club itself, we made the decision to take down the original article to allow us to investigate the story further. Since then we have republished an updated version of the piece, with further input from the club:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58883213
The Rochdale AFC Chairman has released a statement on the updated version of the article, which can be read here:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/october/bbcarticlestatement/ | | | |
| Shocking BBC article. on 15:17 - Nov 11 with 1351 views | DaleiLama |
| Shocking BBC article. on 13:47 - Nov 11 by Zac_B |
I have just received this:
Thank you for contacting us about an article on the BBC Sport website.
After hearing from fans and the club itself, we made the decision to take down the original article to allow us to investigate the story further. Since then we have republished an updated version of the piece, with further input from the club:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58883213
The Rochdale AFC Chairman has released a statement on the updated version of the article, which can be read here:
https://www.rochdaleafc.co.uk/news/2021/october/bbcarticlestatement/ |
Got word for word the same response.
Someone's going to have a lot of Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V to do today. |  |
| |
| Shocking BBC article. on 18:02 - Nov 11 with 1221 views | Sandyman |
| Shocking BBC article. on 15:17 - Nov 11 by DaleiLama |
Got word for word the same response.
Someone's going to have a lot of Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V to do today. |
Got one of those replies as well. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
