Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/43/d591030119/htdocs/clickandbuilds/CMS1/wp-includes/pomo/plural-forms.php on line 210

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/43/d591030119/htdocs/clickandbuilds/CMS1/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php on line 77

Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/43/d591030119/htdocs/clickandbuilds/CMS1/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/_inc/lib/class.media-summary.php on line 87
Fury at Reporting Scotland ‘malicious’ Michelle Thomson edit – Towards Indyref2…

Fury at Reporting Scotland ‘malicious’ Michelle Thomson edit

Producers of the evening news programme Reporting Scotland have been accused of deliberately manipulating two separate video clips in order to make a former SNP MP, who has been cleared of wrongdoing, appear guilty of fraud.

During the introduction to Tuesday night’s flagship news programme viewers were presented with a short preview of key stories. The second preview related to former SNP MP Michelle Thomson who it had earlier emerged would not be facing police charges after an investigation.

However the clip of Ms Thomson was immediately followed by a clip of a judge who said: “What you did was truly reprehensible.”  The juxtaposition of both clips made it appear as though the former SNP MP herself was the target of the judge’s remarks.

There was fury on social media following the broadcast with many people accusing the BBC of having deliberately spliced the two clips together in order to give the appearance of guilt on the part of the former MP.

One angry twitter user said: “Seriously malicious edit here from @BBCScotlandNews. Even added dissolve to frame judge as part of Michelle Thomson story. Incredible.”

Another insisted the edit was not accidental: “Editorial team choose the stories, the running order, the clips to back up the stories. Accidental? No – subliminal.”

Others accused the BBC of trying to make it appear as though the former SNP MP had been found guilty: “Here is Reporting Scotland editing two unrelated clips together to make Michelle Thomson appear guilty.”

The broadcaster had come under fire earlier that day after it reported the “fraud case” against the former MP had been dropped.

Critics pointed out that, given the former MP had neither been arrested, interviewed under caution or charged then there was never any ‘case’ in the first place.

BBC Scotland correspondent Nick Eardley issued a correction on social media following similar challenges.

Despite confirmation from prosecutors that there is no evidence of wrongdoing, the former SNP MP’s political career is now in ruins. Ms Thomson voluntarily resigned the party whip in September 2015 when the story first emerged. The resignation automatically meant she was suspended from the party.

Her supporters insist that the subsequent political smear campaign launched by the SNP’s opponents and the media storm, including innuendo laden news items broadcast by the BBC, meant she was denied the opportunity to defend the seat she won in 2015.

The BBC news report below is from October 2015.

Please follow and like us 🙂

29 thoughts on “Fury at Reporting Scotland ‘malicious’ Michelle Thomson edit

  1. Harry Molloy

    Gave up watching Biased British Broadcasting company Scottish news , some years ago, as it would have probably ended in me chucking a brick at a perfectly good tv screen. STV local and national news is by far more interesting and a wee bit less Anglo Centric.

  2. Malcolm McCandless

    Utterly contemptible behaviour from Reporting Scotland. Michelle Thomson and her lawyers should register an official complaint to the BBC Trust.

  3. bringiton

    There is nothing subliminal about it.
    Out and out fraud perpetrated by the state broadcaster.
    The question is who gained what from this?
    Let’s see if OFCOM has real teeth or is just there to give the impression of accountability.

  4. kevinparafinlamp

    Another reason why it cuts no ice with us when ‘former BBC’ Yessers inform us there’s x number of pro-indy staff at Pacific Quay. We don’t give a shit. It goes zero-distance to placate us when the BBC in Scotland constantly abuse us and broadcast racism against us. They hate us, while they fanny-up their broadcasts to inform the world that those who work damn-hard serving Scotland are crooks, like the had ‘right’ on their side. Those BBC racists are worse than any bitter football fan. They started this and we know-fine our enemy.
    Those people at the BBC are out to kill our country, damage its future and impoverish its citizens and, as much as I understand there are people there with jobs who are ‘on our side’, I can’t honestly find any sympathy when we’re being so maligned by their employer.

    This all reminds me of the time, around mid/late 2014, when certain jobs within a unionist newspaper were under threat and Yessers tweeted their satisfaction that another cornerstone of the union was crumbling. A tweet by Neil MacKay soon put everyone’s gas at a peep:

    “Anyone gloating over job losses can unfollow me now”..

    If I’d felt then as I feel now I’d have unfollowed him, gladly. He’s busy virtue-signalling while folk are dying through a lack of food in their bellies. Think about that.
    Here we are, 3 years down the line, no Independence, unionist newspapers lying and blackening us at every opportunity, the BBC getting-away with blatant bullying and thuggery and Neil’s at it again, lecturing us. Fuck right off, Neil. Either that, or just shut the hell up. How dare you.

    We’re not a mob, we’re ordinary working and non-working people who want the best for Scotland. We’re well-behaved and decent and we put-up with plenty from the union and their employees. Don’t tell me to back-off, Neil. Don’t lecture me when you’re beering it at the pub with your bosses, not half an hour after they run their scurrilous front pages. Don’t go there with that stuff, son. Yes, we are grateful to have a pro-indy news publication, but don’t go wagging your finger at us because we thank God another rag has drastically falling sales. You know?

    The BBC will diminish in Scotland, jobs will be lost, former employees will struggle, a new, fairer Scotland will prosper, new jobs will be created.
    The BBC aren’t ‘winning’ this, they’re winning nothing.

    1. Mike Pinchard

      Absolutely spot on, unfortunately
      revolution is going to be the only answer if this be doesn’t end soon. I can’t understand how the people of Scotland keep putting up with this pish.

    2. Louis

      That was a good fucking rant. Am sick aye these leftist bourgeoisie cunts spouting shite.

      They show a maligned cancerous discontent for the poor, disposed and downtrodden. If they want tae fight amongst them selves, then go a join, the fucking Tory party, ya bunch ah pretentious pricks.

      Ah want independence, then we can vote for who the fuck we want. Sick aye this neo-liberal bullshit, outsourcing, privatising, deregulating.

  5. Robert Graham

    As always the BBC know the rest of the unionist supporting media will as usual turn a blind eye

    The general public will be unaware of what the BBC are up to , but the usual subliminal message is out there ,

    A regulating authority would and should jump on them from a great height , but the union must be served so nothing will be done ,

    Going through the mind numbing process of complaining to the BBC is pointless , your complaint goes straight in the bin .I have Lost count of their patronising replies

    What is more annoying the SNP have not directly challenged them as the evidence is there .

  6. manandboy

    To be effective in protesting the BBC, name and shame the actual people involved in editing and production.

    To use the name BBC is simply to do what they want, which is to hold no individual/s responsible and to preserve their anonymity – which gives them all the benefits of being ‘under cover’.

    I myself do not watch TV.

  7. PhilM

    I half-agree with this. The only defence they have is the (for want of a better term) ‘impact sound’ that introduces each item. It clearly separates the two items from each other but the dissolve from the first judge clip to the second strikes me as strange. To say the least the editing does seem conflicted in its presentation.
    However because everyone is getting angry about this, and because the BBC has a defence, I think it is better to concentrate on their presentation of headlines and the reporting itself, both of which are compromised by obvious bias. Getting really angry about the intro only plays into the hands of the ‘grievance’ narrative.
    Just my opinion…

  8. Bibbit

    Lady Dorrian I trust will take a very dim view of her words, voice and image being very partially manipulated in this manner. This BBC chicanery has placed the office of Lord Justice Clerk into a very dubious position as Lady Dorrian has been used as a political pawn by the BBC and quite against all propriety and integrity of upholding her office.

    The Principles of Judicial Ethics in Scotland state:

    ‘Propriety, and the appearance of propriety, are essential to the performance of all of the activities of a judge’.

    That propriety was breached by the BBC last night for political propaganda ends.

    By using Lady Dorrian in this manner her office has been brought into disrepute by association.

    The code goes on,

    ‘ judges should always take care that their conduct, official or private, does not undermine their institutional or individual independence, or the public appearance of that independence. Judges themselves should be vigilant to identify and resist any attack upon that independence, by whomsoever or by whatever means.’

    The onus would seem to lie with the judiciary to complain about this to the BBC TRust as the judiciary cannot be used by anyone, not even the BBC, to promote their own agenda.

    On politics the code states:

    ‘It is a cardinal feature of judicial independence that a judge should have no party political involvement of any kind, other than the exercise of his or her right to vote. Furthermore, a judge should do nothing which could give rise to any suggestion of political partisanship, such as involvement in party political controversy.’

    I hope lady Dorrian’s office issues a statement immediately distancing herself and her office from the BBC’s blatant manipulation of lady Dorrian via chicanery and that the judge’s office demands the BBC issue an apology to Lady Dorrian and Ms Thomson or at least clarify that Lady Dorrian’s speech was NOT directed at Michelle Thomson, as the BBC editors and news-team sought quite undoubtedly to imply/aver via this truly shocking and malicious duplicity .

      1. m boyd

        Yes it is Lady Rae. What is worst is that the footage appears to be her passing sentence in the Karen Buckley case. I haven’t seen the full footage so i don’t know what the BBC piece with Lady Rae was in respect of or the context.

  9. Helena

    If I was M.Thomson, I would sue them just for that alone. It clearly, blatantly misreports the outcome, and it clearly portrays M.Thomson as being found guilty by a court judge who’s words are meant to harm the actual reputation of M.T, and the whole thing, is being portrayed as if she were guilty of a heinous crime.

    Absolutely despicable and no matter how much we complain, the damage is done.

    I would take them to the cleaners, sueing them is the only way to ensure that the truth gets out there to the general public. Otherwise, it’s judge and jury by the bbc, and the whole of the media, except of course the National.

  10. Helena

    I also wonder what this judge would have to say about this clear mis representation of her position, and in the bbc relating her words to M.Thomson when there was absolutely no relation whatsoever, to what or who she was passing judgement on.

    Broadcast across the airwaves, into peoples’ living rooms, it surely must be illegal to misreport on and misrepresent what a judge is saying in court!

  11. Mik Johnstone

    Maybe it’s time for SNP MP’s / Ex MP’s to take the media to court over this type of thing, how are the msm allowed to get away with this time and time again and NOT have anyone fighting back
    “It’s Biased and full of lies” say one side, “no it’s not” say the other and it continues with NOTHING ever changing, if an SNP member is slated in the press, (as usual) there is no retaliation, no accusation of slander/Libel with no retractions of any kind, there should be severe punishments for newspapers/TV lying to people like this, With NO soft option or get out of jail free card !!!

    1. Douglas Lang

      If the reverend Stuart from WoS can take Kesia to court for defamation on a crowd fund then i don’t see why other such efforts cannot be tried. I know i can’t afford much but i would contribute to a legal case against the BBC. They have been a disgrace for decades. I would say since the Falklands in fact.

  12. grizebard

    If the juxtaposition in that intro wasn’t deliberately contrived, then I’m a Samoan-Moldovan yak-seller.

    As for Glen Campbell’s little piece, to my untrained eye it always stays carefully within the bounds of legalistic correctness, but it’s smear by association all the same. A puir wee couple who discover down the road apiece that the profit they made on their “right to buy” cooncil hoose could have been even more if they had been rather less eager for a sale and rather more prudent.

    Presented as if they were victims and not numpty exploiters of the public weal, enabled by Thatcher and happily left in play by “Mondeo-man” Blair and his sidekick Gordo.

  13. Emma Cochrane

    It took me some time to talk my husband to Yes in 2013-14. He’s not a unionist but he had questions and was too lazy to find the answers, so I did for him, providing evidence along the way. He votedYes. He remains Yes. BUT, he thinks I’m paranoid about MSM and BBC. Watching the news last night, he turned to me smugly and said “you thought they would lead with this story and they didn’t. You thought they would spin it badly for her but they spent no time on it and dismissed it in no time. Tell you what, though, she’s totally guilty. No idea how she got out of it”. I did not bother to argue. I save my arguments for bigger battles. He remains Yes. That is my ultimate goal. However, if he, as a Yesser, can’t see what they’re doing, sometimes I wonder how we persuade No’s to open their eyes.

  14. Clydebuilt

    Was there any developments in the Karen Buckley case reported on by Reporting Scotland that night.

  15. millie


    Gosh what a coincidence –

    those baby box reports today

    ……… And just a fortnight before the scheme is rolled out across Scotland.

    And my goodness, such a pro-Brexit report from Sarah Smith on BBC News.

    BBC now in overdrive.

  16. Brian

    4 August, BBC Website still headlining:
    “Michelle Thomson: Fraud case against former SNP MP dropped”

  17. George Airdrie

    What a bunch of nutters. You’ve no idea about newsgathering, balance, guidelines, broadcasting, the laws of defamation, libel or fraud. Not one of you has any clue what you’re talking about including Ponsonby, yet you give him money and don’t ask how he spends it.
    I’ve got a handful of magic beans. £1k to the first bidder

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com