14th October 'Nolan Investigates' podcast - Stonewall?

[Helleofabore]

This sounds interesting.

A special ‘Nolan Investigates’ podcast drops tomorrow afternoon on @BBCSounds. An 18 month investigation into the influence of a lobby group on public bodies throughout the UK. More details in the morning

It seems to be about Stonewall.

Anyone know more about it?

There is some chatter about it on Twitter.

twitter.com/stephennolan/status/1448052827088109568?s=21

twitter.com/janeclarejones/status/1448205588253618176?s=21

(Tweet from JCJ says:

Okay, at last, here it is.

The BBC Ulster documentary on the influence of Stonewall on public life in the UK.

Many GC women have been interviewed for this.

Let's take the lid off this thing shall we?

Wow, Episode 9. It's bloody great! It's about OfCom and its conflicts of interest vis a vis the attacks on the LGB Alliance, and its taking advice from Stonewall as to whether LGBA should get air time. In particular, focussing on an exchange between OfComs Dame Melanie Dawes and SNP MP John Nicholson, complaining about the BBC giving LGBA a platform in the interests of balanced reporting, where they collectively, effectively brand LGBA a hate group.

This is the one where we find out OfCom had signed an NDA with Stonewall. And where OfCom were proactively curtailing free speech in broadcasting on trans issues, then using these real life examples to give to Stonewall as examples of them being worthy T allies under the Diversity Ponzi scheme.

Prepare to get angry. Very angry.

place marking as listen

Thing about Nolan doing this (and including schtick about his regular programme) is (imo) that

a) as said upthread he might seem less threatening than other more mainstream investigative reporters and so encourage people to think they can be involved without much effort/challenge,
b) the BBC might have thought if it is received negatively they can more easily get rid of him than a ‘main’ presenter in the UK
c) he asks questions and includes his thought process in a way that the man in the street might so may reach people that wouldn’t connect with another presenter.

I personally am not a fan but my wider family are and would listen to this before say a panorama or newsnight programme - his reach is greater because he is emblematic of ‘this shit is complicated, break it down for me’

This might break him into wider UK programming so I can see why he would run with it, taking the gamble that other more established/comfortable news presenters wouldn’t.

Also the shtick of including bits of his regular programme also lets people know his contact details without doing a whole ‘contact us on this issue spiel’ - whilst giving everyone the opportunity to do just that.

I’ve written an email to thank him for raising the issue and to raise my own points about bits I think deserve even more scrutiny.

Thanks to @Helleofabore for posting about this as otherwise I might have missed it, regular fans/haters will likely have heard about (he gets hate listened to I know) and if we can all amplify that to family, friends, work and sm then the reach might be huge.

Have just finished listening to all 10 episodes and wow they really went for the jugular and from the sounds of it is the main reason that the BBC and ofcom has left stonewall. Its also very telling in the question that the BBC, ofcom and stonewall don't answer

@NecessaryScene

What I find most concerning though is this idea that Stonewall should be beyond any investigation or scrutiny, just because its an LGBT organisation. This 'untouchable' rhetoric is exactly what allowed the likes of the Catholic Church to cover up what was going on in their organisation for so long.

Owen Jones made pretty much this exact argument.

Stonewall is the main LGBTQ civil rights organisation in the country.

That there's a systematic attempt to monster and destroy it when homophobic hate crimes have trebled and transphobic hate crimes have quadrupled represents a grave threat to LGBTQ people.

You could just have well have said:

The Catholic Church is the main Christian organisation in the country.

That there's a systematic attempt to monster and destroy it represents a grave threat to Christians.

Every time I see this argument made about organisations, I know that we need to take a hard look at them - behind the scenes, what they say in public and what they say / hide in private. Given everything we know about corruption / safeguarding the idea that anyone (let alone a journalist youtuber ) would argue that a group like Stonewall should be immune to challenge and scrutiny raises so many 🚩 🚩🚩 🚩🚩 🚩

Am on Episode 2.

Listening to Stonewall talk about percentages of LGBTQ+ staff who've felt discriminated/threatened etc in the workplace.

Percentages were 30% and below.

My immediate reaction was what would those percentages have looked like if they'd asked the question of women?

A damn site higher I'd expect - yet the expectation is that diversity schemes are overwhelming focused on Trans and to a lesser extent LGB equality.

My own work experience (IT) is that diversity in these sectors is proportionally to population, over represented and the biggest issues are a lack of women in tech roles, black representation overall and specifically black women - and this gets worse the further up the levels of seniority you go.

I think there's a real issue in quoting figures about LGBTQ+ diversity/inclusion/harassment etc without context.

I'm not suggesting any of the above for anyone are acceptable.

However it leads to a narrative of "most vulnerable/oppressed/under represented" and again (in my experience) that's simply not true.

Every time I see this argument made about organisations, I know that we need to take a hard look at them - behind the scenes, what they say in public and what they say / hide in private.
Given everything we know about corruption / safeguarding the idea that anyone (let alone a journalist youtuber ) would argue that a group like Stonewall should be immune to challenge and scrutiny raises so many

I don't even think that OJ and chums are trying to cover up anything particular about Stonewall. I think they just know sweet bollocks all about safeguarding and the fundamental tenet of never allowing anyone, no matter who they are, to be untouchable. They just don't get it, they have clearly never had to have much to do with the fundamentals of safeguarding. OJ is way out of his depth on so much around this issue.

I have listened to some and skipped some but a few points that come over:

1. Serious group think failures..as we have pointed out many times here, going along with some bizzare assertions just because other people have is something that should be guarded against and examined closely.

1. The poor articulation of why these definitions and beliefs are supposed to be mandatory. The people explaining the position in these podcasts are incoherent and so obviously insular. It might mean something to them, and the only real explanation came from Owen the Mayor, which was they's own EUPHORIA at being theyself. Why do we all have to provide they with euphoria? No explanation given.

1. It's all so immature. I cannot fathom why serious organisations have to take such internet quiz stuff so seriously unless we at the point where the D and I infrastructure is so overstaffed and underemployed that internet quiz standard of trivia is put forward as "work".

Just my thoughts.

I mean we just need to all send it to our friends and families. I also have sent it to the CEO of my big organisation as a ‘BBC investigation’ he should probably be aware of in case it blows up. Then I sent it to my MP and his wife. Just send it round. We are the best people to get it round !

@Blessex

I mean we just need to all send it to our friends and families. I also have sent it to the CEO of my big organisation as a ‘BBC investigation’ he should probably be aware of in case it blows up. Then I sent it to my MP and his wife. Just send it round. We are the best people to get it round !

Good call.

Am now compiling my "send to" list 🙂

Agreed BreadInCaptivity
The disinterest in all other groups of people who face discrimination / challenge in the work place is so depressing. And I agree Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet they're clueless and disinterested. But as we all know (being women), predators and corrupt people look for those with influence to protect them.

@NecessaryScene

What I find most concerning though is this idea that Stonewall should be beyond any investigation or scrutiny, just because its an LGBT organisation. This 'untouchable' rhetoric is exactly what allowed the likes of the Catholic Church to cover up what was going on in their organisation for so long.

Owen Jones made pretty much this exact argument.

Stonewall is the main LGBTQ civil rights organisation in the country.

That there's a systematic attempt to monster and destroy it when homophobic hate crimes have trebled and transphobic hate crimes have quadrupled represents a grave threat to LGBTQ people.

You could just have well have said:

The Catholic Church is the main Christian organisation in the country.

That there's a systematic attempt to monster and destroy it represents a grave threat to Christians.

Both Cohen and NB Mayor keep saying similar throughout their interviews, when challenged as to why Stonewall and no other org; that Stonewall is representative of the community and should therefore be entitled to their special status and position of influence within orgs. It's quite extraordinary how much this notion has taken hold amongst bodies supposedly non political and non biased and founded on critical thinking. I just can't help thinking there is a sinister something else involved in all this. Why the NDAs? What is being hidden?

And one more point.
When Alison Bailey posted the letter sent to her Chambers by a "Director" at Stonewall I could only think how weak and inept that person was at the job based on the terrible quality of the letter and it's approach.
They deploy really inexperienced and naive people who are out of their depth. And because of the brand name Stonewall the mediocre level of competence is overlooked in a way it wouldn't in any other aspect of business.

This podcast series for me is a good look at some quite silly people at a normal level of scrutiny and examination and about time too.

This is the one where we find out OfCom had signed an NDA with Stonewall. And where OfCom were proactively curtailing free speech in broadcasting on trans issues, then using these real life examples to give to Stonewall as examples of them being worthy T allies under the Diversity Ponzi scheme.

I think about this a lot. I've said it before but whenever I see pronoun email sig files, I always think of how Mr Justice Julian Knowles, put it: In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society.

For me, the presence of those pronouns should be accompanied by a declaration if somebody is looking to collect ally points for themselves or for their organisations. Yes, I'm looking at you, so many organisations.

just finished episode 2

cor

@Sacreblue great points.

Also the David Bell episode, 5, was pretty serious. None of the hilarity.

Yeah what is been hidden ?

It’s like draw back the curtains. Show us

Be open and transparent. If not why not

Bbc funded by us ofcom funded by us. Stonewall funded by us

Where’s the truth hiding ?

And why is it being hidden

And why is it being hidden

Wel I don't think that's a secret is it? So many threads here have talked about how this has to be top down imposed.

Sadly it's so transparently flawed and the actual agenda of trying to get the whole world to believe in identity was wishful thinking in the extreme.

10 out of 10 for trying but no, it's not something we are going to do.

But we never knew there was NDA stuff.

Why the NDA S

We need a public enquiry with the power to set aside those NDA's.

NDAs are used to protect intellectual capital.

I work with consultants that don't want their work given away free, which would happen without NDAs.

Sadly there is no intellectual capital behind the Stonewall schemes, it's all quite shabby and actually indefensible especially the rubbish about removing the word mother.

Ben Cohen was incoherent on that particular aspect.

Sad that these numpties have been given such head room.
The fact that they have largely been waved in to spread this twaddle is less about sinister manipulation and more about how diversity and inclusion is such an unimportant issue really. No one looks closely at it, it's just waved in as senior people don't really care enough about it to waste time looking closer.

@littlbrowndog

But we never knew there was NDA stuff.

Why the NDA S

We suspected NDAs and knew that by their nature we would have no idea how many there were no how extensive.

Is an NDA much different from a thing where you can if you are rich enough stop the press from reporting on a story you'd prefer not to be in the public domain?

I'm on episode 4 and Owen (why is it always an Owen) Hurcum explaining gender is really something.

"It's just, you know, a feeling inside."

So the wee mayor seems a tad confused and confusing. Recognise non binary? Isn’t male or female? Isn’t bi but is... waffle waffle waffle. Mayor thinks mayor can’t tell the gender of a person (well I assume that’s because there are 7 billion). But doesn’t know not what sex is. Says intersex is neither male nor female - oh come on! False suicide stats - oh double come on.

You seem intelligent 🙄🙄🙄 How this interviewer keeps his cool I do not know. And what are you doing as a mayor?