Tim Davie (BBC) giving evidence to Culture, Media and Sports Committee

[Justme56]

There is plenty of discussion on X about this, but most of it is covered in this article (I think).
https://deadline.com/2024/03/bbc-boss-tim-davie-says-broadcaster-must-be-nice-amid-whipped-up-trans-rights-debate-1235863113/

Oh great - what about being nice to women then?!

"He said the BBC was “holding the center of the ring” on gender identity reporting."
!!!
The BBC is clearly biased against women and children - this statement is laughable.

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/20564/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/025cefec-d01e-4948-8e1a-f52752e53a61

Hmm, yes Tim Davie, the narrative is "deeply damaging" to the BBC because it's true, and finally seeing sunlight.

So, it is a very sensitive subject for the lads who say they are women to be referred to by their actual sex i.e. people have to lie as the poor laddies say the truth is unbearable. Yes, it is the truth to say that all ‘transwomen’ are males.

On the other hand, they are happy to falsely report to the nation that a male killer is a woman if that man wants it. Goodness, if women (the real ones) are outraged and object to these lies, they are whipping up nastiness against the poor sensitive laddies.

More duplicituous gobshtes pretending their furthering of the entitlement of males is the ‘centre of the ring’. All while saying the poor laddies are so, so, so sensitive. If that panel think they are kidding anyone, all I hear is the unsaid ‘fck real women as we don’t give a sh*t about them’.

It is easy to see how Salem happened.

David Jordan, the BBC’s director of editorial policy and standards, added in evidence to MPs that it was “unfortunate” that Webb didn’t “define his terms” more specifically.

“Had he said ‘biological male’ or ‘born male’ then it wouldn’t have been a problem. But as you know, it’s a very sensitive subject for trans women to be called male rather than female,” Jordan said

This drives me mad. The BBC is supposed to be made up of educated people. ‘Female’ and ‘Male’ are biological terms. So a transwoman could never be a female.

Justin Webb had no need to say ‘biological’ male. That would be tautology.

Veteran John Humphrys steps up

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/20/deeply-damaging-bbc-trans-row-overhyped-tim-davie/

https://archive.ph/cGKCk Mr Davie break down that Stonewall

Tim nice but dim Davies can do one.

I've never felt the loathing I feel for these privately education men with so much privilege - they enrage me.

Davie has misled the committee. He claimed to Damian Green that he’d had “less than a handful” of complaints about it.

I know more than a handful of women (that’s 5, right?) who have complained, and I don’t even know a lot of people.

I’ve emailed Damian Green (cc ing Davie) the complaint I sent to him directly on 1st March - which he’s never answered or acknowledged. (I copied Justin Webb in, & he sent very kind thanks almost immediately)

If any others would like to do the same, I bet it’s more than a handful.

Misled? Don’t those on the panel think you’re allowed to state what you want if you’re a bit ‘sensitive’ to the truth? If people object to be lied to, they’re stirring it up. The era of lies and liars peddling themselves as ‘nice’ people.

I am so fed up with the peddling of this mendacious, ideological bunkum that I am probably ranting at this stage. I have zero tolerance or respect for all the lies, and the liars who are propagating them.

Bizarre when the top guy at the BBC for 'editorial standards' so openly admits to sensitivity to one group's feelings takes precedence over simple and accurate reporting.

They really have no idea what they are doing to the BBC as a trusted institution with their misguided attempts at 'niceness'.

We all know that 'nice' only cuts one way, and that's the male way.

'Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters, a human rights organisation that campaigns for clarity on sex in law, policy and language, claimed that Tim Davie “must know that the job of the BBC is not to be caring, nice or kind, but to be factual and impartial”.

She said: “The truth can be uncomfortable but has to be told in the context of delivering the news, and that is the task of a public broadcaster. Avoiding uncomfortable truths to appease people isn’t being kind; it is evidence of bias.

“The statement from BBC’s head of editorial standards, David Jordan, on the sensitivity of calling men who identify as women ‘male’ was particularly revealing. Shaping editorial standards around this sensitivity above all other considerations really gets to the heart of how the BBC is damaging its reputation and credibility.'

Well said.

Good article in the Critic

https://thecritic.co.uk/davie-davie-give-us-some-answers-do/

This bit

He referred repeatedly to the Editorial Guidelines. Well, they do bang on about accuracy rather a lot. He should read them some time. Perhaps he meant the News Style Guide, which tells its journalists to lie about sex according to the preference of the subject, be they angel or demon. Of course there’s a caveat of “unless there are good editorial reasons”. But as being a murderer and cat liquidiser — in the case of Scarlet Blake — didn’t reach that bar, it’s hard to see what would.

I just noticed Cath Walton says something very similar to a post I made on the Justin Webb thread re. woman -> female -> biological female -> ? I called it tra-creep.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not Cath Walton 😁

Although, she might have plagiarised me 😠 but it's not a particularly ground breaking or original thought. So I'm going for coincidence 🙂

Thank you. I have done the same. 'Handful'? My arse.

I’ve emailed him directly on the address given on another thread, to make up for his lack of emails:

[email protected].uk

It hasn’t bounced back yet.

edited to add: I included a couple of Orwell quotes for him to think about.

I came across this

https://deadline.com/2024/03/bbc-sex-and-gender-briefing-jk-rowling-1235864310/comment-page-2/#comments

I don't know if it's been reported on any other news source. I haven't had time to read the briefing.

I'm confused. Wasn't it Tim Davie who came in and incurred quite a bit of ire from BBC employees for saying that they had to suck it up and report on things even if it hurt their feelings?

If so, what happened to him?

I think that they sucked him up and now he daren't hurt their feelings.

The BBC is subject to Freedom of Information requests. So someone could ask for details on emails received by him in a specific timeframe on a specific subject.

has the BBC said a dicky bird yet about the WPATH files? Or did I miss that?

Another article in the Telegraph on Tim Davie and the briefing note

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/03/22/bbc-accused-capitulating-to-ideology-by-gender-activists/

https://archive.ph/R4tf4

This stood out to me

describing someone as either a women’s rights activist or an anti-trans activist is an editorial choice.

So, transpeeps, even those guilty of heinous crimes, will have their identities respected. However, gc people can be slandered as antitrans at the whim of the editor. Unless I've misunderstood.

Tim Davie seems to have nailed his colours (pink and baby blue) to the mast!

@IcakethereforeIam "Tim Davie seems to have nailed his colours (pink and baby blue) to the mast!"
Oi! That's Tina to you!