🐱 BBC quits Stonewall diversity scheme over impartiality concerns

CatParty


The BBC has quit a diversity programme run by the LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall, saying it believes coverage of transgender issues should be considered an impartiality topic that requires the inclusion of critical voices.


The national broadcaster said it would no longer be a member of the Diversity Champions programme, under which the corporation paid Stonewall for ongoing advice and assessments on creating inclusive workplaces.





The BBC director general, Tim Davie, told staff it was “unquestionable” that its ongoing participation in the scheme “has led some organisations and individuals to consider that the BBC cannot be impartial when reporting on public policy debates where Stonewall is taking an active, campaigning, role”.


He made clear that the BBC’s journalism had not been compromised by the involvement. He said: “While I do not think that our journalism has been influenced by our involvement in the Diversity Champions programme, not renewing our involvement is the correct move at this time to minimise the risk of perceived bias and avoid any perception that engagement with the programme is influencing our own decision-making.”
Stonewall said it was a shame the BBC had chosen to withdraw and added that “many of the arguments against trans people today are simply recycled homophobia from the 80s and 90s”.





Stonewall provides paying members with training material and access to advice on LGBTQ+ policies, along with a promise to provide assessments and “tell you where you’re doing great things and where you can improve”.


The trade union Bectu, which represents a large number of BBC staff, said it was “hugely disappointed” with the decision and that it would be “incredibly damaging to the morale of the LGBT workforce and will negatively impact the BBC’s ability to attract talent in the future”.
The decision comes shortly after the BBC was forced to edit a piece describing how some lesbians felt pressured into sex with trans women after one of the main sources posted transphobic messages. Last year, BBC journalists were also told they could attend Pride marches only if they did not take a stance on “politicised or contested issues” – widely interpreted by LGBTQ+ staff as meaning no public position on trans rights.





BBC management have come under substantial external pressure to withdraw from the Stonewall scheme, which has already been abandoned by several government departments and the media regulator Ofcom. This included a 10-part BBC podcast presented by Stephen Nolan, which suggested some BBC staff were unable to air gender-critical views because of the charity’s influence.


Davie acknowledged many LGBT and trans staff would be disappointed by the decision to withdraw from the scheme.
He said: “Some have asked me whether the BBC needs to be ‘impartial on trans people’s lives’. I want to be clear, our impartiality is infused with democratic values and we are not impartial on human rights. In simple terms, what that means is that we don’t condone or support discrimination in any form.”
However, he also said the treatment of trans people in society was an impartiality topic in the eyes of the BBC, unlike others such as gay rights or the climate crisis.





“Our editorial guidelines are also clear: when reporting on policy debates, our journalism must be impartial and reflect a range of views. I want our reporting to cover a range of topics and different perspectives, to help our audiences understand and engage with the world around them.”


Coverage of trans rights has increasingly split the BBC newsroom, with a broad divide along age lines. Many younger staff feel it is a topic that is not up for debate, while many older staff believe gender-critical views must be aired to meet impartiality requirements.
One problem for Davie is that the issue is increasingly spilling out of the BBC’s newsroom and into other parts of the organisation, which are bound by a lower standard of news impartiality guidelines.
He said the BBC remained committed to LGBTQ+ inclusion and “providing a workplace in which lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and non-binary colleagues are respected, welcomed and able to fully participate”.
 
It's weird. Britain is cucked beyond belief but based as fuck when it comes to the troon menace. What's happening?
 
  • Like
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
It's weird. Britain is cucked beyond belief but based as fuck when it comes to the troon menace. What's happening?
British policy is set by 'upper crust' elitists that still have to engage in at least some British society; and are all in love with the idea of a magical hollywood 1800's. The cons are fine with rape gangs, niggers and the other detritus of the third world; because they seem to love the idea of this 'commonwealth of nations' that emulates the benefits of the Empire without all that 'conquest' stuff.

No one likes trannies in the 'conservative government' for the same reason that no one likes skin diseases. Labour and everyone else is fine with trannies. I expect that soon enough we'll follow the USA and love trannies in the next 50 years if nothing changes.
 
What the fuck is going on in Britain? Why are they suddenly backpedaling on tranny bullshit now?

I'd argue a mixture of things

-Immigration
Needs little explanation. Eastern Europeans, Muslims, African migrants etc have no time for troons. Gays are not welcome in no go zones but can avoid active persecution if they don't advertise it. Troons don't have this level of self preservation, and the numerous Muslims v Woke dramas in schools have confirmed that Islam and other assorted migrant cultures trump gay shit multiple times.

-Being annoying
The British on the whole whine about things they don't like, but don't usually rise up against whatever it is. Gays, woke students, animal rights activists and the like might annoy them but they're not an inconvenience to most people.

Troons have become a nuisance to everyone. They are influencing what people can watch, read, think and teach their own children in ways that even muslims haven't attempted. People might think the Burka is repressive, but nobody is making their daughters wear it. Troons on the other hand are insisting they get to share the toilets with their daughter and talk her into accepting the girldick.

-Conservatism

For some reason, even the British read the tories wrong. Being a "Conservative" in the UK does not mean what it does in the US. While it does support MP's who hail from and share deep religious allegiances like Amess and Reece-Mogg, it also has just as many who are indifferent to it. Conservatism in the UK is the status quo; whatever keeps buisness profitable and the minions in line. It's why they had no real opposition to and were the ones who brought in Gay Marriage; it doesn't hurt buisness and there's no net benefit to them of squealing about the big gay.

Despite their best efforts, LGB in the UK are not uniformly aligned to the Labor party the same way they are in the US. It's in part because the Conservatives genuinley don't give a shit, and their diversity record has long been better than their rival parties (Multiple female prime ministers, the most ethnically diverse leadership and MP base by far etc) but also because Labor despite endorsing and supporting woke shit publically also has a very "ethnic religious" make up that, as mad as it might seem, doesn't actually mind trannies as much as they do other groups; provided they stay out of "their" areas and they don't have to look at them.

Gays can and do vote either way despite what Labor and pride would lead people to think, but Troons are almost exclusivley Labor or Lib Dem it seems. They're a base the Tories are never going to win over and thus can be sacrificed for popular appeal.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue a mixture of things

-Immigration
Needs little explanation. Eastern Europeans, Muslims, African migrants etc have no time for troons. Gays are not welcome in no go zones but can avoid active persecution if they don't advertise it. Troons don't have this level of self preservation, and the numerous Muslims v Woke dramas in schools have confirmed that Islam and other assorted migrant cultures trump gay shit multiple times.

-Being annoying
The British on the whole whine about things they don't like, but don't usually rise up against whatever it is. Gays, woke students, animal rights activists and the like might annoy them but they're not an inconvenience to most people.

Troons have become a nuisance to everyone. They are influencing what people can watch, read, think and teach their own children in ways that even muslims haven't attempted. People might think the Burka is repressive, but nobody is making their daughters wear it. Troons on the other hand are insisting they get to share the toilets with their daughter and talk her into accepting the girldick.

-Conservatism

For some reason, even the British read the tories wrong. Being a "Conservative" in the UK does not mean what it does in the US. While it does support MP's who hail from and share deep religious allegiances like Amess and Reece-Mogg, it also has just as many who are indifferent to it. Conservatism in the UK is the status quo; whatever keeps buisness profitable and the minions in line. It's why they had no real opposition to and were the ones who brought in Gay Marriage; it doesn't hurt buisness and there's no net benefit to them of squealing about the big gay.

Despite their best efforts, LGB in the UK are not uniformly aligned to the Labor party the same way they are in the US. It's in part because the Conservatives genuinley don't give a shit, and their diversity record has long been better than their rival parties (Multiple female prime ministers, the most ethnically diverse leadership and MP base by far etc) but also because Labor despite endorsing and supporting woke shit publically also has a very "ethnic religious" make up that, as mad as it might seem, doesn't actually mind trannies as much as they do other groups; provided they stay out of "their" areas and they don't have to look at them.

Gays can and do vote either way despite what Labor and pride would lead people to think, but Troons are almost exclusivley Labor or Lib Dem it seems. They're a base the Tories are never going to win over and thus can be sacrificed for popular appeal.
Yep. Conservatives are useless cocksucking mongs, but they can scuttle like cockroaches when the time calls for it. The split second trannies looked to be pissing enough people off, the cons were on them like a coon on a dirt cookie.
 
This was coming as soon as Ofcom said they were out of it.

Tim Davie is a mealy mouthed liar, we know it has impacted their reporting. But he was also never going to admit it because as soon as he did the Conservatives would be in a position where they could tear up the BBCs charter with the majoriiy of the country cheering (not due to transphobia but because the BBC admitting they have been conducting any sort of biased reporting would prove far too many people right).

And for everyone wondering about how this keeps happening seriously, Kiera Bell. I get people know about her but I don't think they get what it means that she won her case. As soon as that happened it opened the door for everyone who transitioned, regretted it and was genuinely failed along the way to bring and win legal challenges. The NHS doesn't really care in financial terms (it'll not pay for it) but what it uncovered about Tavistock makes them look outright corrupt and if it happens again there's the possibility of senior heads rolling.

If someone won a case as a well as Kiera did in the ever litigious US you'd be able to hear the screaming on the moon. Setting that precedent would be lethal.
 
The podcast is great.

I just listened to an episode where Nolan asks the head of PinkNews to define "genderqueer" and the guy just hems and haws and says it means different things to different people. Nolan asks if gay men are genderqueer and the guy is like "Well, no, because reasons," and the listener is left with the conclusion that they're basing policy decisions around words that are meaningless.
 
Trannies have made me hate fags.

I can see that.

When I was young I thought male homosexuality was wrong. I wouldn't beat a guy up for being gay or anything like that but I did have the view that it was an aberration and wrong. As I got older, I didn't so much change that view as stop giving a shit. It didn't harm me and if someone wanted to do that with another consenting person, eh - whatever. I even let a couple of guys suck me off (spoiler - felt weird, pleasure without any desire, couldn't cum). And that's where my attitude stayed for years. Only more recently have I started to care about sexual orientation issues again and it's directly because of the political angle, primarily trans movement.

Statistically, very few men are gay, even fewer bi. Women are more likely to be flexible. Still a small minority in both cases, though. People who want to do that should be free to do so and should have some legal rights to protect them and to provide some parity with straight people. E.g. if someone's lifelong partner happens to be the same sex that shouldn't mean that they can't have inheritance rights or input into end of life care, etc. But that's not where we're heading. We have a wildly disproportionate social obsession with what should just be a thing some people do as a major political rallying flag. Usually to justify all sorts of things not much to do with actual sex.

Queer isn't a sexual orientation. It's a political one. When you have straight women wanting to get "the bi cut" because they're "queer" because they once made out with another girl when drunk, that's about as far from real lesbian or gay issues as you can get. Someone with a high public profile needs to ask: "What does LGBT have to do with sexual orientation, anymore?"
 
I can see that.

When I was young I thought male homosexuality was wrong. I wouldn't beat a guy up for being gay or anything like that but I did have the view that it was an aberration and wrong. As I got older, I didn't so much change that view as stop giving a shit. It didn't harm me and if someone wanted to do that with another consenting person, eh - whatever. I even let a couple of guys suck me off (spoiler - felt weird, pleasure without any desire, couldn't cum). And that's where my attitude stayed for years. Only more recently have I started to care about sexual orientation issues again and it's directly because of the political angle, primarily trans movement.

Statistically, very few men are gay, even fewer bi. Women are more likely to be flexible. Still a small minority in both cases, though. People who want to do that should be free to do so and should have some legal rights to protect them and to provide some parity with straight people. E.g. if someone's lifelong partner happens to be the same sex that shouldn't mean that they can't have inheritance rights or input into end of life care, etc. But that's not where we're heading. We have a wildly disproportionate social obsession with what should just be a thing some people do as a major political rallying flag. Usually to justify all sorts of things not much to do with actual sex.

Queer isn't a sexual orientation. It's a political one. When you have straight women wanting to get "the bi cut" because they're "queer" because they once made out with another girl when drunk, that's about as far from real lesbian or gay issues as you can get. Someone with a high public profile needs to ask: "What does LGBT have to do with sexual orientation, anymore?"
That's gay as fuck bro.
 
What the fuck is going on in Britain? Why are they suddenly backpedaling on tranny bullshit now?
Idk, some where thinking something bad must have happend and they're getting ahead of it. At this point the Queen herself must have been raped by a Troon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frozenrunner
Back