Any Questions now

[Iknowitisheresomewhere]

Question about Prof Stock case.

Wow. Not even a nod to it.

I'd be really interested to know what people phoning in do say.

BBC censorship.

So Jess, what were you studying at university?

JB - "Norms of Assertion"

That sounds interesting, I wonder if you could explain it a bit more?

JB - "Well, it basically means making shit up and never being questioned about it"

Jess Barnard was actually a last minute replacement for Nadia Whittome who I'd much rather have been the guest representing the younger part of Labour.

I thought it was quite a change that they allowed the discussion to play put properly on the programme. That's part of the slowly turning tide I think. Radio 4 has shied away from the discussion less than other been channels though, between Today, the moral maze, the odd documentary and play, and even women's hour (tho not as much as they should have featured it). But this was new for any questions. I was expecting them to allow some anti stock / pro gender callers to balance out the panel, but instead nothing! Possibly better that way, but I expect the majority of callers were in agreement with most of the panel.

I'm so frustrated I wasted my time listening to Any Answers (I never listen, it's too annoying). My DH suggested it was because no-one rang in about the subject. I reckon it's because too many did and they were all on the side of reality.....

So did the programme run away from the presenter - it is always a bit hit and miss or did the calls not get put through or ones on the subject not flagged up to the presenter? It was mentioned by her at the beginning

I’m so fed up of people lying about trans suicide rates and the BBC letting them get away with it!

Chris Mason commented that the question about Prof Stock had provoked "certainly our liveliest discussion" as he encouraged listeners to phone in to Any Answers. It seems very strange that no calls on this subject were broadcast on the programme.

I suspect they didn't allow any calls because they were afraid someone might say something blindingly obvious and socially unacceptable.

Maybe they wanted to represent both sides of the argument but they couldn't because none of the callers were against free speech and in favour of bullying.

I loved what Goodwin said about being unable to listen to an opposing view meant you had no place in higher education. That was the highest point of the broadcast for me.

They've made space for the woman who only got 4 seconds last week, on misogyny. Granted these were important topics. I do suspect it will be a while yet before we get to discuss on any answers.

Yes Jux extremely good point.

I listened to the whole of AQ? today, rather than just the excerpt last night. I was really struck, how, in the question on whether crimes against women should be recorded as hate crimes, Caroline Flint managed to get through a comment on rape without mentioning the words 'man' or 'woman'.

Instead we got "If they are ever in the situation they are raped ... there will be an active prosecution to bring people to court and to face justice".

She was happy to talk about violence against women and violence by men and boys. But, when talking about the specifics of rape, she defaulted to gender neutral language.

A year ago I probably wouldn't have noticed this, but why are we shy about stating the reality that, almost universally, men rape and women are raped by them? Yes, I know there's the odd exception, but really.