FiLia/Womens Place/Fairplay for Women joins statement re Womens Hour 20/10/20

[TheClitterati]

"Today, 20th Oct, BBC Woman's Hour hosted an excellent discussion on the politicization of Mumsnet with feminist scholar Sarah Pederson (at approx 25mins). The discussion looked at the growth of the popular Mumsnet feminist discussion boards and their role in promoting a nascent women's movement advocating women's rights, in particular informing discussion on GRA reform.

Womans Place UK, Fair Play for Women and FiLiA were highlighted as groups popular with and representative of women's rights issues. At this point Jane Garvey, the BBC presenter felt it necessary to interject "we have to be clear, which are groups that some people have describe, in some circumstances, as transphobic".

FiLiA, FPFW and WPUK are not transphobic. It is not acceptable for a BBC journalist to repeat libellous comment about us as if it is fair comment or a balancing of the discussion. There is simply no basis in fact for this comment to be made. It is the repetition of misogynist slander to which too many women are subjected.

These comments are seriously prejudicial to the reputations of women involved with these organisations, some of whom have previously been invited on the programme. We urge BBC Woman's Hour to correct this inaccurate reporting and we would like to thank Sarah Pederson for her excellent and informative analysis of the feminist phenomenon that is Mumsnet."

FiLiA, WPUK and Fair Play For Women

filia.org.uk/resources/2020/10/20/statement-on-comments-made-by-bbc-womans-hour?fbclid=IwAR3MH9ri1CTdkOdW0CTMwyKmeloEnTeddd3k503vnyenIb1NeTy65O6MYgo

Just to repeat my earlier prediction,

The BBC is committed to balance and fairness ... controversial topic ... strong feelings on both sides ... diversity and inclusion agenda ... blah blah ... fuck of woman you insane old hag ... we've had the training ... look, there's a scan of pink foetal brain I drew in wax crayons ... pay your licence fee or thousands of tv executives will go moderately hungry this winter ...'

They seem to be fixated on it not being strictly 'defamatory' as a get-out clause.

So I think I'll re-complain using 'unfair' and 'disproportionate'.

Ofcom here we come.

twitter.com/HenryTribe/status/1320751361886167040

5.35pm

Right, so how do we raise this to the next level?

This is the bit that really gets my goat:
'she reflected an opinion and viewpoint otherwise not represented in the item. As an impartial presenter it was right for Jane to interject at that point.'
It makes me angry because the opinion of 'some people' was the only viewpoint expressed! Sarah Pedersen did not mention whaty FPFW, WPUK or FiLiA stood for, or whether she agreed with them or not.

That's the reply I got. I'm not sure what I'm going to say back yet, but I'll definitely be saying something.

Same response just arrived with me too. No mention of my point about mentioning Stonewall as perceived by some people as a misogynistic and homophobic organisation- I wonder why not?! ( not really)

(For equal 'balance' I meant to add!)

I've just received the same reply too. So, as well as repeating a lie, they "do not accept that any individual or organisation have been defamed by this item."

I'm so annoyed at the tone of that response. There is no attempt at reconciliation. They didn't even come out with everyone's favourite non-apology apology 'we're sorry that you felt this way. '

They have not responded to the specific elements of my complaint.

Essentially they have told me that in considering this remark to be inaccurate, partial and offensive, I was wrong!

Also, I am astounded that they feel that 'Woman’s Hour has frequently covered the conversations and debates around sex and gender over recent months and years'. Woman's Hour has been conspicuously silent on this topic. At far-spaced intervals a strictly moderated 'debate' has been permitted, in which there is never enough time to get to the root of the matter, particularly for those unfamiliar with the topic.

However, as they have stated their commitment to “considering the broadest perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.” , I will make sure to get in touch the next time there is a topic in which my views have not been represented and quote this back at them.

My follow-up reply might be tv licence cancellation. I've had enough.

This is the bit that really gets my goat:
'she reflected an opinion and viewpoint otherwise not represented in the item. As an impartial presenter it was right for Jane to interject at that point.'

By that logic WH shouldn't discuss anything without presenting the MRA view for 'balance'.

Got the same reply. The bit that really stood out to me was “From our research and previous experience of covering this topic we know such views are held, often by individuals who have had personal experience.” Now, to me that reads as “individuals who have had personal experience of the transphobia of these organisations ”.

If there was a case to answer to WPUK etc for defamation or similar, I think they just made it worse.

@StandUpStraight

Got the same reply. The bit that really stood out to me was “From our research and previous experience of covering this topic we know such views are held, often by individuals who have had personal experience.” Now, to me that reads as “individuals who have had personal experience of the transphobia of these organisations ”.

If there was a case to answer to WPUK etc for defamation or similar, I think they just made it worse.

Yes I absolutely agree. I think they've just hoisted themselves by their own petard.

I will reply. I'm ever angrier than I was when I heard the interview and I was pretty pissed off then.

@Over600Ecalypts

I had the same reply as TheFleegleHasLanded. It arrived much more quickly that the Complaints page suggested it would.

MichelleofzeResistance is right re sauce for the goose. Here's hoping for a chance to point that out to them soon!

Do you think the speediness of the response means that they knew in advance there would be complaints, and had their reply all ready to go?

I had the same reply too and I'm raging about it.
My original complaint pointed out that "some people" (which is my 3yo's favourite vague conversation opener and means she's about to speculate something far fetched ) also think the royal family are lizards or that the earth is flat but that JG doesn't interject with those opinions for balance on other issues.
I would like to escalate, is it the done thing to go back to the copy and paste response person or go to the regulator?

It seems we have to escalate further within the BBC before we can raise it with Ofcom:

Complain about the BBC
You must complain directly to the BBC first and reach the end of the BBC’s complaints process. Ofcom can only consider your complaint if you’ve already complained to the BBC, or in exceptional circumstances.

Escalate to Ofcom
Have you completed all stages of the BBC’s complaints process, including receiving a response from the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (‘ECU’)?
Yes (you will need your BBC complaint reference number and your final response from the BBC)

No, because I have exceptional circumstances

ofcomforms.secure.force.com/formentry/SitesFormBBCIntroductory?complaintType=SitesFormBBCStandardsComplaints

From the BBC Complaints Framework:

Stage 1b: If I'm not satisfied with the reply, what can I do next?

If you are dissatisfied with the reply at Stage 1a, please write back to BBC Audience Services, as set out in under ‘How to complain’ above, within 20 working days of the date on which you received the response at Stage 1a. If you write after that time, please explain why your complaint is late. Exceptionally, the BBC may still consider your complaint, if it decides there was a good reason for the delay. If the BBC decides not to consider your complaint because it is late, you can ask the Executive Complaints Unit to review that decision.

Your complaint should clearly and concisely set out why you remain dissatisfied. It should -
•not exceed 1,000 words. In exceptional circumstances, longer complaints may be entertained. In that case, however, you should also identify the reasons your complaint exceeds 1,000 words and provide a one-page summary of your complaint;
•include any reference number provided;
•include the points that you raised at Stage 1a that you want the BBC to reconsider. The BBC will not consider new points unless, exceptionally, it is necessary to do so in the interests of fairness.

If the BBC receives a number of complaints about the same issue, it may apply the steps as set out under the BBC’s response at Stage 1a above.

The BBC will investigate your complaint and aims to reply within 20 working days of receipt of your complaint though some complaints take longer than others to investigate.

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/sites/default/files/2020-06/BBC_Complaints_Framework.pdf

Thanks, @sultanasofa.

Has anyone come up with some good wording for their 2nd stage complaint?

I'm at stage 2 as well Sultana. It would be interesting if we all did an identical cut&paste stage 2 response in reply to their facile cut&paste non-answer. That way we could keep escalating with the minimum of effort. Any offers?!

Complaint sent

Thanks for bumping the thread and reminding me to write my follow up complaint! I was so disheartened by the dismissive tone of the initial BBC response that I couldn't muster the energy to write back.

But I've calmed down now and your comments have given me the nudge I need. And I'm heartened to think that my stage 1b complaint will be one of many - there's strength in numbers. The BBC may attempt to brush our arguments away again, but then we can go to Ofcom and they may take a more balanced position.

Follow up complaint sent

This is the latest I've had back from the BBC following complaint number 2. Still waiting.

Thank you for taking time to contact us again recently. Please do not reply to this automated email: it is from an outgoing address which cannot handle replies.

This is to inform you that although we normally aim to investigate and reply at this next stage of the complaints service within 20 working days (around four weeks), we are currently dealing with a higher than normal volume of cases. This means it will take a little longer to reply to you at present. We hope you understand that this is why we are unable to respond within our normal service times. We will of course do so as soon as we can, but in the meantime ask you not to contact us further and apologise if you experience further delay.

For full details of our complaints process please visit: www.bbc.co.uk/contact/how-we-handle-your-complaint.

In the meantime thank you again for contacting us and we appreciate your patience.

Kind regards

Here's the BBC response to my second complaint. I'm feeling like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. They haven't addressed the substance of my complaint. Essentially they have told me that I am wrong.

The BBC (especially Women's Hour and PM) feels like a lost cause, and this feeling has only been strengthened by seeing their coverage of the GIDS judicial review over the last couple of days. The BBC will realise in time that they backed the wrong horse. Too bad they aren't taking the opportunity of recent events to reflect on their policies and consider if there might be some downside to unthinking championing of transgender ideology at every opportunity.

I will continue listening to Times Radio and focus my efforts on the call for evidence on toilets, free speech etc.

Thank you for contacting us again.

We were sorry to hear you were unhappy with our previous response but having discussed the matter again with the Woman’s Hour team, we feel our earlier reply gave a full explanation of the editorial decisions taken in this item.

We don’t agree the inclusion of Jane’s comments have fuelled negative views about the aforementioned organisations, and nor do we believe they have been defamed in anyway.

Jane’s role as a presenter of this topical magazine programme, is to remain impartial and we are satisfied her comments did not go beyond what was expected of her. Her words were carefully chosen. As we mentioned previously such criticisms are already in the public domain and so it was reasonable for Jane to refer to these differing points of view.

We believe it was necessary to make this point to ensure the item was balanced, in line with the BBC guidelines, and our commitment to “considering the broadest perspective and ensuring that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.”

For these reasons I’m afraid we cannot correspond with you further at this first stage of the complaints process. If however you are still dissatisfied, you can contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU). The ECU is stage 2 of the BBC’s complaints process.

Details of the BBC complaints process are available at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle-complaint/ where you can read the BBC’s full complaints framework. You should contact the ECU within 20 working days of receiving this reply. You will need to explain why you believe there may have been a potential breach of standards or other significant issue for it to investigate.
 
If you wish to contact the ECU, we have provided a unique URL link for you in this email. This will open up further information about how to submit your complaint. The link will then not work after you have submitted your complaint. You will be asked for the case reference number we have provided in this reply.

@sultanasofa Nice work so far. Are you going to take it to the next stage? This is where it gets good because you get a senior BBC person who has to consider what you say and respond sensibly, not just this automated "nothing to see here" stuff you get from the team who churn out defensive emails. I hope you'll push on. Point out that they haven't addressed your complaint at all!

I appreciate your support, but I just don't think I have the energy.

Orwell used to work for the BBC.