SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Clark Griswold]

5 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

Hamilton showing signs of extreme "going concern". Seems they are in £400, 000 worth of debt and owing £10,000 on some credit card. 

 

 

 

Peebles  

[queensferryjambo]

3 minutes ago, husref musemic said:

The fans who are laughing at us now will be laughing at you when you hand them your cash.

 

THIS 100% 

 

People need to get this into their heads.

[Des Lynam]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

Sunday Mail IPSO response

 

 

Dear Complainants,

 

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “DON’T START NEW WAR”, published by the Sunday Mail on 17 May 2020.

 

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article.  In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.

 

When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complaints expressed concern that the article was highly offensive, inflammatory and distasteful. Complainants said that the picture of the knife was inappropriate and insensitive, especially as knife crime is a growing problem in the U.K.  We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy.  Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on. Therefore, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) as it constituted harassment towards Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs, including members of their board and supporters. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.

 

Many complainants expressed concern that the article could incite hatred or violence. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, then you may wish to take these concerns to the police.  IPSO only considers concerns under the terms of the Editors’ Code and cannot offer advice on criminal matters.

 

Many complainants said the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs including their supporters. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. The concern that the article discriminated against the two football clubs and their supporters in general did not relate to an individual, nor did it relate to a category protected by Clause 12. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it included a picture of a knife. Complainants said this was misleading as knives were not relevant to the story and the use of the photo associated Scottish football with violent crime.  Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, including photographs, , as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code.  This includes the selection and presentation of photographs.  In this instance, the use of the photograph did not make the article significantly misleading. The article as a whole made clear that the photograph of the knife was a reference to a potential “civil war” in Scottish football over proposals to reconfigure the leagues. This was made clear in both the photograph’s caption and the first few paragraphs of the article, which referenced “a last-ditch plea for league reconstruction” which could spark opposition. We did not therefore find the use of the photograph misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this particular point.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported there could be a “new civil war” in Scottish football. Complainants said this was misleading as the Chair of Heart of Midlothian, Ann Budge, did not intend to start a “war”.  The Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, editorialise and campaign, as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. In this instance, we did not consider the publication’s use of the word “war” significantly misleading in the way some complainants suggested.  This was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of events. The basis of this characterisation was made clear, with the article suggesting that the proposals put forward by Ann Budge were likely to result in “opposition” and “infighting”. The reference to a “war” was also based on similar comments from Iain McMenemy, Chair of Stenhousemuir, who stated that the proposals could result in “six more weeks of civil war”. Therefore, where the article made clear the basis of the phrase “new civil war”, we did not consider the article  misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as it was sensationalist.  Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It does not relate to concerns that reporting is sensationalist, where no inaccuracies are identified. The Preamble to the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, to challenge and to be partisan.  Therefore, concerns that this article was sensationalist did not engage the terms of this Clause.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock) because it was inflammatory and offensive. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about, individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a distressing event. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. As such the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) because the article incited  violence and was inappropriate. Clause 9 generally relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged. 

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because it sought to undermine Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters.  In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. Therefore, the terms of Clause 10 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants expressed a concern that this article was biased against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs and their supporters. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of bias or balance.  It makes clear that newspapers have the right to be partisan, to give their own opinion and to campaign, as long as they take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. As such, concern that this article was biased did not, in and of itself, raise a possible breach of the Code.

 

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.

 

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sebastian Harwood

 

Cc

 

The Sunday Mail

 

 

 

 

Sebastian Harwood Complaints Officer

IPSO Gate House 1 Farringdon Street London EC4M 7LG

Tel: 0300 123 2220 Website: www.ipso.co.uk

IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.

Follow us on Twitter:www.twitter.com/IpsoNews

Email Disclaimer The information contained in this email, and any attached or linked information, is intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, protected by copyright, or subject to legal privilege. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system without disclosing or copying it. We try to keep our network free from viruses, but can take no responsibility for any virus which may be transferred by way of this email. Use of this email facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Independent Press Standards Organisation (CIC), Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London EC4M 7LG

 

 

 

 

Knife crime  

 

What a pathetic whinging world we live in. 

[merseyjambo]

All these minnow teams like Clyde and Stenny who think that they are going to get bumper gates when Falkirk or Patrick come to town are going to be sadly disappointed because their fans like ours are fed up being dictated to by these smaller outfits and are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of a mass boycott by away fans of these clubs at their grounds.

 

Hopefully our fans will do the same and commit the funds from away tickets to some sort of fund that the club can use. 

[Seaside jambo]

15 minutes ago, Rods said:

Yeh I am getting the feeling this is a bluff

 

Initiate court proceedings now and then see the process speed up.

I’m with you on this 

[neilnunb]

Court please.

 

 

 

 

 

[queensferryjambo]

1 minute ago, merseyjambo said:

Hopefully our fans will do the same and commit the funds from away tickets to some sort of fund that the club can use. 

 

I am hoping the club open The Gorgie suite on away days - I don't even care if they show any football - I will just spend my away ticket money and more on getting pished and spending the day with like minded Hearts fans.

 

Make it happen Ann  

[AHS51]

So clubs are getting almost a week to decide on reconstruction but got only 2 days to decide on ending the season. Again highlighting how backwards we are in this country 

[SMJ_1874]

4 hours ago, HMFC01 said:

 

👍👏  Yep she shouldn't have to reign this whole shambles in herself, that's what it looks like.  Not seen much from that Hamilton clown for a bit either, the guy that's meant to be sharing responsibility.  

We don’t need Hamilton to help save us. Our chairman is doing a grand job on this front. I’m pretty sure reconstruction will be voted through from what I hear. Expect an announcement Monday or Tuesday next week. There’s more positives than negatives for sure. Aces high always wins! 

[Robbo-Jambo]

15 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

The same thought occurred to me.    That there will be a continuing number of steps and stages.   Always something on the horizon to wait for before the book is closed.    All for the purpose of delaying and preventing us commencing the legal route.

 

 

Maybe we should give them our own time limit. 

 

Make a decision by x date or court it is. 

[Hector Riva]

2 minutes ago, AHS51 said:

So clubs are getting almost a week to decide on reconstruction but got only 2 days to decide on ending the season. Again highlighting how backwards we are in this country 

This. Unbelievable. 

[jr ewing]

6 minutes ago, merseyjambo said:

All these minnow teams like Clyde and Stenny who think that they are going to get bumper gates when Falkirk or Patrick come to town are going to be sadly disappointed because their fans like ours are fed up being dictated to by these smaller outfits and are likely to find themselves on the wrong end of a mass boycott by away fans of these clubs at their grounds.

 

Hopefully our fans will do the same and commit the funds from away tickets to some sort of fund that the club can use. 

No one will be there to watch anyway.

 

[King prawn]

Reading the comments on the BBC message board makes me hope other clubs go bust over this. More than happy to watch us face this expulsion from the league with the possibility of not playing any games. **** them. 

[Fxxx the SPFL]

3 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

We don’t need Hamilton to help save us. Our chairman is doing a grand job on this front. I’m pretty sure reconstruction will be voted through from what I hear. Expect an announcement Monday or Tuesday next week. There’s more positives than negatives for sure. Aces high always wins! 

source

[jr ewing]

4 minutes ago, AHS51 said:

So clubs are getting almost a week to decide on reconstruction but got only 2 days to decide on ending the season. Again highlighting how backwards we are in this country 

Watch the Dundee vote carefully. 

[redjambo]

Just now, jr ewing said:

Watch the Dundee vote carefully. 

 

Which of the Dundee votes?

 

I know, I know, but it never gets old...

[merrymac]

13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Sunday Mail IPSO response

 

 

Dear Complainants,

 

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “DON’T START NEW WAR”, published by the Sunday Mail on 17 May 2020.

 

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article.  In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.

 

When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complaints expressed concern that the article was highly offensive, inflammatory and distasteful. Complainants said that the picture of the knife was inappropriate and insensitive, especially as knife crime is a growing problem in the U.K.  We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy.  Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on. Therefore, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) as it constituted harassment towards Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs, including members of their board and supporters. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.

 

Many complainants expressed concern that the article could incite hatred or violence. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, then you may wish to take these concerns to the police.  IPSO only considers concerns under the terms of the Editors’ Code and cannot offer advice on criminal matters.

 

Many complainants said the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs including their supporters. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. The concern that the article discriminated against the two football clubs and their supporters in general did not relate to an individual, nor did it relate to a category protected by Clause 12. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it included a picture of a knife. Complainants said this was misleading as knives were not relevant to the story and the use of the photo associated Scottish football with violent crime.  Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, including photographs, , as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code.  This includes the selection and presentation of photographs.  In this instance, the use of the photograph did not make the article significantly misleading. The article as a whole made clear that the photograph of the knife was a reference to a potential “civil war” in Scottish football over proposals to reconfigure the leagues. This was made clear in both the photograph’s caption and the first few paragraphs of the article, which referenced “a last-ditch plea for league reconstruction” which could spark opposition. We did not therefore find the use of the photograph misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this particular point.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported there could be a “new civil war” in Scottish football. Complainants said this was misleading as the Chair of Heart of Midlothian, Ann Budge, did not intend to start a “war”.  The Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, editorialise and campaign, as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. In this instance, we did not consider the publication’s use of the word “war” significantly misleading in the way some complainants suggested.  This was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of events. The basis of this characterisation was made clear, with the article suggesting that the proposals put forward by Ann Budge were likely to result in “opposition” and “infighting”. The reference to a “war” was also based on similar comments from Iain McMenemy, Chair of Stenhousemuir, who stated that the proposals could result in “six more weeks of civil war”. Therefore, where the article made clear the basis of the phrase “new civil war”, we did not consider the article  misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as it was sensationalist.  Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It does not relate to concerns that reporting is sensationalist, where no inaccuracies are identified. The Preamble to the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, to challenge and to be partisan.  Therefore, concerns that this article was sensationalist did not engage the terms of this Clause.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock) because it was inflammatory and offensive. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about, individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a distressing event. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. As such the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) because the article incited  violence and was inappropriate. Clause 9 generally relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged. 

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because it sought to undermine Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters.  In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. Therefore, the terms of Clause 10 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants expressed a concern that this article was biased against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs and their supporters. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of bias or balance.  It makes clear that newspapers have the right to be partisan, to give their own opinion and to campaign, as long as they take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. As such, concern that this article was biased did not, in and of itself, raise a possible breach of the Code.

 

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.

 

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sebastian Harwood

 

Cc

 

The Sunday Mail

 

 

 

 

Sebastian Harwood Complaints Officer

IPSO Gate House 1 Farringdon Street London EC4M 7LG

Tel: 0300 123 2220 Website: www.ipso.co.uk

IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.

Follow us on Twitter:www.twitter.com/IpsoNews

Email Disclaimer The information contained in this email, and any attached or linked information, is intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, protected by copyright, or subject to legal privilege. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system without disclosing or copying it. We try to keep our network free from viruses, but can take no responsibility for any virus which may be transferred by way of this email. Use of this email facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Independent Press Standards Organisation (CIC), Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London EC4M 7LG

 

 

 

 

Just received this as well.

Total whitewash, hiding behind specifics instead of accepting the general tone  depicted by the picture.

NO wonder the press feel they can pretty much do what they want.

Also the Sunday Mail published an apology????

[BelgeJambo]

Apart from the legal route, there is nothing else we can do to drag Scottish football out of this shit hole

 

Offered Facilities 

Offered to Fund Testing

Offered to fund VAR

Proposed league reconstruction.

 

When it goes tits up, They won’t like “I told you so“

 

[Fire_At_The_Disco]

4 minutes ago, jr ewing said:

Watch the Dundee vote carefully. 

Dundee won’t vote till Celtic tell them to

[Fraggle]

1 minute ago, Seaside jambo said:

I’m with you on this 

As I said previously, I think we will get a better idea over the next couple of days when we either see the same large scale concerted efforts from Doncaster and co in the media (as we saw with all the major events leading up to this) to push this idea through, or if they all suddenly become mute, deaf and blind and unreachable for comment. 

 

As for Hamilton and their precarious financial position .... **** 'um.

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, merrymac said:

Just received this as well.

Total whitewash, hiding behind specifics instead of accepting the general tone  depicted by the picture.

NO wonder the press feel they can pretty much do what they want.

Also the Sunday Mail published an apology????

 

The Editors' Code seems pretty restricted and specific, so there's not much more that can be done.

 

Anyway, the Sunday Mail did publish an apology and contacted both clubs to apologise, so time to move on.

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

In context by lawyer I  meant QC. I repeat a QC is a lawyer. I think only one of the authors was a QC but that is a detail. I have read many QCs opinions and it was that which led to my comment. It reads to me like a summary or extract so there may well  be more to it e.g. in assessing alternative arguments which would normally be included. My basic point is that QCs are far from infallible and they tend to lean towards what their paying clients want to hear. In my experience. 

 

Ah, so basically it’s not very convincing because you said so. Righto!

[highlandjambo3]

20 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Sunday Mail IPSO response

 

 

Dear Complainants,

 

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “DON’T START NEW WAR”, published by the Sunday Mail on 17 May 2020.

 

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article.  In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.

 

When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complaints expressed concern that the article was highly offensive, inflammatory and distasteful. Complainants said that the picture of the knife was inappropriate and insensitive, especially as knife crime is a growing problem in the U.K.  We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy.  Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on. Therefore, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) as it constituted harassment towards Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs, including members of their board and supporters. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.

 

Many complainants expressed concern that the article could incite hatred or violence. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, then you may wish to take these concerns to the police.  IPSO only considers concerns under the terms of the Editors’ Code and cannot offer advice on criminal matters.

 

Many complainants said the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs including their supporters. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. The concern that the article discriminated against the two football clubs and their supporters in general did not relate to an individual, nor did it relate to a category protected by Clause 12. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it included a picture of a knife. Complainants said this was misleading as knives were not relevant to the story and the use of the photo associated Scottish football with violent crime.  Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, including photographs, , as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code.  This includes the selection and presentation of photographs.  In this instance, the use of the photograph did not make the article significantly misleading. The article as a whole made clear that the photograph of the knife was a reference to a potential “civil war” in Scottish football over proposals to reconfigure the leagues. This was made clear in both the photograph’s caption and the first few paragraphs of the article, which referenced “a last-ditch plea for league reconstruction” which could spark opposition. We did not therefore find the use of the photograph misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this particular point.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported there could be a “new civil war” in Scottish football. Complainants said this was misleading as the Chair of Heart of Midlothian, Ann Budge, did not intend to start a “war”.  The Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, editorialise and campaign, as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. In this instance, we did not consider the publication’s use of the word “war” significantly misleading in the way some complainants suggested.  This was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of events. The basis of this characterisation was made clear, with the article suggesting that the proposals put forward by Ann Budge were likely to result in “opposition” and “infighting”. The reference to a “war” was also based on similar comments from Iain McMenemy, Chair of Stenhousemuir, who stated that the proposals could result in “six more weeks of civil war”. Therefore, where the article made clear the basis of the phrase “new civil war”, we did not consider the article  misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as it was sensationalist.  Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It does not relate to concerns that reporting is sensationalist, where no inaccuracies are identified. The Preamble to the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, to challenge and to be partisan.  Therefore, concerns that this article was sensationalist did not engage the terms of this Clause.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock) because it was inflammatory and offensive. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about, individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a distressing event. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. As such the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) because the article incited  violence and was inappropriate. Clause 9 generally relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged. 

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because it sought to undermine Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters.  In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. Therefore, the terms of Clause 10 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants expressed a concern that this article was biased against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs and their supporters. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of bias or balance.  It makes clear that newspapers have the right to be partisan, to give their own opinion and to campaign, as long as they take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. As such, concern that this article was biased did not, in and of itself, raise a possible breach of the Code.

 

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.

 

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sebastian Harwood

 

Cc

 

The Sunday Mail

 

 

 

 

Sebastian Harwood Complaints Officer

IPSO Gate House 1 Farringdon Street London EC4M 7LG

Tel: 0300 123 2220 Website: www.ipso.co.uk

IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.

Follow us on Twitter:www.twitter.com/IpsoNews

Email Disclaimer The information contained in this email, and any attached or linked information, is intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, protected by copyright, or subject to legal privilege. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system without disclosing or copying it. We try to keep our network free from viruses, but can take no responsibility for any virus which may be transferred by way of this email. Use of this email facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Independent Press Standards Organisation (CIC), Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London EC4M 7LG     So......in amongst all the smoke/mirrors and waffle above, they are saying that the article was generally ok.  Aye right enough.

 

 

 

 

 

[sac]

29 minutes ago, Rods said:

Yeh I am getting the feeling this is a bluff

 

Initiate court proceedings now and then see the process speed up.

Or at least indicate we are now consulting with the legal people In preparation if the recon vote fails, just to let them know we are defo not pissing about.

[Victorian]

Our timetable should be to wait until the SFA / government talks and the Premiership reaction to the proposals and then act.     

 

Call a halt to the delay tactics.

Make a statement re legal action

Allow 48 hours for them to mull it over.

Start the legal action.

[merrymac]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

The Editors' Code seems pretty restricted and specific, so there's not much more that can be done.

 

Anyway, the Sunday Mail did publish an apology and contacted both clubs to apologise, so time to move on.

Its almost as bad as an 11-1 voting system

[Fozzyonthefence]

39 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

Another 5 days wasted. Get the vote over and done with and move on to the serious stuff where these clubs don’t get to piss on our cornflakes anymore. 

[Hairdryer]

24 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

Sunday Mail IPSO response

 

 

Dear Complainants,

 

I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “DON’T START NEW WAR”, published by the Sunday Mail on 17 May 2020.

 

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has received a number of complaints about this article.  In order to be able to respond in a timely manner, we have prepared a response which deals with the various concerns raised by complaints.

 

When IPSO receives a complaint, the Executive staff review it first to decide whether the complaint falls within our remit, and whether it raises a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We have read your complaint carefully, and have decided that it does not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complaints expressed concern that the article was highly offensive, inflammatory and distasteful. Complainants said that the picture of the knife was inappropriate and insensitive, especially as knife crime is a growing problem in the U.K.  We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of taste or offence. It is designed to deal with any possible conflicts between newspapers’ right to freedom of expression and the rights of individuals, such as their right to privacy.  Newspapers and magazine are free to publish what they think is appropriate as long as the rights of individuals – which are protected under the Code – are not infringed on. Therefore, concerns that the article was offensive and inappropriate did not engage of the terms of the Editors’ Code.

 

Many complainants said that the article breached Clause 3 (Harassment) as it constituted harassment towards Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs, including members of their board and supporters. Clause 3 generally relates to the way journalists behave when researching a news story and is meant to protect people from being repeatedly approached by the press against their wishes. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 3 were not engaged.

 

Many complainants expressed concern that the article could incite hatred or violence. If you believe that the article was inciting hatred or violence, then you may wish to take these concerns to the police.  IPSO only considers concerns under the terms of the Editors’ Code and cannot offer advice on criminal matters.

 

Many complainants said the article breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) because it discriminated against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs including their supporters. Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. The concern that the article discriminated against the two football clubs and their supporters in general did not relate to an individual, nor did it relate to a category protected by Clause 12. This meant that it did not engage the terms of this Clause. For more information about Clause 12 and how it works, this blog may be of interest.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it included a picture of a knife. Complainants said this was misleading as knives were not relevant to the story and the use of the photo associated Scottish football with violent crime.  Newspapers have the right to choose which pieces of information they publish, including photographs, , as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code.  This includes the selection and presentation of photographs.  In this instance, the use of the photograph did not make the article significantly misleading. The article as a whole made clear that the photograph of the knife was a reference to a potential “civil war” in Scottish football over proposals to reconfigure the leagues. This was made clear in both the photograph’s caption and the first few paragraphs of the article, which referenced “a last-ditch plea for league reconstruction” which could spark opposition. We did not therefore find the use of the photograph misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1 on this particular point.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) because it reported there could be a “new civil war” in Scottish football. Complainants said this was misleading as the Chair of Heart of Midlothian, Ann Budge, did not intend to start a “war”.  The Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, editorialise and campaign, as long as they do not otherwise breach the Code. In this instance, we did not consider the publication’s use of the word “war” significantly misleading in the way some complainants suggested.  This was clearly the newspaper’s characterisation of events. The basis of this characterisation was made clear, with the article suggesting that the proposals put forward by Ann Budge were likely to result in “opposition” and “infighting”. The reference to a “war” was also based on similar comments from Iain McMenemy, Chair of Stenhousemuir, who stated that the proposals could result in “six more weeks of civil war”. Therefore, where the article made clear the basis of the phrase “new civil war”, we did not consider the article  misleading in the way you suggested. There was no possible breach of Clause 1.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) as it was sensationalist.  Clause 1 requires publications to take care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information, and to correct significantly inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. It does not relate to concerns that reporting is sensationalist, where no inaccuracies are identified. The Preamble to the Editors’ Code makes clear that the press has the right to shock, to challenge and to be partisan.  Therefore, concerns that this article was sensationalist did not engage the terms of this Clause.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 4 (Intrusion into grief and shock) because it was inflammatory and offensive. Clause 4 generally relates to the sensitivity of the approaches journalists make to, and the information they publish about, individuals who have been bereaved or are in state of shock following a distressing event. In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. As such the terms of Clause 4 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 9 (Reporting of crime) because the article incited  violence and was inappropriate. Clause 9 generally relates to the identification of the friends and family of individuals who are accused or convicted of crime. As the concerns we received did not relate to this, the terms of Clause 9 were not engaged. 

 

Some complainants said the article breached Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) because it sought to undermine Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs. Clause 10 relates to the obtaining of information by journalists through clandestine means or by deploying subterfuge – for instance, by using undercover reporters.  In this instance, the concerns we received did not relate to this. Therefore, the terms of Clause 10 were not engaged.

 

Some complainants expressed a concern that this article was biased against Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle football clubs and their supporters. We should note that the Editors’ Code does not address the issues of bias or balance.  It makes clear that newspapers have the right to be partisan, to give their own opinion and to campaign, as long as they take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, and to distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. As such, concern that this article was biased did not, in and of itself, raise a possible breach of the Code.

 

You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.

 

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.

 

Best wishes,

 

Sebastian Harwood

 

Cc

 

The Sunday Mail

 

 

 

 

Sebastian Harwood Complaints Officer

IPSO Gate House 1 Farringdon Street London EC4M 7LG

Tel: 0300 123 2220 Website: www.ipso.co.uk

IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking redress where they believe that the Editors’ Code of Practice has been breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.

Follow us on Twitter:www.twitter.com/IpsoNews

Email Disclaimer The information contained in this email, and any attached or linked information, is intended for the named recipient only and may contain information that is confidential, protected by copyright, or subject to legal privilege. If you received it in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete it from your system without disclosing or copying it. We try to keep our network free from viruses, but can take no responsibility for any virus which may be transferred by way of this email. Use of this email facility signifies consent to any interception we might lawfully carry out to prevent abuse of these facilities. Independent Press Standards Organisation (CIC), Gate House, 1 Farringdon Street, London EC4M 7LG

 

 

 

 

I received the same response 

[Jammy T]

So am I right in saying that didn’t clubs could **** us over by making sure we stay expelled 
 

Then when we are ready to start the season and they can’t field a team

against us they won’t get punished and we won’t get awarded a 3-0 win because....

 

Because what? 
 

How can the rules be twisted that much? How can you prevent clubs who can get play football and punish them and not the clubs who couldn’t keep their house in order?

 

Its like making sure the thick kids in class get more attention from their teachers than the bright ones. A race to the bottom.

[TheBigO]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Another 5 days wasted. Get the vote over and done with and move on to the serious stuff where these clubs don’t get to piss on our cornflakes anymore. 

No no, another week may be enough for a bit more reality to set in to these deadbrains.

 

Some reality on the video call about Sky pulling out or dropping the price drastically will help.

 

Also, the reality of Fridays government decision on when and how football may return might sharpen minds.

 

If Lawell has told Doncaster, this reconstruction is the way forward, these meetings are his chance to clearly state what yes and no votes mean to these diddies

 

[Francis Albert]

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

Ah, so basically it’s not very convincing because you said so. Righto!

...  like those who were convinced by it because they said so ... with rather less explanation than I have given for my opinion … righto.

it is a message board not a court.

[Koolkeith]

22 minutes ago, queensferryjambo said:

 

I am hoping the club open The Gorgie suite on away days - I don't even care if they show any football - I will just spend my away ticket money and more on getting pished and spending the day with like minded Hearts fans.

 

Make it happen Ann  

The bar will be open as normal at the very least.

[Newton51]

21 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

We don’t need Hamilton to help save us. Our chairman is doing a grand job on this front. I’m pretty sure reconstruction will be voted through from what I hear. Expect an announcement Monday or Tuesday next week. There’s more positives than negatives for sure. Aces high always wins! 

 

Hopefully this happens as seems like delaying tactics at mo

[John Findlay]

I think there are going to be quite a few robust conversations between now and Monday, especially after Friday when the Scottish government say no football in front of crowds before October at the earliest.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Jammy T said:

So am I right in saying that didn’t clubs could **** us over by making sure we stay expelled 
 

Then when we are ready to start the season and they can’t field a team

against us they won’t get punished and we won’t get awarded a 3-0 win because....

 

Because what? 
 

How can the rules be twisted that much? How can you prevent clubs who can get play football and punish them and not the clubs who couldn’t keep their house in order?

 

Its like making sure the thick kids in class get more attention from their teachers than the bright ones. A race to the bottom.

 

1.     Leadership vacuum at SPFL.

2.     Industrial strength stupidity.

3.     Industrial strength delusion.

4.     Naked dishonesty.

 

[Francis Albert]

7 minutes ago, Hairdryer said:

I received the same response 

…. the IPSO   terms are less easy to engage than the most retiring of Victorian virgins.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Francis Albert

[EIEIO]

1 minute ago, Victorian said:

 

1.     Leadership vacuum at SPFL.

2.     Industrial strength stupidity.

3.     Industrial strength delusion.

4.     Naked dishonesty.

 

Nicely summarised.

[David McCaig]

5 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I think there are going to be quite a few robust conversations between now and Monday, especially after Friday when the Scottish government say no football in front of crowds before October at the earliest.

You seriously think there will be mass gatherings in October!!!

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, Koolkeith said:

The bar will be open as normal at the very least.

With improved quality Hearts TV audio commentary at the very least

[Kobayashi Maroon]

Just a thought but this is effectively the first offer to all the clubs, none of them should accept the first offer, would you? I don't. They will all be looking for what they can get, well we know that, but none of them will come out at this stage and say that's great lets go!

 

And actually a good move by the SPFL with the Premiership clubs having the first meeting, if that passes the rest will follow suit but they will still try and get what they can out of the whole situation. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Kobayashi Maroon

[Francis Albert]

10 minutes ago, Jammy T said:

So am I right in saying that didn’t clubs could **** us over by making sure we stay expelled 
 

Then when we are ready to start the season and they can’t field a team

against us they won’t get punished and we won’t get awarded a 3-0 win because....

 

Because what? 
 

How can the rules be twisted that much? How can you prevent clubs who can get play football and punish them and not the clubs who couldn’t keep their house in order?

 

Its like making sure the thick kids in class get more attention from their teachers than the bright ones. A race to the bottom.

Beyond parody.

And you can be sure if we refuse to field a team for the travesty of playing out last seasons cup we will be fined and/or banned from the competition next time.

[heartsfc_fan]

31 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

We don’t need Hamilton to help save us. Our chairman is doing a grand job on this front. I’m pretty sure reconstruction will be voted through from what I hear. Expect an announcement Monday or Tuesday next week. There’s more positives than negatives for sure. Aces high always wins! 

Please be true

[John Findlay]

5 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

You seriously think there will be mass gatherings in October!!!

In certain places now there have been mass gatherings. I guarantee beaches will be busy this coming weekend.

[Mikey1874]

9 minutes ago, Kobayashi Maroon said:

Just a thought but this is effectively the first offer to all the clubs, none of them should accept the first offer, would you? I don't. They will all be looking for what they can get, well we know that, but none of them will come out at this stage and say that's great lets go!

 

And actually a good move by the SPFL with the Premiership clubs having the first meeting, if that passes the rest will follow suit but they will still try and get what they can out of the whole situation. 

 

The proposal from Ann Budge is presumably a draft and can be amended.

 

The eventual Resolution for a vote could be from and promoted by the SPFL.

[TheBigO]

19 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

I think there are going to be quite a few robust conversations between now and Monday, especially after Friday when the Scottish government say no football in front of crowds before October at the earliest.

Yup, how I see it

[Mikey1874]

Overall there remains a chance. 

Edited May 27, 2020 by Mikey1874

[TheBigO]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

The proposal from Ann Budge is presumably a draft and can be amended.

 

The eventual Resolution for a vote could be from and promoted by the SPFL.

I'd wondered similar.

[jollyjams]

51 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

Jeez that brings back memories had a red one

[TheBigO]

Just now, jollyjams said:

Jeez that brings back memories had a red one

A red jesus?

[Jamboelite]

If there is any truth in the rumour Sky would prefer us in it or that the legal case is stronger than we know then i expect a fair few club chairman being contacted before next week.

 

The alternative is that its a stalling tactic and no one gives a shit about reconstruction or legal threats and will bin it, and for me that is just as likely.

 

Im not sure how strong a case we have, or willingness to fight it, but should the Government announce no mass gatherings for 6months then it doesnt matter what happens as reconstruction is inevitable.

 

If the season in the Championship is mothballed who makes that decision ? is it the board or a vote, and if it is a vote whats the % needed.

If we get ****ed on that vote too then we are in trouble.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Jamboelite