BBC breaching impartiality

[DdraigGoch]

Nolan Show has exposed the way that the BBC has been allowing and encouraging their journalists to become political lobbyists:

order-order.com/2022/06/16/bbc-training-journalists-to-become-trans-rights-activists/

Oh, and there is;

Social Action
4.3.19 Social action output can form an important part of the BBC’s public service. However, care is required to ensure the BBC sets its own social action agenda and decides its own priorities:

we must ensure that our output does not simply embrace the agenda of any particular campaign groups or charities and that we treat groups objectively and do not favour one above another
if our social action programmes or campaigns coincide with a government campaign or lobbying initiative, it is important we retain an arm’s-length position
the BBC must not lobby on matters of public policy when raising awareness of important social issues
news reporting of BBC social action campaigns must be duly impartial.

Social action initiatives must not involve any element of on-air fund raising except for BBC charitable appeals.

What is Richard Sharp - the current Chairman (ex banker and note before him it was another ex-banker Chairman, David Clementi) - doing about the BBC's partiality? From what little I've seen of him at the select committee, making bland statements is all we'll get.

Not only Richard Sharp but Tim davie and what seems like a parade of impartiality tsars at the BBC. They're all too scared.

Global Butterflies isn't a precedent. It's business as usual for the BBC.

One TRA group was actually set up with licence payers money. The bbc then paid the group to come in and 'educate' it's teams

Dorries should ignore the fact that Tory Tim is at the top and certainly not be reassured by it. Beneath that there is a hardcore of people who care as much about impartiality as they do about facts. Ie they don't

There's a thread about that article on Wpath guidelines: The Times today on wpath www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4570831-the-times-today-on-wpath

I don't know why my sharetoken doesn't work for you, but here's another: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9c9a8fce-ed84-11ec-b47a-cf598c451bbb?shareToken=3fb3e3332dfaaed188e292a23e002310

Important to note what is Global Butterflies and who is behind it.

Who is behind this? Answer: two people.. Rachel Reese and Emma Cusdin who are “trans women” and partners — they describe themselves as lesbians. Nothing wrong with that but hardly impartial as they have a vested interest in getting people onside.

thecritic.co.uk/the-genderbread-man-is-coming

Well, that explains Global Butterflies' grip on reality...

Did anyone see Channel 4 News tonight reporting on Trans being left out of the Conversion Therapy bill?

It was shockingly lacking in impartiality:

We were told that the government had refused to include Trans in the bill.

A gentle middle aged trans woman came on and explained that when she had always felt out of place as a boy, and was a teenager, at the suggestion of her vicar, she was strapped to a chair, and given electric shocks while being shown pictures of women. This left her distraught and full of self loathing and it was torture.

This, we the audience were to assume, was the sort of practice the government must want to retain.

Although there was a statement from the government to say there were protections against this in place through other means, this came across weakly.

Then Nancy Kelly of Stonewall came on and listed about ten institutions, psychiatric bodies etc all of which are against trans being excluded from the bill so making it seem outrageous and extraordinary that the government had taken the line it had.

A dry official gov. statement about making separate provision for the trans position was shown written form and read out.

No where was a explanation given about why trans was not included in the ban on conversion therapy, or anyone who could have explained it asked to speak.

No one explained that pressure on young people to be trans might in itself be ‘conversion therapy’ for possibly gay or simply non gender conforming teens. No mention of the Cass report was made.

There was no mention of the concern that exploratory psychological therapy for young people presenting as trans - who may have suffered sexual abuse or trauma, be autistic, or peer influenced at a difficult stage in their lives, or have internalised homophobia, as examples - might, because it does not immediately affirm their trans identity, be considered to ‘conversion therapy’.

I thought Channel 4 News was better than the BBC’s but now feel disillusioned.

The only way the BBC can recover its reputation is to hire a GC organization like SexMatters to educate its journalists about the GC viewpoint. It is NOT enough to remove one slide from the Global Butterflies presentation to claim it has resolved the issue of glaring partiality. For those who know how the BBC operates, is there any process where they would be "forced" to provide GC training so they would be seen to be pursuing impartiality?

Of course they're not going to say 'no'. They've got a lucrative job in a role that doesn't really need to exist as a standalone position (the few necessary tasks can be done by HR). Of course they're not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Draigs, on the nose.

CRUMPETS No it's not enough to remove a slide. Obviously they should be banned. They should have been banned the first time they went in six months ago. Obviously they should be banned for their social media history if nothing else. Obvious to everyone except the BBC. Sex Matters will be banned I'm sure. They'll never be allowed to go in.

I mean who organises these trainings? Must be diversity and inclusion or HR. Can't be editorial people (please, no, it just can't that would be crazy) And what diversity person would ever invite proper feminists in?

It's fairly astonishing that a huge organisation like the Beeb even has to get outside input for what should be fairly basic awareness training on the law as it actually stands. Surely their own HR department should be able to provide it?

Given the problems, it would require some serious oversight to make sure the stuff they do is genuinely impartial - if the course material was made publicly available that would be reassuring. And providing the training in-house would avoid the current nonsense about not being able to share such material for "copyright reasons" as currently happens when 3rd party providers go into schools, etc.

Thank you @Tiphaine pardon my English, typos I swear.

I keep asking myself, why do these kinds of organizations feel the need to have trainers like this at all? Are thoir very well paid leaders incapable of direction them to develop guidelines about how to behave in the workplace? Or to ask employees to give feedback on problems they notice?

They definitely don't need outside input for staff to be taught the wrong law

It's training like this that makes me wonder if the bookers for Justin Webb and Today knew exactly who Fallon Fox is and strategically omitted that from the research notes.

And that's why Justin Webb had no idea until he saw the comments after the interview.

If so, massive own goal. Webb is now aware that he has been played.

More likely they just couldn't find anyone with a cogent argument. Veronica Ivy, Sally Hines and Joanna Harper have all failed to make any sense whatsoever when interviewed about this issue.

I'm wondering if training in other marginalised groups from external organisations would also be seen as breaching impartiality? How about women's rights?

It's training like this that makes me wonder if the bookers for Justin Webb and Today knew exactly who Fallon Fox is and strategically omitted that from the research notes.

I think it's highly implausible that they didn't know, and they ought to be binned for sheer incompetence in researching guests if they didn't.