Are the BBC about to leave Stonewall?

“Bbc ditches controversial LGBT charity” - controversial would not have been used a year ago.

It should always be, controversial lobbying organisation, Stonewall

Just read in that Daily Mail article, quoting from Carrie Johnson’s speech:
That is why it is so important that the UK will be hosting its first ever global conference of LGBT+ right next year.

Anyone seen any further details of this ‘global’ event? I wonder what the UK will bring as its issues to that.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10068837/Now-BBC-ditches-Stonewall-State-broadcaster-expected-latest-organisation-walk.html

“Bbc ditches controversial LGBT charity” - controversial would not have been used a year ago.

I'm not giving him the clicks, but this sort of rumour headline sounds like it's devised to instigate a social media pile-on to try to head the BBC off at the pass

I agree with IvyTwines it’s a stalking horse isn’t it?
The BBC need a big public response supporting them around leaving. They will be shit scared of getting bad feedback on social media.

Ah, imagine living in Owen Jones' head; It's so dreamy, oh fantasy free me.

It's often said that once gay marriage was allowed Stonewall lost its purpose and had to swerve towards becoming a trans rights organisation in order to justify its continuation. Gaining civil rights does not mean a group is suddenly free from facing problems. It frustrates me that an organisation as well-funded as Stonewall spends its money on lobbying, training sessions and handing out badges, instead of providing things like homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis services for LGBT people. I've known people become homeless and prostituted and incredibly abused and vulnerable because they are LGBT, and it's disgraceful that Stonewall's mission is more about corporate rainbow-washing than actually doing the dirty work of helping people in a concrete and quantifiable way.

@RoyalCorgi: 'One of the remarkable things about all of this is the realisation that OJ actually believes this stuff. He's not just jumping on a bandwagon, he really truly and sincerely believes that trans are the most marginalised group, and they are being oppressed by us wicked feminists. He genuinely thinks he is on the right side of history'.

Did you see that event with OJ , Paris Lees, Munroe Bergdorf (I think) and others trans glitterati where OJ said he'd not realised before that trans people were responsible for setting up Stonewall etc and are the reason we all have so many rights (or words to that effect)? No, Owen, you didn't know that because IT IS NOT TRUE.

“BBC bosses feel that they can’t allow the organisation to be connected to Stonewall in any way, because the BBC needs to be ‘impartial on LGBTQ lives’.”

My God it took the BBC long enough to work that one out. Anyway, it's not LGBTQ lives, it on LGBTQ issues. They always have to make everything about life or death, their usual hyperbole.

Finally the BBC do something good in this area (if it's true) and no employer needs to have Stonewall expensively on board in order to treat LGBTQ+++ legally and fairly.

It's just a jump to the left, really, from where the BBC have been dithering in the middle ground the past few months.

given the standards of Hunte's journalism I will wait to hear from a vaguely credible source.

Indeed, if this is true I think it will be the first time he's ever reported a story accurately.

Every single article for the BBC was 'people have told me'- never any sources named, except Stonewall press releases.

If Stonewall are dumped by the BBC, I bet the blackness will hit them, and the void will be calling.

Arabella, I laughed long and hard. Cheers.

Masdintle - I've got to keep control.

Can SW imagine anyone lower if they had gender castes (riffing off Sheila Jeffreys' sex castes)?

Time is fleeting.

Madness takes its toll.

Are there outfits and songs to accompany this?

In another dimension...

Well this lesbian, ex-employee, sometimes now freelance, couldn't be more delighted. Does that mean I can go in work without hiding my 'adult humale female' pin badge. About bloody time. Lobby groups have no place in organisations whose reputation rests on their impartiality. Fran Unsworth is right.

My head can't read "super scared" from someone over the age of 5 without giving it sarcastic tone. Maybe he interviewed an LGB Alliance supporter and failed to spot they were taking the mickey.

LGBTQ staff at the UK’s public service broadcaster have told VICE World News they are “horrified” and “super scared” by the planned withdrawal, which could come as soon as next week.

This level of contempt for their colleagues says a lot about: the individuals and their sense of entitlement to authoritarian structures to impose their will upon others; the lack of regard for an impartial broadcaster.

SW has been promoting division and discord to the point of actively advocating against safeguarding for women and children at the same time as undermining the understanding of LGB and sex attraction.

in return, Stonewall helps the organisations create more inclusive working environments for LGBTQ employees, such as giving advice on inclusive toilets and changing room facilities.

Pretty sure the LGBQ employees would not find those things particularly important. Lobby for T, ignore the rest, but keep them in your acronym to show you’re inclusive. Guess that’s where the LGB Alliance went wrong. Their acronym is too honest.

“I've worked for the BBC for over 20 years, and I've never known a worse time to be LGBT+ at the BBC,” they said. “There is deeply engrained institutional transphobia at the heart of the BBC,”

How odd. What were the figures again? Wasn’t it shown a couple of years ago that people claiming to be trans made up 2% of all employees, 4% of management? Higher than the estimated number of trans people in the wider population certainly. It’s a real head scratcher why so many of them want to work somewhere where they’re so persecuted.

Another BBC employee who was involved in the BBC’s Pride network, said: “The BBC needs to focus on the bigger picture, rather than fiddling around the edges on things that the audience won’t care about.”

Actually, when they find out what’s happening, the public care deeply about this, which is why the wheels are starting to fall off.

“LGBT rights are already enshrined in law, so aligning with an LGBT charity shouldn’t really affect impartiality.”

LG rights are indeed enshrined in law. In the name of transactivism however, Stonewall are lobbying for men to be able to change their legal sex to female by the minimally significant act of signing a declaration. It’s hard to say that lobbying to remove women’s rights is particularly impartial.

No wonder these people super-scared. They’re bumbling about in supreme ignorance about the entire topic. Stonewall appear to have done little more than to spread disinformation and fear amongst its followers. Perhaps if Stonewall is removed from the equation, some kind of reality can be restored and all these terrified people can learn to relax.

Prof Stock is the wrong kind of LGBT+ person, clearly.

Perhaps because she is female. Some men really do not like women.

Is it possible for a TRA or trans ally to speak/write without the use of extreme hyperbole?

It's clear that if the BBC is taking other measures to remain impartial that this move is the right one. You can't get unimpartial training from a lobby group.

But listen closely. Not for very much longer.