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??

Yeah, me too.

I'd like clarification from Nic first though.

Clearly Nic was intended to go on the show to debate the issue with the two transgender people. Hours before the show McKinnon was stating that they would not share a platform with FPFW.

So how did McKinnon know that FPFW were scheduled to be on the show?

Answer: 5Live staff told McKinnon that FPFW would be on.

Which means that 5Live initially scheduled FPFW on the show to debate with the two transgender people.

And 5Live seems to be denying that now.

FPFW posted this yesterday:
"For clarity we were booked to debate McKinnon. McKinnon compared us to the Ku Klux Klan and refused to debate. Our invitation was rescinded. We did not feel the 'graveyard slot' after midnight was a fair alternative."

If nic has documentation, then that’s cut and dried. She could send to ofcom

Same reply. Fuming. Will tell them (again) that they are talking utter bollocks.

The licence fee has to go. They are openly treating women as second class citizens. And if they try telling me that the three blokes sitting discussing what women should be allowed to have were women, they are not going to like the answer, because that is going to include the word bollocks too. They are not supposed to be a propaganda factory for niche political/theological beliefs.

I I had be exactly the same wording to my complaint.
Guests do not have the power to veto another guest’s appearance. We invited Dr Williams to appear on Sunday night’s programme and after initially agreeing to join us at a later point in the show she subsequently declined. The offer remains open.”

I’d even said in my complaint that it is not sufficient to cancel and then offer the speaker another slot.
I Asked three questions they didn’t even respond to the others.

I’m going to follow it up. Bastards, I’m full on fuming now. I’d like to see what evidence Nic has regarding this, then it’s back to the BBC and feedback.

Yes, I've just started a thread (will get it pulled) on this, as I had the same cut and paste reply.

I got the same reply Millet What do we do now?

I made a follow-up complaint, referencing the initial complaint. I stated that the standard reply did not actually address any of the points made in my complaint.

It takes 20 working days to get a response now apparently. A month.

But if I get fobbed off again (and of course I will), I can contact the Executive Complaints Unit at the BBC. Another 20 days.

And then Ofcom after that.

I've just done my follow up complaint as well.

Kellie Maloney

@kelliefmaloney

Replying to
@LanaDelRaids

@5_News
and
@DebbieHayton
Well I am asking for female voices on my radio show
@BBCRADIOKENT
but so far no takers we are all very brave with a keybroad

I'm at work so can't call in - anyone want to put the female perspective to Kellie?

I have asked Nic exactly what happened. And she has told me. I asked her if I can share it, and she has agreed.

"The original booking was made on the phone on Sunday afternoon as is normal. It was going to be a discussion on Steve Nolan show at 10.45pm later that day. I asked who else was on. They said I was the first guest they asked. I confirmed I would do it because I don't mind who I debate. A couple of hours later the producer called to cancel the booking saying there had been a change of plan. I said - is this because of the public tweets by Rachel McKinnon refusing to debate with me and comparing me to the KKK. They producer said yes. I said this was unacceptable and against BBC editorial standards and asked to speak with the shows editor. The editor called and explained I would not be going on. I explained this was a classic silencing tactic used to stifle debate. They offered a slot later on my own, after midnight or one the following weekend. I initially agree to after midnight but then decided I'd go for the slot next week as midnight was simply too late for me to still be working and I quite frankly needed some sleep! Plans are still in place for me to be interviewed this weekend. The issue however, is not where I'm given time on air at some point. It is that I was disinvited from the DISCUSSION based on the demands made by another guest. This is clear breach of BBC policy. The public nature of McKinnons refusal to debate me, and comparing me to running the equivalent of an terrorist group, meant that the BBCs decision to disinvite me will be perceived as an endorsement by the BBC of McKinnons derogatory remarks about me."

It shouldn't even need her confirmation. It's quite obvious what's happened and it's quite obvious that the BBC are banged to rights.

But they don't care about women.

Those last two paragraphs are mine, by the way, not Nic's.

holy fuck, Datun, that is OUTRAGEOUS!! And they have the gall to respond to complaints saying they did nothing wrong!! Fucking fuckers, I'm now doubly glad I followed up my complaint!

Thanks Datun.

Wasn't exactly sure what had happened. But that clarifies things.

BBC are a shower of cowardly twats. They were trying to make out now that Nic was never invited to the initial McKinnon debate and therefore could not have been disinvited by the BBC or vetoed by McKinnon.

They deserve to have the spotlight on their actions.

It is absolutely disgusting.

Everyone knows what happened. Because we saw it all play out in real time. How could McKinnon talk about meeting Nic for a discussion, if Nic hadn't been invited to the bloody discussion?

The BBC knows they can't veto guests. They know it. It must be a guideline that is paramount in their head, all the damn time.

Except when it's about trans.

because, to use Lang's excellent phrase from another thread, trans is a sacred caste and nothing, nothing can ever be allowed to challenge their view of the world.

Roger Bolton on Feedback will love to sink his teeth into this if he is made aware of the full facts.

The wider point of the Trans-lobby bullying its opponents might be of interest to Amol Rajan on The Media Show.

trans is a sacred caste and nothing, nothing can ever be allowed to challenge their view of the world.

Thought experiment: create a group of people who are immune from any criticism, have no repercussions for bad behaviour and respond with violence to any attempt to police behaviour.
Make the only criteria for being in that group that someone wants to be in it.
What happens?
Who joins the group?
How do they use it?

*I can't help thinking it's yet another own goal.

Times have changed and no platforming is being recognised for what it is.*

This. And I think a lot of people, including celebrities, are waiting to see where the tide goes before committing to an opinion--they want to have the right opinion, the currently PC one. So it is actually encouraging that they are not coming out in droves in support of Trans ideology. I think people are waiting to see; they KNOW which is the correct view but it is not yet politically correct to have that view.

I think hope that this is the straw that will break the camel's back. Fingers crossed.

Who joins the group?

And although we are constantly told that being 'trans' is such a difficult and unpleasant state no one would do it for advantages - it's not true is it.

The stunning and brave are lionised, they get platformed and listened to, they're above reproach and get to wear fancy outfits - it is a fuck of a lot easier than training to become a priest - but with many of the same benefits.

Well if you are AGP, transitioning and being accepted, or forcing people to accept you, must be a dream come true.

Being called stunning and brave for it is just the icing on the cake.

One of the reasons why it's best to actually see what these people say, look at them on Twitter, find out what they've said, is that it becomes fairly obvious what their motivation is.

Politicians sitting in the Houses of Parliament looking at a report, don't see any of this.

Thanks Datun for passing on Nic's comments. I'm still drafting my follow-up complaint and I'm focussing on the no-platforming issue, useful to know the exact details. They will either have to admit to it or accuse Nic of lying.

Exactly.

I have no idea if she tapes her phone calls, but the current climate is certainly making one cynical enough to do so.

I'm going to cancel my bbc license and demand a refund. Public broadcaster my arse when 50% of the population are thrown under a bus like this.

Even if she didn't record the calls, the fact that they happened, would be evidence that they cancelled her.