FPFW disinvited from discussing Martina's comments on 5Live

[TransposersArePosers]

Nicola WIlliams was invited to speak about Martina's comments along with RM. This on the FPFW facebook page

We were then disinvited after Rachel McKinnon publicly refused to participate if we were included. We discussed this decision with editor Philo Holland explaining how this is a frequently used tactic to silencing opposing views. It contravenes BBC editorial guidelines to allow a guest to veto the appearance of another

So the BBC being biased again, what a surprise. And a GC voice being no platformed. Why is it that these individuals are frightened to go up against the common sense facts??

They can't uphold my complaint about the veto because it wasn't a veto but a condition.

However, they will uphold my complaint about there being no element of challenge.

There was no element of challenge precisely because of the veto, you idiots.

Christ. Give me strength.

Dr. Williams should challenge this. Bad enough that they dropped her on a guest's say-so, but to lie about it repeatedly afterwards and say that Williams chose to withdraw? Heads should be rolling.

This is evidence of blatant manipulation and lies at the BBC, and you can't help but wonder at what else is going on behind the scenes.

I should add at this point that 2.8% of senior BBC staff identify as transgender, according to their latest diversity report.

This is disgraceful from the BBC. These are lies that they have been caught out in thanks to the tenacity of Popchyk. What else has been flying under the radar?

Well done popchyk!

Well done

What is the outcome of a complaint being upheld? What action will be taken?

(Btw if it helps I also have two separate emails as evidence from the BBC replying to me and repeating those lies.)

fantastic tenacity Popchyk - I gave up at the first hurdle. I find the woke nonsense bbc replies so dispiriting

"What is the outcome of a complaint being upheld? What action will be taken?"

Well, it has only been 10 weeks so you can't expect them to swing into action .

They said:

"A summary of our finding, with a note of the action taken as a result of it, will be published on the complaints pages of bbc.co.uk in due course, and I’ll let you know when that happens".

I presume that they'll say that they've spoken to the production team at Five Live about the importance of "elements of challenge" and that will be the end of it.

I presume that they'll say that they've spoken to the production team at Five Live about the importance of "elements of challenge"

I'm sure that will really be taken to heart by the production team.

Thanks, I'll be interested to see what goes up on the complaints page.

I wonder how many “complainers”, the BBC lied to about this particular incident.

Popchyk

Well done!!!

Can you write to the BBC Feedback programme on radio 4?

Is it worth approaching Offcom?

There is literally no difference between a veto and what occurred.

And Thanks Popchyk for taking it as far as you already have. Apologies if my previous post seemed cheeky. I just think they’re outrageous.

They can't uphold my complaint about the veto because it wasn't a veto but a condition.

The condition was that McKinnon had the right of veto.

Popchyk well done for persisting.

So BBC has:

1. Allowed RM to veto NW (in breach of their own policy).

1. Lied to members of the public when asked about it.

BBC, this is outrageous behaviour. Where is your journalistic integrity?

Popchyk yes if you have the stamina to take it further you have a lot of support here. Those of us on Twitter and FB can share there also.

Ofcom looks like they only deal with stuff that is actually broadcast to the public.

So given that the BBC has now concurred that the discussion lacked "elements of challenge" then I don't see how Ofcom can help in that regard.

My issue is with internal BBC procedures and standards. Which Ofcom won't cover, I'm sure.

I have composed an email to the BBC asking for an internal investigation around the lie that Nic Williams chose to withdraw from the discussion. That lie came from the production team of the Stephen Nolan show, so should be easy to investigate as that team must be quite small.

Any other points that I should cover? Not sent the email yet.

I think that covers it really. Have you shared this with FPFW? I think it’s definitely worth doing that as well. Thank you for doing all this. I know it can be time consuming

Well done popchyk for persisting with this. I seem to remember that Nic was originally told Stephen Nolan would ‘voice the counter argument’ because RM would not appear in the same segment of the programme as Nic so was interested to read that the interview ‘lacked challenge’.

Didn’t they offer Nic another slot which was very late so it wasn’t really a viable alternative.

Incidentally, changing the subject to women’s pay at the BBC (apologies for derail), Stephen Nolan is paid £450k a year. I remember this because I had never heard of him until then.