Woman's Hour now: BBC walking away from Stonewall

[nauticant]

Emma Barnett is asking the questions.

I hope Emma will be safe from threats and that her job is also safe.

I want to show support. What page do I need to go to in order to do this?

Is the Beeb monitoring this board now? Have we vipers actually got some power? That would be good

@TheLikesofMe

I hope Emma will be safe from threats and that her job is also safe.

I want to show support. What page do I need to go to in order to do this?

@TheLikesofMe Here you go

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback/#/Your%20comment

Brilliant! So pleasantly surprised by EB. Have sent positive feedback.

You can use this link TheLikesofMe:

www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback/#/Your%20comment

I wish so much that another series of W1A would be commissioned covering all this.

@OhHolyJesus

Has someone put truth serum in Emma's tea?

Her tune is certainly changed.

I don't think so. I think she has been biding her time and has been really really ready for this.

Thank you!

"Well what was so wrong with the bbc they felt they needs to pay such a huge amount to an outside agency to influence their internal policy? "

Companies and organisations are often put under a lot of pressure to prove they are meeting requirements and laws. It's not enough to say they're doing it: they must provide shedloads of proof - usually paperwork - in order to achieve that shiny badge of honour that says they're accredited.

Not all Accreditation schemes are a waste of money, of course - some are essential for professional, well-trained staff.
This one seems to be a money-spinner and protection racket combined.

People are saying ' when did Emma peak' but isn't she doing what a good journalist should? That is, really question and challenge interviewees on political topics? Really hold them to account ( in the real meaning of 'holding to account' , i.e. get them to show whether they have a solid, evidence based, well thought through position;, rather than the Billy Bragg/ cancel culture form of 'holding to account' which means getting people sacked/ financially destroyed/ silenced/ ostracised when you disagree with them.)

@Datun

I re-read the full BBC statement yesterday, and it was trying it's absolute damnedest to say we are totally impartial, of course, but people might think we aren't, and as it's all about people's perception, we have to leave stonewall. You know, just in case it looks bad, even though we're not bad.

So it's really good that Emma is putting that alleged impartiality to the test. Cos we all know it's bollocks.

There are 400 trans people working at the BBC, so I imagine there is a massive internal schism going on at the moment.

Emma is brave. I wouldn't want be in the BBC cafe having a latte after that.

400 out of how many? Seems high - unless that includes the LGB and not just the T.

Just listened. 😃

Could hear the dinosaur roar 😃

Poor schlep having to Answer The Questions ... 😃

And the 'pregnant people' bit 😃

@Tanith

"Well what was so wrong with the bbc they felt they needs to pay such a huge amount to an outside agency to influence their internal policy? "

Companies and organisations are often put under a lot of pressure to prove they are meeting requirements and laws. It's not enough to say they're doing it: they must provide shedloads of proof - usually paperwork - in order to achieve that shiny badge of honour that says they're accredited.

Not all Accreditation schemes are a waste of money, of course - some are essential for professional, well-trained staff.
This one seems to be a money-spinner and protection racket combined.

It is normal for charities to be the ones they pay to prove they are doing that though? (Especially ones that don’t follow the law themselves)

Shouldn’t it be a regulatory body that fulfils this role? Or perhaps checks that hr are fulfilling this role?

The head of Radio 4 is Mohit Bakaya. You can email [email protected] and tell him what you want. I've asked for the Nolan podcast to be broadcast on Radio 4 and I've also asked why Analysis and File on Four and Woman's Hour and other more probing programmes turned a blind eye to what's been going on. I think Radio 4, apart from a few people like Jenni Murray, Justin Webb and Sarah Montague who were senior enough to push it, has performed abysmally on this. Why should we trust anything it covers again? Makes me wonder what other horrors I know nothing about because they're too squeamish to touch them.

Also worth contacting Radio 4 Pick of The Week programme
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/59w5B29SrJ3yzb7sdqrhty6/contact-us

And Feedback programme (which covered Nolan podcast last week)
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WbP92b6YbpP9j4mwwbtc9Q/contact-us

Stonewall's annual questionnaire, or at least the one DH had to complete for his workplace, assumes everyone has a gender identity. DH does not. (The poor soul!) So ended up having to opt for being non-binary.

So the DATA IS WRONG regarding 400 trans in the BBC. I'm annoyed that I'm not surprised. It's wrong by at least 1 person and could be a lot more.

In another survey the 'researchers' removed all respondents who said they didn't have a gender identity, completely skewing LGBT results. BAD DATA. BAD STATS. BAD MANTRA'S.

Done it!

@nauticant

In recognition of Remembrance Day the final feature is about female agents of the SOE during the Second World War. Powerful stuff. Great stories but so much to bring a tear to the eye.

Very powerful and very humbling such brave women.

@TableTopTennis

People are saying ' when did Emma peak' but isn't she doing what a good journalist should? That is, really question and challenge interviewees on political topics? Really hold them to account ( in the real meaning of 'holding to account' , i.e. get them to show whether they have a solid, evidence based, well thought through position;, rather than the Billy Bragg/ cancel culture form of 'holding to account' which means getting people sacked/ financially destroyed/ silenced/ ostracised when you disagree with them.)

Yes. She's being very very careful not to give her own views, just ask questions and demand answers.

Shouldn’t it be a regulatory body that fulfils this role? Or perhaps checks that hr are fulfilling this role?

We have heard the question asked of alot of people. Who else have they consulted with. Answers are never forthcoming. Even if it's true, that womens organisations or any other that companies work with, why are they never able to say. Why is it working with stonewall makes it apparently to embarrassing ir controversial to state who else you work with

I'm glad he's GC, I love his books

JesusMaryandJoseph John Boyne kind of found himself in the GC camp when he was eviscerated and fed to the TRA wolves in the wake of his novel 'My Brother's Name is Jessica'. I think he would previously have classed himself as an ally.

He uninvited Nic Williams when Veronica Ivy refused to be in the same studio as her.

🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬The person who told lesbians to die in a grease fire and told women to enjoy our erasure should not be dictating guests on a BBC programme.

Speaking of Ben Hunte and lgbt+ employees of the BBC,
this a For Women Scotland tweet just appeared in my timeline about Hunte's latest expose of staff leaving/planning to leave BBC because they think reporting anything they don't want people to hear is transphobic...

twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1458791841609007109

www.vice.com/en/article/n7nv97/lgbtq-employees-are-quitting-the-bbc-because-they-say-its-transphobic

Maybe, maybe, it's a small step towards the beginning of the end for all this madness.

The style guide will be updated as part of the Director Generals Impartiality Drive. Like PP said it will take time to take SW out of the BBC - lot's of unpicking to do and it won't happen overnight