BBC fair and accurate reporting of the judgement

I agree, he ignored the stuff that Sumption did say in favour of any need for women only spaces.

Peter Daley berated himself for a typo on TwiX which led to a discussion that official judgements have ‘e’ although the spelling without is typical for other use (in British English).

x.com/peter_daly/status/1913003066292306271?

It feels as though they’ve learned nothing from the numerous scandals involving male celebrities that they’ve allowed to fester in their ranks.

BBC News interviewed Trans Campaigner Heather Herbert saying he couldn't participate in public life if he is unable to use the women's toilet. Same Heather Herbert has shown himself on social media self dilating in a disabled toilet. Don't the BBC do any research into who they are interviewing or do they think his fetish is perfectly acceptable?

Aha - interesting.

I guess it’s everyday sexism again - someone like him trotted out in preference to a more dynamic, up to date professional who actually understands the issues (and dare I say it… isn’t a male!)

Thanks for that - definitely don’t rely on my memory!

Evan Davis was salivating over Lord Sumption (sp?), it was absolutely pathetic. And Sumption did reference the NHS nurses’ case twice, stating that the Act meant women were entitled to feel safe, hence single sex facilities should be provided. He actually said women should not have to undress infront a transwoman (he may have said male, I can’t remember). Davis obviously completely ignored these comments!

Davis is an utter disgrace.

Not zero point, we just need to be persistent and keep raising it until it gets the the highest level (not my forte).

I am thinking writing to Feedback for the radio coverage - they can hold producers etc to account.

To add to others - virtually all the coverage has asked about the effect on transgender people but I have not heard any analysis of cases like Sandie Peggie.

Women’s hour have not spoken to ForWomenScot and said Joanna Cherry was one of their directors.

To the poster that said HIGNFY wasn’t funny anymore, I found it to be quite a funny episode, although there has indeed been a looooong period of being not funny.

The host was Katherine Parkinson, definitely (maybe?) friend of Chris O’Dowd - who recently publicly stood up for Glinner - and possibly a friend of Glinner herself? I don’t know who she was but there was also a female panellist who seemed fairly sensible and funny enough.

The SC ruling should have been covered. I’m hoping, but not really believing, that as a PP said that it was a timing issue and it’ll be covered next week.

There’s been the odd cartoon, usually GC-ish in the punchline, but very little of substance. It’s disappointing, considering how ready they are to roast other nonsensical statements made by politicians and others.

Hislop has seen what has happened to brave people like JKR and Kathleen Stock so he’s decided it’s safer to attack those who won’t fight back. He can say whatever he likes about Prince Harry or Boris or Keir Starmer knowing he won’t have death threats sprayed on his house or a massive hate campaign launched against him on social media.
In other words, he can dish it out but he can’t take it.
Also he might have been sacked by the BBC given their views.

Although I enjoy reading Private Eye (Hislop is the editor), it’s noticeable how little the whole ‘debate,’ long before the SC judgement, has been mentioned inside it.

There’s been the odd cartoon, usually GC-ish in the punchline, but very little of substance. It’s disappointing, considering how ready they are to roast other nonsensical statements made by politicians and others.

Who gives them funding?

This is exactly what I mean. People don't know anything and then quote 'evidence'. The BBC is funded by the UK TV licence. Unless you can name who gives them alternative funding it's just spreading false information.

The only other funding I am aware of is government top up grants for the World Service, which the government use to fund entirely, and no longer do.

This is then point I'm making. Lord Sumption says 'equalities act' instead of 'equality act' and you all scream blue murder, but people post generalized rubbish on here about political persuasions, false funding, and other unsusbstanted 'facts' - the other one being that someone 'read somewhere that 4% of bbc staff are trans' - and call it evidence.

Don't people realise we're living in a dangerous world of echo chambers and the spread of misinformation and this is basically what the majority of mumsnet threads are?!

I haven’t heard most of the examples given, but have put in two complaints to do with biased reporting, one actually before the verdict and one after.
It’s tedious, but I do complain every time I’m annoyed by them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints/make-a-complaint/#/Complaint%20Summary

Oh God. Our EDI officer used to do this all the time. Drove me mad. And he was only concerned about one group’s ‘equality’, too. 🙄🙄🙄

There it is.

There’s a great deal of absurdity in it, and both Ricky Gervais and Dave Chapelle have found ways to laugh about it. Besides, finding humour in mostly quite unfunny news is HIGNFY’s one job?!

Private Eye has been hopeless on this whole issue. It’s been a huge disappointment. When at last it was finally addressed at all (I think because of the Cass Review) it was in the form of a wushu washy ‘both sides, such a toxic debate, poor trans children, such a marginalised group’ piece by GP. I note that GP has since buried his or her head very deep indeed in the strange sand of the Lucy Letby case. (If there’s been a miscarriage of justice, as GP apparently thinks likely, she deserves a champion, but I’m not sure a year’s worth of GP columns in the Eye is the most effective approach of securing an appeal, or indeed the best use of the column inches). While I’m on the subject of Private Eye I’m also genuinely astonished by the supine approach of Muckspreader to the current government, which is easily the most anti agriculture and anti rural of my lifetime. I think I will cancel my subscription.

To be fair that’s exactly the first big headline I heard today. On the radio I think, or maybe whilst scrolling my phone. Was defo in the car and it was the British transport police have changed their policy to TW no longer allowed to strip search women. No idea if it was BBC or who it was.

I’m pretty sure that figures were released a while back showing that 4% of BBC staff identified as “transgender” a significantly higher proportion than the general population.

Before that , when he was in Jersey , in 2011 , Johnathan Sumption played a prominent role in helping to shut down the incredibly brave Health Minister Stuart Syvret who tried so very hard to get the Haut de le Garenne child abuse rings properly investigated,

Evan is always a twaw. the morning team, Justin in particular are far more GC.

Justin Webb openly so on Twitter ❤️

All the reporting I have seen about the changes to police searches have been framed as transwomen will now be searched by male officers.

Do they say why that males being searched by other males is a problem?
(Stupid question - of course not!)

Sumption is just a rent-a-gob who is arrogant enough not to do his research properly. He’s been a pain in the arse ever since he started bitching about the Covid lockdowns because he couldn’t go to the opera. Not a commentator to be taken at all seriously.

Or that male sex offenders claiming trans identities are forcing female police officers to do the searches.

Words matter in law. Cases are won or lost on apostrophes. To claim to be an expert and not know the name of the act you are commenting on is unforgivable. But more than that, ‘Equalities Act’ has been the misrepresentation of the name used extensively by trans/men’s activists. It is a clear indication that someone has taken their information secondhand from activists.