Martine Croxall was out of order, says the BBC

[MassiveWordSalad]

FFS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3epwz08ewzo

Maybe she was just completely baffled by the stupid term and that was why she made a face ie completely unrelated to the trans debate.

I guess though they wouldn't consider that because they they can't see that anyone with any sense thinks it's a ridiculous and offensive term. Not bothered at all on erasing women are they.

https://x.com/markr360/status/1986450170838409260

Summarises it pretty well.
(Anyone else got Bananarama it ain't watcha do going round in their heads?)

The BBC has entirely lost the plot.
I can't even listen to the news on Radio 4 now without shouting at it. It used to be my go-to for keeping myself aware of what was happening around the world.

I think this was posted earlier?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/05/bbc-trans-coverage-censored-own-reporters/

Currently showing as the most read article on the BBC News website .. on the day of the 'Celebrity Traitors' final.
Gerald Ratner had nothing on the BBC for foot shooting.

From Sex Matters YouTube.

Facecrime! Exactly that.

'Correction: This article originally said the ECU found that Martine Croxall's facial expression as she spoke expressed a "controversial view about trans people" and has been amended to make clear that they instead found that her expression gave the "strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter". The article also mistakenly quoted the judgement as referring to "trans ideology" and has been amended to correctly refer to "trans identity."'

Bbc article has been updated.

I approved of the facecrime tweet thinking it was a clever satire on 1984.

But no, it's actually from the book itself:

His earlier thought returned to him: probably she was not actually a member of the Thought Police, but then it was precisely the amateur spy who was the greatest danger of all. He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself -- anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.

I'm good at those. Can't hide what I think, my face dobs me in!

It's been some decades since I last read 1984, and I had forgotten the concept of facecrime.

In a few weeks I'm meeting up with an old and dear friend I haven't seen for a couple of years, and who has a trans family member. She has always been very forthright with her opinions. Can I really avoid splurting out my coffee if she praises Jolyon Maugham? Should I pretend I've never heard of Graham Linehan so that I don't have to express an opinion on his court case? Or should I just get out my Sex Matters TERF mug and my MN bingo card and have done with it? 🫣

What sexist pigs are gatekeeping their complaints dept?
Martine was totally in the right. Guess I'll have to follow it up with the BBC.

I've heard Nick Robinson, Justin Webb and Evan Davies do more than the radio equivalent of a raised eyebrow before. Maybe you're allowed to do that in a interview but not while reading the news.

Yep I re read it recently. It’s this.

At my convent school in the sixties the wrong expression on your face could get you into trouble, for example if you didn’t look sufficiently pious during Mass. So I recognised the concept of facecrime when I read Orwell.

Do you know what she thinks about the trans issue? Because she might surprise you...

Or maybe if you’re a man you can get away with it, though of course JW has had his own tribulations.

Maybe being male helps, too.

ETA, x-post!

Good grief. They forced her to say one of the most ridiculous phrases ever but she’s biased for pulling a face, yet the BBC have been blatantly lying for years - remember 100+ ‘genders’ and ‘puberty blockers are a pause button’ not to mention lying about the law and male murderers and they are not biased??

It's not thought crime it's face crime.

Despite the BBCs’s great efforts at pushing the trans agenda for all these years, the folk over at r/transgenderUK believe them to be a thoroughly transphobic institution.

The BBC’s stance is that if people agree with her, it proves she was guilty.

When Tim Davie was appointed, my assumption was that he'd been put in place to trash the brand & sabotage public support for the BBC.
That seems to be going swimmingly.

I complained to the BBC about Anita Rani calling people transphobes on Twitter for being critical of her Women’s Hour interview with Paris Lees. Not a peep in response.

I live in hope. Unfortunately it was her rather odd statements about it in recent years that prompted me to "educate" myself. Unless something has changed recently, she's a true believer.

I don't want to lose her friendship, so I will tread very carefully. I worry that I'm going to do a Martine Croxall expression and give the game away.