Martine Croxall was out of order, says the BBC

[MassiveWordSalad]

FFS

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

https://nitter.net/BBCNews/status/1986431967101964462#m

wow, yes that could very possibly be an inside job.
The BBC are batshit as always.

Just as well Jeremy Paxman is no longer presenting Newsnight. He would have had to have a standing committee to adjudicate on his face crimes.

But he was a high profile male presenter…

Two things - first of all, I saw that incident live, and at the time I thought she was gleeful about such a big story happening 'on her watch', while she was presenting. It was during an informal-style discussion, not the news.

I heard it as a seasoned journo being thrilled to be on air when such a big story broke.

Clearly others, including the BBC, thought differently, and it's entirely possible that I was wrong and they were right.

Secondly - she most definitely was 'reprimanded', she was suspended!

The 'pregnant people' incident was different, as the standard form of spoken English would be 'pregnant women' - 'pregnant people' is a very recent, contested and politicised deviation from normal usage, and its use by the BBC shows that they have taken a position instead of remaining impartial.

I see from previous posts that the phrase used in the preceding clip was 'pregnant women' so it would have been doubly weird to [a] say a phrase which is at odds with normal English usage and [b] is misquoting what has just been said by someone else.

I am aware of what newsreaders are required to do, I'm aware of Martine Croxall's own history in this regard. As other posters have pointed out, there is a range of acceptable facial expressions when readers present variously solemn, happy news etc. I don't believe Martine Croxall's brief facial expression (which was not 'disgust' or 'screwed up') or change of phrase would ever have been complained about if it had not been about this particular topic. She would not have been confronted with making a decision about the phrase - which she says wasn't agreed - if the writers had not included the politicised term.

Additionally, there's no universe in which the BBC has forever stuck to some kind of immovable code of high conduct and scrupulous impartiality - OFCOM decisions have gone against the BBC on this, and the insitution has been feebly slow to act on so many supposed breaches of its own rules, such as the highly-paid Gary Linekar's political content creation.

The BBC didn't need to amplify this in their investigation of the complaints, they could have accepted her account that she was put off by an unexpected word change, but they didn't. If it weren't for the subject matter, none of this would be playing out.That so many people publicly support her is now a story in itself of course.

I disagree with your interpretation of this event. I'm allowed to. But I'm not going to keep responding to you on this single point when you @ me because I can't bear threads being eaten up by protracted bees-in-their-bonnets arguments.

It's getting into the realm of "tells" that body language experts are hauled onto daytime TV programmes for, to dissect whether Meghan Markle actually curled her lip in disdain when she glanced at Kate Middleton

OK now I am confused. On 01 July 20205 editorial guidelines were met but the facecrime guidelines were breached (edit: by November 2025)?

"Summary of complaint
We received complaints from people who were unhappy with Martine Croxall’s addition to the autocue saying “women” after “pregnant people”, as part of a BBC News report about staying safe during the heatwave.

Our response
During a sequence about heatwaves, Martine Croxall was reading a script that directly quoted a report from The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. As the language wasn’t clearly attributed, she used her editorial judgement to make a live adjustment.
We’re happy that this was duly accurate and impartial in line with the BBC’s Editorial guidelines"

BBC News, Martine Croxall's report about the UK heatwave, 21 June 2025 | Contact the BBC

Davie has resigned, over a report critical of three things: Anti semitism, the Trump speech, and the Stonewall capture. The latter remains unchanged, and not apologised for, and not corrected. And, not even mentioned in the BBC reporting of the resignation.

Trans bias was mentioned in the BBC article I read about an hour ago. It is not in either of their current articles though... Maybe the bluehairs have been busy editing the output.

I see TRA in Government Lisa Nandy will be judging the BBC’s impartiality (including on questions of GI matters/capture), so don’t get too excited wims. The chances of Lisa “Rapists should be sent to women’s prisons if they say they’re women” Nandy thinking the BBC has gone too far in its support for Stonewall/isn’t impartial seem low.

Maybe I was misremembering, perhaps it's this Guardian article that I read. (I keep meaning to avoid giving them clicks, and then getting sucked in.)

The most batshit part of this was there were only 20 complaints. I know there are far more complaints every time they push their pro-trans stance, I work with a lot of muslims for example who are really not happy with this being shown constantly to their young children. All of my female friends complain when they see or hear something clearly biased about trans and I know over 500 people complained when they said the trans murderer was female and tried to pass it as a female crime. Did nothing about those though, did they?

@EveryMeandEveryYou, yes I and many others complained about their reporting on Scarlet Blake and basically got told, "Our reporting is fine, nothing to see here."

Lisa "less heat, more light, I have a trans constituent" Nandy, Secretary of State for TRAs.

Not holding my breath either.

I’ve just done a FOI for the number of trans related complaints in a number of categories they’ve had in the last five years. (Might have to do a supplementary one to break them down into pro and anti at some point).

I reckon that is where the story is.

There's a comment on here about a significant number of media commentators also having children who self ID, or knowing friends who do, that might inform the ease at which this was accepted

https://nitter.net/BrianSpanner1/status/1987565156168049092#m

David Aaronovitch describes how there was a willingness to accept activists' positions "in good faith" across the media landscape

https://nitter.net/DAaronovitch/status/1987244353782202479#m

I complained to the BBC when a presenter said "trans women are women too". They didn't uphold my complaint.

A quick search of my emails shows at least three BBC complaints about the BBC not treating women fairly. It appears to be ok for men to be in the BBC top 100 women, take places in sport and be accepted as women.

What programme was that statement on?

Its a definite lesson for any activist from a minority group on how to get your worldview accepted.

There's a playbook here, that has been learned

Nick Wallis. Fact checks some of the report relating to coverage of Darlington Nurses, then

"I still think the BBC - despite the internal efforts I am assured are being taken - will not get taken seriously by the public until they stop using female pronouns for male killers and rapists..

And then they need to be explicit (at the very least) for their reasons for using wrong-sex pronouns at all. Or trying to have us believe a small subset of men are actually a small subset of women, and vice versa. But once more, here we are"

https://nitter.net/nickwallis/status/1987572869774082160#m

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. 'TRANS'.

Supreme Court, and biology, confirm no males can ever 'become' females. Therefore, nobody can ever be 'transitioning' to be the opposite sex.

They can be practicing a popular form of exhibitionist behaviour, autogynophilia, getting their sexual thrills from dressing up as women, in public places, and in that way forcing unwilling onlookers to be their unwitting sexual partners. Like all forms of exhibitionism, it is more correctly labelled 'pre-rape'.

While there is evidence this is true of some trans women, it is not at all true of all trans women.

Yes, all TW are appropriating, redefining and belittling womanhood, which in itself is always going to be a fundamentally offensive act to women even when coming from what the TW considers to be a place of respect and empathy, but not all TW are doing so as a sexual fetish.

The sad boy who can't see himself in male gender stereotypes, or the sad man who doesn't feel gay because the men he fancies are straight are also tempted by the sexist idea that this means they must really be women.

The BBC did not even add "women" as related topics under the article. However, "transgender people" is a related topic. Because, you know, pregnancy is exclusively experienced by transgender people.

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