Woman's Hour now: BBC walking away from Stonewall

[nauticant]

Emma Barnett is asking the questions.

Just listening 400 out of 22000.

I feel really uplifted by this interview. It questions - it challenges - it engages... just as a good interview should.

It is great to see the BBC almost free from shackles and able to get on with reporting on the whole matter.

Will the Dof Education be next? Schools seem to be struggling with confusion between society/stonewall and science. It isn't easy to be clear to children in these circumstances.

Glad Ben Hunte got a mention. Unbelievable that he was seemingly given license to write anything he wanted, instead of upholding basic journalistic standards

Yes his propaganda was shocking and complaints were upheld against his article(s) though it took months (over a year I think?). With the new impartiality drive, it we won't see extreme articles again and problems quicker to sort out

Re the number of trans employees at the BBC, this was reported a couple of years ago after a staff survey. The number then was 417
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WbP92b6YbpP9j4mwwbtc9Q/contact-us

The figure represents more than one in 50 of the workforce – about four times higher than the proportion in the population at large.

And it stunned the BBC executive behind the research, who described the total number of trans employees, at 417, as 'very, very high'.

Tunde Ogungbesan, the BBC's director of diversity, has now launched a major reform to make the Corporation more 'trans-friendly' following the findings.

Mr Ogungbesan told the Westminster Social Policy Forum that the results would lead to the rewriting of the BBC's 'style guide', which sets out the rules on 'fairness and terminology' at the corporation.

The total number of staff in the BBC is apparently around 20,000. If 2% of them are trans, that would make 400.

The media show on Radio 4 last Thurs afternoon 5/11/21 interviewed Stephen Nolan -it's a good listen. Sorry can't get a link at the moment.
Stephen has Freedom of Information requests in for meetings between Sonewall and the BBC but the BBC is refusing permission so far.

@CatsOperatingInGangs and other PPs. Your post re VICENEWS was interesting. Ben Hunte is now working for them, apparently, rather than West Africa correspondent, but who knows?. The massive outrush of LGBTQ+ from the BBC appears to be 5 - though I guess many more may leave if they disagree or can't afford to or want to fight from within.

However, the Beeb's most recent survey revealed that out of 21,000 staff 400 said they were trans. Yet 25% refused to answer and some as a PP above said some were confused. It all seems very muddled and not something a large organisation should use to implement policy. They need some statisticians in management!

My positive feedback has been sent to the BBC.

MORE OF THIS SORT OF THING (I shall make myself a placard)

Thanks for the link to today's interviewee - hah at the typical BBC scruff in the accompanying photo.

There's such a lot to say about Woman's Hour and its presenters - I hope Jenni Murray never deigns to darken its doors again. She played her part in going along with the business of lists of women for awards etc but was crushed for speaking out as a woman, silenced, disillusioned and effectively forced out despite her eminence in broadcasting and long service to women.

Didn't care for those cookery items on Woman's Hour and, like others, can't stand Anita Rani's wittering. Nor am I an admirer of Emma Barnett with her hectoring of interviewees but there we are.

I don't see this move by the BBC being as a result of the Nolan programme so much as the fact that the BBC's regulator, Ofcom. had left the Stonewall programme out of concern about bias and impartiality. That left the Stonewall BBC exposed and in a precarious position. It wasn't the BBC's leadership or initiative but a defensive and self-protective step forced on them. No praise to them for that or for making themselves the tool of minority pressure groups at the expense of women.

The elephant in the room is why does the BBC, with its public funding, numerous HR and other directors of policy and management, all paid in the hundreds of thousands, have to be taken to employment tribunals by women to get equal pay or have to pay a lobbying organisation like Stonewall to tell it how to implement legal rights and practices for its staff? Staff includes women, which they seemed to forget, yet again, in their rush into the embrace of Stonewall on its trans mission. I look forward to hearing they've revised their style manual and glossary of terms which was apparently dictated to them by Stonewall, which they deny, of course.

However, the Beeb's most recent survey revealed that out of 21,000 staff 400 said they were trans. Yet 25% refused to answer and some as a PP above said some were confused. It all seems very muddled and not something a large organisation should use to implement policy. They need some statisticians in management

Perhaps someone could ask the question of another BBC Radio 4 programme, More or Less, which looks at what appears to be inaccurate statistics and usually tears apart the scientifically inaccurate methodology behind the survey which produced them.

Sounds fantastic, need a link please xxxxxxxxx

@OhHolyJesus

Has someone put truth serum in Emma's tea?

Her tune is certainly changed.

It really makes me wonder how many people in media etc are just spouting what they're told/toeing the party line while in their heads and hearts they know it is BS. That must be soul-destroying.

Interesting about John Boyne. When he originally published his book about a trans child he was a bit rude about Graham Linehan and gc feminism, if I remember correctly. He's obviously come to his senses.

Interesting programme. There has clearly been lots of legal advice taken on this area by the BBC executive team...the points he make sound like the sort of thing an organisation would be arguing in response to an employment tribunal claim against them. It's telling that he reverts back to the defensive legal position of "no actual bias, just a potential perception of bias" and won't deal with the difficult issues.

@3timeslucky

[quote OhHolyJesus]
Has someone put truth serum in Emma's tea?

Her tune is certainly changed.

It really makes me wonder how many people in media etc are just spouting what they're told/toeing the party line while in their heads and hearts they know it is BS. That must be soul-destroying.[/quote]
‘I was only following orders’…

Stonewall's post on twitter

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1458423921116602368

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?
Yes agreed. I'm one who asked when did she peak, but I think you're right really. And that's her job.

@Doubletoilandtrouble

Does anyone know where I can catch up on this? Would love to watch it

I just ask Alexa for Radio 4 Woman's Hour and it gives me the latest episode. I had stopped listening years ago when they persecuted Jenni Murray for believing in biology.

I can hear the sounds of gloves coming off from those stonewall statements.

Pressure, shame, not safe, attacks, historical and inaccurate homophobia.

Good. Let's have it.

People are really, really going to want to see a different set of statements about the LGB than they are the T.

You can't keep saying LGBT, when they are in direct conflict with one another.

@Manderleyagain

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? Yes agreed. I'm one who asked when did she peak, but I think you're right really. And that's her job.

I think there likely was BBC policy or a Woman's Hour editorial policy to abide by Trans Ideology and use their terms of reference and that has now been rescinded....to all our benefit. After all if the Women's Equality Party is captured...who isn't? Helen Joyce's book explains well, how all this has happened 'under the radar' , with powerful lobby groups/funding behind it. It was always the plan to get Laws changed on other pretexts before voters realised the true implications.

I want to thank all of you who have posted the links to the interview and to the feedback form. I’m very happy to have listened and then fed back, I did get a little carried away with the latter 🤣

No debate and the culture of fear means that not only do people not speak out, they don't hear other people talking about it, so some don't always get the issues.

Once you can talk, it's a snowball effect. People who didn't know, or were on the fence, suddenly get a whole load of new info.

Plus of course there's always that marvellous phenomenon, where the reaction from transactivists to anyone asking a question, means people listen a lot more intently to the answer.

Boreofbabylon where is this from?
Tunde Ogungbesan, the BBC's director of diversity, has now launched a major reform to make the Corporation more 'trans-friendly' following the findings.

Mr Ogungbesan told the Westminster Social Policy Forum that the results would lead to the rewriting of the BBC's 'style guide', which sets out the rules on 'fairness and terminology' at the corporation.

That's the BBC saying that in order to be more welcoming as an employer to a particular demographic (2% of staff) it decided to change its public language as a broadcaster and news organisation, changing how it is able to discuss an issue which is currently live in our democracy. And as EB pointed out because of the beeb's cultural position, that influences the language in the public sphere of this country.

The political positions are baked into the choice of language on this issue. They indicate the framework you are using to see the issue, and restrict what ideas/concerns you can communicate clearly. And that was chosen by the broadcaster in order to be seen as friendly to 2% of its staff.

This goes against what the BBC bloke was saying on WH. He kept trying to separate BBC the employer from BBC the impartial news organisation.

He is called Rhodri Talfan Davies. He is Director of Nations. I assume that's to do with the BBC's different output across the UK.

That title alone (if that’s entirely it) is a clue that there’s something very wrong with the BBC. It combines grandiosity and lack of meaning in equal measure.

I've left postive feedback on BBC! Well done Emma Barnett