Without prejudice.
I recently received an email from a site viewer with a real thirst for information and more than enough intelligence to investigate and satisfy that thirst, Colin Wilkes. Recently, he has been 'hammering' the BBC, regarding Schmeichel, who we all know, has stated to the media, that Rooney should move. Many, besides Colin, have perceived that there is a clear issue to consider, regarding Schmeichel's [c.300,000] shares in Rooney's agent, Proactive [aka Formation]. At the moment, all Colin has had in return from his correspondence to the BBC is an autogenerated response.
See what you think fellow Blues. I print Colin's email in full, it has been published here with Colin's permission.
-----start------------------
from: colin.wilkes@gmail.com
Now the wake is over the mourning period draws to a close its time to review at least one aspect of the Wayne Rooney saga that I find particularly disconcerting.
Yes for those who don’t know I am an EVERTONIAN and have been for 58 years and will always be
Within the boundaries of the British society a system of laws, checks and balances exists to protect the individual from organisations that may or not inadvertently injure or subjugate any individual or minority group. As an individual and a member of a minority group I have been and feel deeply injured. This injury is not of Wayne Rooney’s doing but it is rather that of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
For the BBC to exist it has at its source of funding the licence fee. I am a licence fee payer (to be precise my wife is).
Most professional bodies are self regulating and as such have their own individual codes of conduct and behaviour to which individual members have to adhere or face the consequences. This is applicable throughout industry and commercial organisations and throughout the public and private sectors of the economy. Those elements that fail in their self regulatory functions have and will continue to have regulations forced upon them by the law of the land
It would be fair to assume that the BBC has such as system of checks and balances in place to avoid any possible conflict of interest arising that may damage the public’s image of the BBC and or the individuals concerned and the mass of the public who are the providers of funding for the BBC and its continued existence.
So why is it that a person who holds 300,000 shares in Proactive Sports Management and therefore has a vested interest in the sale of Wayne Rooney can whilst being a BBC football pundit state that Wayne Rooney should leave Everton football club and sign for another irregardless of who the other club maybe. There is here most certainly a conflict of interest as the said pundit Mr Peter Schmeichel stood to gain a great deal financially from any sale of Wayne Rooney.
So has there been a failure in the mechanisms used by the BBC or has a blind eye been turned to facilitate Mr Schmeichel's greed. Has there been a breach of the BBC checks and balances? Its time for the BBC to give an explanation and as this is the year when funding renewal is being examined I trust it better be a good explanation and that this matter and its like will not be allowed to materialise and manifest in the future
I have on three separate occasions emailed the BBC on this subject and have received only autogenerated responses I have therefore taken this opportunity to enter this debate into the public domain
from: colin.wilkes@gmail.com
-----end--------------------
Will the BBC ever condescend to reply properly to these legitimate and well-reasoned questions from one of their funders?