Telegraph: BBC joins Involve UK, a Stonewall ambassador

[Abitofalark]

An article in The Telegraph states that the BBC has signed up with Involve UK for 'diversity' training.
training-scheme-new-group-stonewall-name/

This is an organisation which calls itself a proud ambassador'for Stonewall, raising concerns among women's organisations that it is Stonewall by another name.

Here is a link which I got from a blog and which worked for me so I am hoping it does the same here:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/20/bbc-diversity-

Why would they swap Stonewall for another trans ideology group? FFS.

The link is broken OP

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/20/bbc-diversity-training-scheme-new-group-stonewall-name/

It's available on web.archive.org/ if someone puts the Telegraph URL in the box at the top.

Haven't they had enough 'training'?

FFS

@YetAnotherSpartacus

Haven't they had enough 'training'?

It seems like an ill-advised placatory move from Davie post the infamous Zoom event.

However, amid a revolt from LGBT staff over the move, Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, has now promised to begin an alternative partnership with a group called Involve UK.

The Telegraph can reveal that the group is founded and run by Suki Sandhu, who said online he is “proud to be a Stonewall Ambassador”.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

The link is broken OP

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/20/bbc-diversity-training-scheme-new-group-stonewall-name/

It's available on web.archive.org/ if someone puts the Telegraph URL in the box at the top.

Thank you. I was afraid of that. And thanks for posting an alternative way to link to it.

This is what you get when you try to please everyone. I honestly do think they all (gender ideologists) will try and hoodwink us. I noticed this with the CPS who withdrew from SW but it turned out they just used another department that was still a member of SW for their HR (think it was the DoJ)

How daft do they think we are????

It really is disgraceful when it is public money they are using! Sick of it all.

@GrandmaMazur

Why would they swap Stonewall for another trans ideology group? FFS.

Here we go.

Stonewall's satellites and ghost companies, to achieve Stonewall's ends while disguising the source.

BBC are batty, it wasn't the name that was a problem with them continuing to qualify for the licence fee.

This was always going to be the next move, wasn't it. Dismantle the successful gay rights organisation, create diffused responsibility for the ideology. If multiple organisations spring up it might be harder to counter the message they are spreading.

This is why we have to focus on upholding equality laws.

Particularly important to keep naming and indicating: LGBT+ means a protected characteristic of sexual orientation or gender reassignment regardless of political affiliations, beliefs, cultures, race, and all other characteristics.

It does not mean a political position. Regardless of how many satellites are sent out by a political lobby who's message is 'we're representing all LGBT+ people - (except those ones over there)'.

They removed these quotes from Kate Harris that were in the article last night.

"“Kate Harris, the co-founder of the Stonewall breakaway group LGB Alliance, said: ‘Our concern is that the BBC doesn’t jump from the frying pan into the fire. Involve UK takes a similarly controversial approach to LGBT issues as Stonewall.’”

“She added: ‘Will Involve UK be upholding the right of lesbians to define themselves as same-sex attracted adult human females or not?’”

Archived article
<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.md/2021.11.20-174821/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/20/bbc-diversity-training-scheme-new-group-stonewall-name/#selection-1485.0-1493.168" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">archive.md/2021.11.20-174821/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/20/bbc-diversity-training-scheme-new-group-stonewall-name/#selection-1485.0-1493.168

Involve UK also provides advice to workplaces on “active allyship”, “Active Cultural Advocacy”, including microaggressions, systemic racism and white privilege, and urges employees to “call out” language not deemed to be “inclusive” enough.

Bloody hell. They're worse than stonewall.

Nothing is inclusive enough for trans activists. Nothing.

No public body /broadcaster should 'join' a lobby group. can we get some laws to stop this nonsense?

Why do so many self styled ‘diversity and inclusion experts’ focus on just 2 of the protected characteristics?

Given the nature of the BBC and equality law, shouldn’t the BBC be seeking advice on balancing competing needs?

Oh FGS.
Why can't they just read the equality act and follow it.

@FindTheTruth

No public body /broadcaster should 'join' a lobby group. can we get some laws to stop this nonsense?

I find it difficult to understand why so many public bodies signed up to the Stonewall schemes in the first place.

How could they not see that their duty to be impartial was in direct conflict with being associated with any lobby group?

There is no reason for a huge organisation like the BBC to source their 'diversity training' from any outside group. And if they do, it should be from somewhere like the EHRC which also has a duty of impartiality, not from a lobby group which has a vested interest in promoting their own agenda.

@endofthelinefinally

Oh FGS. Why can't they just read the equality act and follow it.

Because I suspect that the HR and people with sign-off to purchase such services are fully captured and are ambassadors themselves or have their briefs prepared by people who are ambassadors/allies and this influences the purchasing decisions for training services.

@FindTheTruth

No public body /broadcaster should 'join' a lobby group. can we get some laws to stop this nonsense?

This ^^

Maybe the baroness is the person to highlight this to. She might have the best understanding of what to do about that.

Also, someone somewhere whose been driving this in stonewall must have something very serious on someone somewhere.

I just don’t buy that the bbc would be stupid about stonewall in sheep’s clothing is by this point, or that they believe this wouldn’t get a fuck truck of sunlight given the, eh, sunlight on this now.

It is scary, this playing whackamole of lobby groups that need quashing in public organisations.

Oh for fucks sake!

Maybe they'll be more cautious about what advice they take from Involve. There's a chance that they've learnt a lesson from their association with Stonewall. Is that a vain hope?