Tim Davies Resigns - Can Gender Critical Movement take some credit?

"Prescott essentially focused on two allegations against the BBC."

He then specified Trump and Gaza. He didn't mention other issues.

That was at the start of his explainer on TRIP #466 on Tuesday, around 3 minutes in.

That could be it.

A handsome salary from Yale? He doesn't dare say a word.

Rory baffles me. He's not stupid, he appears genuinely caring, and from what I know from a friend of mine who knows him of old (friends with his parents) he's a good egg.

He has the most massive blind spot on this topic. FK what is going on.

There would be a pleasing irony if the BBC could be persuaded to do an exposé of the illegal trans policies of just about every NHS trust in the country, as penance for its previous sins. Perhaps Panorama would be the appropriate choice.

What did Rory say?

I would be more overjoyed if there had been an apology based on a sincere change of heart. This just looks like massive arse covering to me so that when challenged, they can deflect by saying “ yes but Darlington nurses blah, blah, blah”. They are panicking. The misogyny, dismissal of women and disregard for child safeguarding will still be there.

This is an absolute hobby-horse of mine. Reporting on rural issues in general, across 95% of the media, is absolutely appalling. It's based in ignorance and incomprehension, and there is often a sense of superiority running through the reporting. The BBC, as the national broadcaster, should be doing very much better than bloody Countryfile.

Sorry, needed to vent, a diversion from the main thrust of the thread.

Wow, certainly a change of tone!

Anyway, we are looking at you more now woman’s hour 🤨🤨🤨

Wtaf is Rory on?

i am just OVERJOYED to wake up to see this thread from seen in journalism.

several clips sewn together of the coverage from yesterday

three on TV, including a sit down interview with the nurses and radio report on radio 4 at 6 pm

https://x.com/journalismseen/status/1988379490826023235?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

I've never understood how people can believe that when you are looking at social disadvantage, the fact that there may be more people of certain ethnicity or races that are poor, or vulnerable, or with less education, does not mean that rich, well off people from those same backgrounds are disadvantaged in the same way.

It sometimes seems like they think it's some kind of inherent mental issue rather than a reflection of economics and upbringing.

I believe gender should come naturally.

I think the website one is still “Tees” so tucked away in local. However, the Darlington Nurses story was on the BBC’s News at One (and I understand the Ten o clock news), and accurate coverage too. I’m really pleased at the change (although the speed at which it has been effected does rather suggest they were aware of the problem all along). Onwards and upwards…

Has anyone clocked this coverage of the Darlington nurses from earlier this evening? Currently on the BBC front page.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly4wnkvy9jo

There seems a marked shift in the reporting, in terms of the ordering (leading and closing with the nurses perspective) and the clarity of language.

NHS bosses "penalised" female nurses complaining about a transgender woman using their changing room, an employment tribunal has been told.

Eight nurses are challenging a policy which allows the single-sex room at Darlington Memorial Hospital to be used by Rose Henderson, a biological male who identifies as a woman." (my underline)

Sorry I see this was discussed upthread - but actually this is the quote I was looking for from Jon Sopel:

^“I mean, you know, on the issue of trans, I think the BBC bought into a way of thinking that was promoted by Stonewall, was captured, wouldn't allow other viewpoints to be expressed. And I think the BBC got that wrong.”

From The News Agents: Inside the BBC: What really went on, 10 Nov 2025
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000736136498&r=1538
This material may be protected by copyright.^

Really good to hear this being said openly by a former senior BBC journalist- and probably more significant that a male journalist has bothered to say it…???

Here’s some of the transcript:

^“You talk about the trans issue and whether there was capture. I think there was a bit of ideological capture, not just in the BBC, but actually in many institutions in public life in Britain. But I remember working at Newsnight with Esmue Wren and Hannah Barnes and Deb Cohen.

And we were looking at the question of the Tavistock. This was the only gender identity development services for the under 16. And we questioned why it wasn't data-led, why it seemed to be so arbitrary with the kind of recommendations and advice and even blockers that they were handing out to young people.

And the work we did actually led to the closure of the Tavistock, about three years ago.”

From The News Agents: Inside the BBC: What really went on, 10 Nov 2025
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-news-agents/id1640878689?i=1000736136498&r=1651
This material may be protected by copyright.^

Sorry - haven’t read the thread but the BBC’s capture etc on trans issues was discussed on The Newsagents podcast on Monday’s edition.

I once worked at a broadcasting organisation that ran an annual internship programme for BAME people. (BAME was the fashionable term then.) The people they chose were literally all public school, Oxbridge, Ivy League types; not just middle class but rich. Most of them came from families who had worked and travelled around the world and some of them had already done internships at big American media companies. The internship was paid but not one of them could have afforded to live in London without some kind of parental help.

I also knew an Oxbridge graduate in the BBC's Talent Pool (for 'Talent Pool' read 'entry level jobs on a zero hours basis') who could only afford to do that job because her parents already lived in London. I know someone from an ordinary lower-middle class background who did the BBC journalism trainee scheme but even he said he could only do it because his parents gave him a few thousand pounds towards his living costs.

They have no idea how un-diverse they are.

This is an example of whatabouttery.

Stop it.

Yes, exactly.

Ack, should have said, "not all urban" above.

Rural and village perspectives are very underrepresented.

It's not just the BBC. Look at the NHS. Consultant class and the army of under educated over paid HR bods more likely to come from white middle class backgrounds. They have been letting men change with women, no questions asked.

Nursing staff, lower paid, much more likely to be from working class backgrounds. They have MUCH less power in the overall structures and have had to sue the fuck out of everybody to simply get changed with no men in the room.

I think this is it.

Despite all the emphasis in sex, gender, and racial diversity, there is actually almost no real diversity among the staff.

What they are typically, regardless of those other things, is from university educated, urban or sometimes suburban, middle class or upper middle class families. And their worldview and politics reflect that more than anything else.

A healthy media depends on people coming from really differernt perspectives which in this case would mean people who did not come through journalism studies and universities, people who are not all rural, and people from differernt kinds of economic backgrounds.

Which should be easy, because no one needs a degree to be a good journalist.