Another reason why the BBC tread so lightly?

Changingplace

You would do well to take anything that the Daily Mail say about the BBC with a huge pinch of salt, the Pride group are a staff network with no editorial control.

I take everything they write with a dose of scepticism, but it doesn't mean that they're wrong. The Beeb are in thrall to trans ideology. The Pride group may not officially have any hard status, but they are certainly influencing things there.

I think a lot of the most vocal TRAs have skin in the game and need to justify externally something that must cause a lot of cognitive dissonance and family heartache. Eg Mr Foxkiller's trans niece or Ms Chocolat's trans offspring.

"Although the BBC will not be renewing its participation in the Diversity Champions Programme, in the future we will continue to work with a range of external organisations, including Stonewall, on relevant projects to support our LGBTQ+ staff."

It's very simple to show the lie in that statement, no matter how often you make it.

Quote taken from the BBC website.

So what's your explanation for the bbc being totally captured by trans ideology?

You would do well to take anything that the Daily Mail say about the BBC with a huge pinch of salt, the Pride group are a staff network with no editorial control.

The BBC is no longer affiliated with Stonewall whatsoever.

Could you point out who you're referring to as a troll, please?

No, OP, suggesting that the BBC has become a bastion of genderism because one minor journalist has a trans child is daft.

This man, Phil Harrold:
www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whoweare/phil-harrold

has immense influence at the BBC and is an advocate at the highest level for the LGBTQ+ staff network. He's been named by BBC staff as a key influencer.

Here you go, an article about trans influence at the BBC:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11638659/Has-fear-called-transphobic-led-BBC-allow-militant-pro-trans-group-censor-reporting.html

One senior BBC News insider says: ‘Quite a few people think they [BBC Pride] have too much power. They silence debate, especially over gender ideology. The BBC shies away from reporting the subject. It’s not balanced in any way. Staff are afraid of expressing gender-critical views.’

When did the bbc get transwashed trained by stonewall?

I suppose all that needed to happen was a staff audit that included a tick box or two saying "transgender" or "non binary" etc and anyone who knew about and fitted under stonewall's umbrella ticked that box.

What happened in the five years previously? I used to work at the BBC, and my role took me to London (Broadcasting House) and around many of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish sites. I met and interacted with thousands of employees and not one was transgender. I can’t believe they went from none to several hundred so quickly.

I do know there are many at the bbc who are what you'd call GC. I met a local bbc news reporter (a tv news reader) at a local women's rights terf meeting in 2019 who is now down in London.

Her main concern back then was the lack of balance in output and from what she said she clearly had many colleagues who felt the same. She had no qualms being at the meeting and out talking about it.

@MandyMotherOfBrian thank you so much for all your work. I understand exactly what you're trying to say and it's an interesting perspective. There are most definitely certain 'types' of people and parents very invested in gender ideology.

(As an aside I'm absolutely desperate for a dog and would have a rescue but had assumed with a reception age child and 10 yr old it simply wouldn't be possible. Is it worth me contacting the dogs trust?)

They can ‘demand’ all they like, doesn’t mean the group has any editorial control or influence.

If you read further…

This escalated in what was reportedly a tense video call between Fran Unsworth, the former director of BBC News, and BBC Pride’s board in November 2021, when the BBC quit Stonewall diversity training.
Members of BBC Pride were “disappointed and frustrated” but Ms Unsworth was said to have told staff “you’ll hear things you don’t personally like… and you have to get used to that”.

A BBC spokesman said: “BBC Pride is a volunteer-led staff network which aims to support all LGBTQ+ staff. It is not an editorial team, has no role in directing editorial content and like the Telegraph Group’s ‘Out Loud’ LGBTQ+ network, our staff networks help ensure the BBC is an inclusive organisation.
“Editorial decisions about what the BBC broadcasts or publishes are made in accordance with our editorial values and standards, including our commitment to due impartiality.”

Looked it up now and it appears you are mistaken - at any rate this mere staff network has been quite explicitly demanding editorial input.

"Such emboldening was evident in June 2021, when leaked minutes of BBC Pride’s board showed they were demanding to “attend commissioning meetings” and play a role in “editorial processes” on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme."

archive.ph/SK9mg

@MorvenOfMalvern sorry tgat was in reply

I think these are the most pertinent points.

That’s not my experience of U.K. rescues at all!

We got our dear dog when my kids were 5&7, he’s got no behavioural issues (well he steels food of left on the side - but that’s a breed issue) and he is brill on the lead, had no health issues etc. In fact the rescue we got him from won’t adopt our dogs with health issues they raise money to keep them in foster.

However we waited 9 months to find the right dog. And that’s what people get frustrated at.

Don't lets forget exposure of the toxic influence Stonewall had on the BBC

And don’t forget that the BBC has since pulled out of collaboration with Stonewall entirely.

It’s purely an LGBTQ staff network, it has no editorial influence or control whatsoever.

It’s purely an LGBTQ staff network, it has no editorial influence or control whatsoever.

nauticant · Today 12:11

The BBC were captured in the sense that those defining how the BBC handled gender identity ideology made a show of being true believers. There were plenty of non-believers but either their voices were marginalised or they knew that they'd best keep silent if they wanted to not damage their careers.

Yes, just look at what happened to Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman, when they were at the Guardian. Never mind Kathleen Stock, Alison Bailey, Lineham - people see what happens if they put their head above the parapet.

I disagree with this to an extent I'm afraid.

We've got rescue dogs from abroad - had absolutely no issues, great dogs matched to us, careful vetting and back up, video calls to check in etc. Their standards were in no way low. We were turned down for some we applied for as they had not checked them with children for example. Our dogs arrived well treated by vets, in good health, spade, lead trained, good with the children and smaller animals, house trained...they are an important and beneficial part of our family. They lead a wonderful life with an outdoorsy family and a ft WFH presence.

Our last rescue from the UK was a disaster, behavioural issues for life and in such poor health that she nearly had to be put down not long after we had her. When she died, no rescue would let us past registration because of the age of our children and our local shelters had very few dogs, all with lists of requirements and behavioural concerns as long as your arm.

It is fine to have standards and be stringent in vetting. I heartily approve and support that. But UK rescues are both only likely to have dogs that have issues in the first place, and unrealistic about the homes available. Foreign rescues are dealing with different dogs and circumstances. And to suggest anyone in the UK who adopts from abroad is doing it to be slack or a less good pet owner is wrong and offensive.

Wasn't there a piece just a few days ago about the incredibly well organized queer staff network at the BBC demanding editorial input? Though I may have seen that on Twitter. In any case, seems like there's much more to it than diffuse sympathies for co-workers.