BBC - Figures, facts and stats about Scottish football.

[RANGERRAB 3,453]

Yep, but why do people of the BBC, paid with your money, tell half-truths (if not downright lies) to the public? DESPITE being already reprimanded by their own controlling institution?

 

Easy answer - because the BBC is a state-owned broadcaster accountable to no one whose employees by and large can do what they like. Until the outdated licence fee is scrapped this will continue after which they'll need to compete in the real business world. That will mean ditching some of the pondlife at Pacific Quay who misuse their positions to put out stories, facts & figures they know are fictitious but do so for their own purposes. Professional broadcasters wouldn't employ these people

Edited August 20, 2016 by RANGERRAB

[Tannochsidebear 2,368]

Easy answer - because the BBC is a state-owned broadcaster accountable to no one whose employees by and large can do what they like. Until the outdated licence fee is scrapped this will continue after which they'll need to compete in the real business world. That will mean ditching some of the pondlife at Pacific Quay who misuse their positions to put out stories, facts & figures they know are fictitious but do so for their own purposes. Professional broadcasters wouldn't employ these people

 

While I admire the sentiment , the facts don't bear that out. Walker, Sutton, Hartson, all in high profile media positions in commercial companies. Of non-players, the list is endless from andrew smith to mark guidi with dozens in between.

 

Our decades of dignified silence has lost us the media war, and it will probably take a decade and more to reverse IF there was a will to do so.

[RANGERRAB 3,453]

While I admire the sentiment , the facts don't bear that out. Walker, Sutton, Hartson, all in high profile media positions in commercial companies. Of non-players, the list is endless from andrew smith to mark guidi with dozens in between.

 

Our decades of dignified silence has lost us the media war, and it will probably take a decade and more to reverse IF there was a will to do so.

 

There is a difference. We have a choice whether we suscribe to the likes of SKY or not & I don't think Walker, Sutton & Hartson are anywhere near as bad as BBC Scotland. If they were I don't think they'd last long.

As for Andrew H Smith he works for a local paper called the Scotsman which only sells 23k daily so hot really relevant

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I don't know now you guys muster the energy to care about this.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

They would re-write history if we gave them half a chance GS. We know the truth but it's how others who are looking from the outside not in possession of the full facts would perceive it.

Many people from overseas still click on and reference the BBC information services. That's why they peddle this spurious pish.

[der Berliner 3,554]

Easy answer - because the BBC is a state-owned broadcaster accountable to no one whose employees by and large can do what they like. Until the outdated licence fee is scrapped this will continue after which they'll need to compete in the real business world. That will mean ditching some of the pondlife at Pacific Quay who misuse their positions to put out stories, facts & figures they know are fictitious but do so for their own purposes. Professional broadcasters wouldn't employ these people

 

It was complained about and ...

 

Two entered liquidation proceedings: Gretna and Rangers.

 

And BTW, inactivity allows them to use the name of the BBC to besmirch the name and stature of our club, you and me included. I for one can't understand people who think that this ain't something worth opposing at every opportunity. No-one is asking you (or anyone else) to do something directly or in person, but to say "ach well, let them be" is capitulating to these trolls and liars.