news-engine

Celtic supporters who challenged Pat Nevin’s claim that Lawrence Shankland had been punched at Parkhead have now seen the BBC uphold complaints over the commentary. As supporters entered the pitch, the former Scotland international told BBC Radio 5 Live listeners that “two or three” Celtic fans had punched Shankland. That description was disputed almost immediately. The BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit has now looked back at the incident and ruled that Nevin should not have presented the allegation as fact. In its findings, the ECU said: “Mr Nevin subsequently acknowledged that he should not have stated definitively that the Hearts captain had been punched by Celtic fans. “The ECU accepted that this was an honest error made in the heat of the moment, but concluded that it fell below the BBC’s editorial standards of accuracy.” A claim that Celtic supporters had physically assaulted a player was broadcast nationally in the middle of a fast-moving situation, without the benefit of proper verification. The BBC has now accepted that the wording went too far. Nevin has also rowed back on what he originally believed he had seen. He said: “I made a mistake in a commentary at the end of the last game of the Scottish season. “From my angle in the gantry I thought I saw a punch thrown, but it appears it was a confrontation or maybe just goading from one of the hundreds of Celtic fans who invaded the pitch just before the end of the game.” Nevin also acknowledged the difference between the two versions of events. He added: “Goading is not physical violence and I will take it on the chin, the way the Hearts player probably didn’t. My apologies to those offended.” The BBC says Nevin apologised on air twice and again through his BBC Sport newsletter. Nobody is disputing that the scenes at full-time were difficult to read in real time. But there is a clear difference between describing an incident as it unfolds and making a serious accusation against Celtic supporters as a confirmed fact. The BBC has now accepted that the original commentary went too far, with the complaints ruling making clear that Nevin should not have presented the claim as fact without proper verification.