BBC fair and accurate reporting of the judgement

[TheOtherRaven]

Getting increasingly concerned with the way the BBC are covering this story on multiple fronts.

Can we have a quick collation of evidence please from anything you've seen, heard or read just to make sure it's here and listed where it can be easily found?

This is a women's story, based on the long journey of three women to get this to the supreme court. How many women who were actually involved in all this so far have been in the interviews on TV and radio? Compared to how many men?

How much air time and in depth coverage has the issues and women's side of the story been allocated compared to the air time and depth of coverage given to TQ+ issues and side of the story?

What experts actually involved in the legal processes have been interviewed or given explanations of the judgement on air compared to people with opinions? One today actually didn't even know the name of the relevant act. Are facts being challenged and explained on air or are interviewees being allowed to broadcast misinformation unchallenged?

Oh, please. That’s ludicrous.

How?

He's a legal professional and entitled to an opinion. Just because it's not your opinion doesn't mean you can rubbish the entire thing because he said 'equalities' and not 'equality' in a live broadcast interview.

Does that wipe out his entire legal qualifications and right to an opinion then?

You don’t get to be the legal expert on such an important judgment on the national broadcaster, duck it up and not expect to be criticised. He is clearly not an expert in this field and had the arrogance, the sheer arrogance, to not even bother to prepare properly for it. Every time a mediocre man does something like this it stops someone else who would have done a proper job from getting a look in, and it’s not good enough. That’s not meritocracy.

It does rather undermine his credibility.

I stayed up to watch Newsnight on Wednesday. I thought they’d be reporting on the massive news from the SC which was on the front page of most papers.

But no. It was Nick having a go at someone from the Harris campaign about why the Democrats suck, which lasted aaaages, then a long interview with Douglas Murray about his new book about Islam and a bit of chat with the pointless Jo Swinson and the odious Matthew Stadlen (Stadland?) about what a meanie Murray is and an ex Tory advisor who was alright but not given much time to talk. They just ignored the SC judgement completely bar maybe a minute at the end where Swinson got all flustered and red in the face about trans rights.

I watched right until the credits open mouthed at their utter cowardice.

They may have covered it since but I couldn’t bare to waste my time checking.

Sumption has been a tiresome contrarian for years with his expertise being something that's been fading away in the rear view window.

Yes, it was just a minute at the end. I was very cross having stayed up specifically to watch it.

He called it by the wrong name at least five times.

Tbf there’s not a lot of humour in this is there? Plus the writers and panel of that show are probably all men aren’t they?

All the reporting I have seen about the changes to police searches have been framed as transwomen will now be searched by male officers. None of them is framing it as women will no longer be searched by male police officers who identify as women

Jeremy Vine put on his usual condescending little boy voice and patronised all his guests. He needs to go.

Why didn't they have the three Scottish women on? Well because as ordinary middle aged women and not young simpering little dolly birds they are invisible.

It's a well known fact on the street that the BBC has strong extreme left wing leanings.

It won't be because they want to be incredibly "fair" (oxymoron indeed). It'll be because someone gives them funding or support that means they need to be super nice to all minorities.

Not reporting from the BBC, but on them. Seems to be support for an apology for Robert Winston about his being cancelled for trying to assert that sex was real on Question Time in 2021. Would be nice... but let's not hold our breath... https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/2043217/bbc-apology-question-time-robert-winston

Words matter in law. Cases are won or lost on apostrophes. To claim to be an expert and not know the name of the act you are commenting on is unforgivable. But more than that, ‘Equalities Act’ has been the misrepresentation of the name used extensively by trans/men’s activists. It is a clear indication that someone has taken their information secondhand from activists.

Or that male sex offenders claiming trans identities are forcing female police officers to do the searches.

Sumption is just a rent-a-gob who is arrogant enough not to do his research properly. He’s been a pain in the arse ever since he started bitching about the Covid lockdowns because he couldn’t go to the opera. Not a commentator to be taken at all seriously.

All the reporting I have seen about the changes to police searches have been framed as transwomen will now be searched by male officers.

Do they say why that males being searched by other males is a problem?
(Stupid question - of course not!)

Evan is always a twaw. the morning team, Justin in particular are far more GC.

Justin Webb openly so on Twitter ❤️

Before that , when he was in Jersey , in 2011 , Johnathan Sumption played a prominent role in helping to shut down the incredibly brave Health Minister Stuart Syvret who tried so very hard to get the Haut de le Garenne child abuse rings properly investigated,

I’m pretty sure that figures were released a while back showing that 4% of BBC staff identified as “transgender” a significantly higher proportion than the general population.

To be fair that’s exactly the first big headline I heard today. On the radio I think, or maybe whilst scrolling my phone. Was defo in the car and it was the British transport police have changed their policy to TW no longer allowed to strip search women. No idea if it was BBC or who it was.

Private Eye has been hopeless on this whole issue. It’s been a huge disappointment. When at last it was finally addressed at all (I think because of the Cass Review) it was in the form of a wushu washy ‘both sides, such a toxic debate, poor trans children, such a marginalised group’ piece by GP. I note that GP has since buried his or her head very deep indeed in the strange sand of the Lucy Letby case. (If there’s been a miscarriage of justice, as GP apparently thinks likely, she deserves a champion, but I’m not sure a year’s worth of GP columns in the Eye is the most effective approach of securing an appeal, or indeed the best use of the column inches). While I’m on the subject of Private Eye I’m also genuinely astonished by the supine approach of Muckspreader to the current government, which is easily the most anti agriculture and anti rural of my lifetime. I think I will cancel my subscription.

There’s a great deal of absurdity in it, and both Ricky Gervais and Dave Chapelle have found ways to laugh about it. Besides, finding humour in mostly quite unfunny news is HIGNFY’s one job?!

There it is.