BBC fair and accurate reporting of the judgement

Not reporting from the BBC, but on them. Seems to be support for an apology for Robert Winston about his being cancelled for trying to assert that sex was real on Question Time in 2021. Would be nice... but let's not hold our breath... https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/2043217/bbc-apology-question-time-robert-winston

It's a well known fact on the street that the BBC has strong extreme left wing leanings.

It won't be because they want to be incredibly "fair" (oxymoron indeed). It'll be because someone gives them funding or support that means they need to be super nice to all minorities.

Why didn't they have the three Scottish women on? Well because as ordinary middle aged women and not young simpering little dolly birds they are invisible.

Jeremy Vine put on his usual condescending little boy voice and patronised all his guests. He needs to go.

All the reporting I have seen about the changes to police searches have been framed as transwomen will now be searched by male officers. None of them is framing it as women will no longer be searched by male police officers who identify as women

Tbf there’s not a lot of humour in this is there? Plus the writers and panel of that show are probably all men aren’t they?

He called it by the wrong name at least five times.

Yes, it was just a minute at the end. I was very cross having stayed up specifically to watch it.

Sumption has been a tiresome contrarian for years with his expertise being something that's been fading away in the rear view window.

I stayed up to watch Newsnight on Wednesday. I thought they’d be reporting on the massive news from the SC which was on the front page of most papers.

But no. It was Nick having a go at someone from the Harris campaign about why the Democrats suck, which lasted aaaages, then a long interview with Douglas Murray about his new book about Islam and a bit of chat with the pointless Jo Swinson and the odious Matthew Stadlen (Stadland?) about what a meanie Murray is and an ex Tory advisor who was alright but not given much time to talk. They just ignored the SC judgement completely bar maybe a minute at the end where Swinson got all flustered and red in the face about trans rights.

I watched right until the credits open mouthed at their utter cowardice.

They may have covered it since but I couldn’t bare to waste my time checking.

It does rather undermine his credibility.

You don’t get to be the legal expert on such an important judgment on the national broadcaster, duck it up and not expect to be criticised. He is clearly not an expert in this field and had the arrogance, the sheer arrogance, to not even bother to prepare properly for it. Every time a mediocre man does something like this it stops someone else who would have done a proper job from getting a look in, and it’s not good enough. That’s not meritocracy.

How?

He's a legal professional and entitled to an opinion. Just because it's not your opinion doesn't mean you can rubbish the entire thing because he said 'equalities' and not 'equality' in a live broadcast interview.

Does that wipe out his entire legal qualifications and right to an opinion then?

Oh, please. That’s ludicrous.

I wouldn't like to be a defendant in court and find out that my brief was getting wrong the name of the statute that I was being prosecuted on.

I have been enraged by the BBC coverage which not only doesn’t explain the women’s rights issues but also does not define what a “trans woman” is nor do they ever clarify that you cannot change your sex, nor do they ever point out that the majority of trans identified men do not have any surgery and carry on posing -let’s be charitable - the same risk to women that other males do. It is lying by obfuscation and a slap in the face to women who have to pay the licence fee for this apalling unfair treatment. The Bug•e•y Bas•a•ds Corporation and I’m a Quaker so don’t normally swear!

@nauticant

Lord Sumption, as this great authority, didn't even know the name of the act that he was commenting on.

Are you referring to the fact he called it The Equalities Act and not The Equality Act? Because I doubt that means all his legal expertise is garbage and not to be listened to... and it's definitely not 'evidence'.

Already done 😉 but thanks for the idea

Oh, to have the confidence of a mediocre man.

I'll give you evidence. On the PM programme Evan Davis treated Lord Sumption's analysis as being the best authority going and unimpeachable. As a result of that broadcast it's being spread across social media.

Lord Sumption, as this great authority, didn't even know the name of the act that he was commenting on.

Women's Hour had a piece on Wednesday reporting within an hour of the judgement. Scottish reporter, IIRC, female. Joshua Rosenberg was on WH yesterday. Respected legal commentator, so that was OK. Michael Foran was on PM the other night. There have been far too many tearful male voices bewailing their exclusion from public life now that they've finally been firmly and unequivocally been told that they can't use the female toilets.

Why oh why are the 3 sheroes of For Women Scotland not being interviewed everywhere - it's both important and an astonishing story of the David v Goliath type.... so HIGHLY newsworthy....

And yes, who is going to do a full documentary investigating Stonewall??? High time...

Channel 4 News also interviewed 2 men and zero women. Asking about how this will affect the trans community, they responded by saying how endangered they’ll be in men’s toilets. Except as confrontational men taking on natural science I’d say they’re the ones endangering the other men who accept biological truth.

Please do join in with requests!
their address is: [email protected]