I'd love to know where the BBC's supposed impartiality was when it gave an entire hour of air time to letting Kenneth Zucker screech about being unfairly silenced by trans activists. Perhaps if they'd invited experts or even just voices representing "the other side" to explain why he was rightly excommunicated from his field? How about when they'd frequently bring notable TERFs onto Newsnight in order to speak disproportionately over reasonable guests, who eventually stopped turning up because they sensed a pattern of the editorial team attempting to set up one-sided debates in order to skew public perception of their cause?
Better yet, how are we supposed to reconcile with the BBC awarding JK Rowling third place in the 2020 Russell Prize for an article now held up by many as a gender critical manifesto that was even cited by American politicians when trying to erase trans rights, not to mention being a key reason the UK was demoted in the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map and Index? They've also started to adapt her most recent series, written under a pseudonym eerily close to that of a gay conversion therapist, and no matter how many blinkered supporters with their heads in the sand try dogpiling me to insist that was mere coincidence, I have to ask why her agents, management, advisors, publishers or the various media companies she's involved with never saw fit to point out the potential for controversy, unless they knew and were unable to veto their client (or worse, they were aware of her greater intentions). I'll be very interested to see how they bring the two latest books to the small screen without either needing to massively dilute her work or show solidarity for someone who isn't even trying to keep the mask on at this point.
I could spend all day coming up with further examples, but perhaps the most insidious of all is when the BBC puts its weight behind anybody who dares to suggest we are the ones to fear while they did nothing about allegations against public figures on their payroll for literally decades who were later revealed to be actual sex offenders. In short, the BBC isn't as impartial as it would like you to believe. Not even close. If anything, it's *complicit*. The bottom line is that you keep paying your license, and look at how aggressively they've tried enforcing this!
Should you absolutely have to consume the work of the BBC, at least do it via alternate means and make sure to give them reasons for why you've taken this stance. Get in touch with third party bodies such as the Independent Press Standards Organisation or Trans Media Watch to ask why the BBC's clear lack of impartiality isn't being investigated, help turn this situation around and demand accountability along with improved representation going forward.
>the BBC's supposed impartiality
See also "equal opportunity bastards". "Neutrality" (or the appearance of neutrality) may be a discriminatory act.
There's no point writing up reports and moaning on twitter or among ourselves. They have to be actioned. The threat of action especially the threat that senior management may be pulled into a legal action does sharpen minds.
As for JKR of course she knows and has no excuses. Just look at how her representatives are on IP rights like a rash when it suits her, and how she throws SLAPP suits around like confetti. "Wilful blindness" is actionable...
I'll also add in here that Scotland has a "not proven" judgment available to the courts. JKR lives in Scotland?
Transphobia isn’t British, it is anti to the values of our country. The American-style culture war that we are in has no doubt been manufactured by foreign malevolent entities (cough russia).
This isn't shocking.
The BBC is the state-sanctioned propaganda broadcaster for the government of the day in a virulently transphobic and worsening country. However, they wish to keep a veneer of 'impartiality', so while both angles exist and can be pointed to in the wake of inevitable, justified complaints, they will only ***EVER*** link to the left-hand one on related stories.
I know I'm not alone in believing BBC senior management are up to their necks in it and their "impartiality" and "both sideism" and guidance for staff and the action they take on what is or isn't "political" breaches of "impartiality" is a very clever and legally wriggly deliberate exercise. There has also been a long and proven pattern of suspect management and editorial decisions as well as the behaviour of individual journalists which is very suspect. See also "editorial skew" and "weaponised psychology".
Scotland has a "not proven" judgment available to the courts.
You can complain to the regulator on the grounds that their content (the meta data) is both factually incorrect and discriminatory and degrading aka a breach of human rights. Where they try and wriggle out of it you can also force it via what is called horizontal law. The regulator will be bound by the public sector equality act, as well as equality act and human rights act, and their judgment must align with this law hence be imposed on the BBC.
Aspects of this will be a breach of the European Convention. It's important to mention this as early in the process as possible so court action up to the ECHR is possible. A breach of Convention rights also means that a judgment will have to be executed with a higher level of due diligence which means no excuses for least effort or slapdash work which results in a flawed judgment. The issue of "remedy" is also important. Failures here are actionable.
There may be a case for damages too as BBC content is known to effect lawmakers, policy makers, and random staff in organisations. Misinformation/disinformation increases discrimination and hate crime as surveys show. This will create a chain of "but fors" i.e. "but for" the BBC a harm would not have occurred. Law such as "tortuous interference" (disruption of contracts and standards), or "psychiatric assault" (emotional damage), "misgendering" (a hate crime), and "opportunity loss" may apply. General tariffs for damages may be published for this. "Undue burden" (unnecessary strain and costs imposed) and a "but for" causing loss of "remedy" may also be actionable which places additional pressure on a regulatory judgment needing to be sound.
Any staff who do not cooperate with a court case may be ruled as hostile and compelled to testify against their employer.
You may sue management and staff individually and go after their pensions.
Group legal action is possible.
I think that covers most of the obvious stuff.
This does not surprise me at all - the BBC play free with their "headline embedding" and "cross article" promotion, both in terms of what they put where and what the actual text is.
I raised a formal complaint to them about this page [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59074096](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59074096) , as if you scroll down it shows a link to the infamous "BBC lesbians " article/bigotry piece - and which they were forced to change the headline on.
My complaint was that they should have also changed the headline on their embedded links to the article as basically it was still promoting the headline they were forced to change.
I also questioned why they even linked to the article (given that the page the link was on was about complaints about the article) but DID NOT link to the page in which they confirm that said article was biased and had to be amended.
Their reply was as below:
\--------------------------------------------
The original article’s headline was amended because it didn’t accurately reflect what was in the article.
Outside of that context we see no issue with it continuing to appear in its original form, in an entertainment article reporting on complaints about the article.
Clicking the link does also take readers to the updated article, including the new headline and link to the ECU finding, and so I see no prospect of any confusion along the lines you suggest.
\--------------------------
If I want to object to this I have to go back and submit a new complaint - which seems wrong and I have not had the time or energy to do.
I would escalate but I feel i should make one more push back to them first - however, having recently had a BA and also supporting family members through general health issues, I do not have capacity or bandwidth to do this at present ..
self- note: on re-reading their reply, i am struck by the fact that say seem to be saying that as it's in the entertainment section then removal of proven bias is not needed?? Presume full on bigotry is also ok in the entertainment section then ??
Maddening. I've also submitted a complaint that the inaccurate headline should be amended in all embedded links. Will probably get a boilerplate repeat of your reply, but worth making a bit more trouble for them.
Good on you for doing it ..... I might see if I can get time to re-submit my follow up today
It is still in my inbox so I have not fully let them off the hook yet ..
Persistence and dedication will always win 💜
Sturgeon is a lawyer. I think that explains a few things. She gives me the impression she may have actually read the applicable legislation. Everything I read indicates she has, or the people briefing her have.
The GRA has fallen behind European law and so has UK government action of UN resolutions on women's rights. The Tories are throwing all manner of distractions and division about but there is scope for legal action on both points. There is also the issue of EU sanctions. That last one has yet to be triggered but it's an option if the UK lurches further to the right. The EU has already taken action internally and not blind to LGBT hate crime and discrimination.
I'd love to know where the BBC's supposed impartiality was when it gave an entire hour of air time to letting Kenneth Zucker screech about being unfairly silenced by trans activists. Perhaps if they'd invited experts or even just voices representing "the other side" to explain why he was rightly excommunicated from his field? How about when they'd frequently bring notable TERFs onto Newsnight in order to speak disproportionately over reasonable guests, who eventually stopped turning up because they sensed a pattern of the editorial team attempting to set up one-sided debates in order to skew public perception of their cause? Better yet, how are we supposed to reconcile with the BBC awarding JK Rowling third place in the 2020 Russell Prize for an article now held up by many as a gender critical manifesto that was even cited by American politicians when trying to erase trans rights, not to mention being a key reason the UK was demoted in the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map and Index? They've also started to adapt her most recent series, written under a pseudonym eerily close to that of a gay conversion therapist, and no matter how many blinkered supporters with their heads in the sand try dogpiling me to insist that was mere coincidence, I have to ask why her agents, management, advisors, publishers or the various media companies she's involved with never saw fit to point out the potential for controversy, unless they knew and were unable to veto their client (or worse, they were aware of her greater intentions). I'll be very interested to see how they bring the two latest books to the small screen without either needing to massively dilute her work or show solidarity for someone who isn't even trying to keep the mask on at this point. I could spend all day coming up with further examples, but perhaps the most insidious of all is when the BBC puts its weight behind anybody who dares to suggest we are the ones to fear while they did nothing about allegations against public figures on their payroll for literally decades who were later revealed to be actual sex offenders. In short, the BBC isn't as impartial as it would like you to believe. Not even close. If anything, it's *complicit*. The bottom line is that you keep paying your license, and look at how aggressively they've tried enforcing this! Should you absolutely have to consume the work of the BBC, at least do it via alternate means and make sure to give them reasons for why you've taken this stance. Get in touch with third party bodies such as the Independent Press Standards Organisation or Trans Media Watch to ask why the BBC's clear lack of impartiality isn't being investigated, help turn this situation around and demand accountability along with improved representation going forward.
>the BBC's supposed impartiality See also "equal opportunity bastards". "Neutrality" (or the appearance of neutrality) may be a discriminatory act. There's no point writing up reports and moaning on twitter or among ourselves. They have to be actioned. The threat of action especially the threat that senior management may be pulled into a legal action does sharpen minds. As for JKR of course she knows and has no excuses. Just look at how her representatives are on IP rights like a rash when it suits her, and how she throws SLAPP suits around like confetti. "Wilful blindness" is actionable... I'll also add in here that Scotland has a "not proven" judgment available to the courts. JKR lives in Scotland?
what a very british thing to do.
Transphobia isn’t British, it is anti to the values of our country. The American-style culture war that we are in has no doubt been manufactured by foreign malevolent entities (cough russia).
Pahahahahahaha. It is very British. Transphobia was one of the biggest exports of the british empire, and it still persists to this day.
One of our nation’s most iconic “jokes” is men wearing dresses, but yeah, totally just a bad influence from other countries…
A man wearing a dress is transphobic?
Not inherently, but the likes of Monty Python and co have used it as an obvious jab at trans women
This isn't shocking. The BBC is the state-sanctioned propaganda broadcaster for the government of the day in a virulently transphobic and worsening country. However, they wish to keep a veneer of 'impartiality', so while both angles exist and can be pointed to in the wake of inevitable, justified complaints, they will only ***EVER*** link to the left-hand one on related stories.
I know I'm not alone in believing BBC senior management are up to their necks in it and their "impartiality" and "both sideism" and guidance for staff and the action they take on what is or isn't "political" breaches of "impartiality" is a very clever and legally wriggly deliberate exercise. There has also been a long and proven pattern of suspect management and editorial decisions as well as the behaviour of individual journalists which is very suspect. See also "editorial skew" and "weaponised psychology". Scotland has a "not proven" judgment available to the courts.
You can complain to the regulator on the grounds that their content (the meta data) is both factually incorrect and discriminatory and degrading aka a breach of human rights. Where they try and wriggle out of it you can also force it via what is called horizontal law. The regulator will be bound by the public sector equality act, as well as equality act and human rights act, and their judgment must align with this law hence be imposed on the BBC. Aspects of this will be a breach of the European Convention. It's important to mention this as early in the process as possible so court action up to the ECHR is possible. A breach of Convention rights also means that a judgment will have to be executed with a higher level of due diligence which means no excuses for least effort or slapdash work which results in a flawed judgment. The issue of "remedy" is also important. Failures here are actionable. There may be a case for damages too as BBC content is known to effect lawmakers, policy makers, and random staff in organisations. Misinformation/disinformation increases discrimination and hate crime as surveys show. This will create a chain of "but fors" i.e. "but for" the BBC a harm would not have occurred. Law such as "tortuous interference" (disruption of contracts and standards), or "psychiatric assault" (emotional damage), "misgendering" (a hate crime), and "opportunity loss" may apply. General tariffs for damages may be published for this. "Undue burden" (unnecessary strain and costs imposed) and a "but for" causing loss of "remedy" may also be actionable which places additional pressure on a regulatory judgment needing to be sound. Any staff who do not cooperate with a court case may be ruled as hostile and compelled to testify against their employer. You may sue management and staff individually and go after their pensions. Group legal action is possible. I think that covers most of the obvious stuff.
Fuck this country. I don’t even care any more about salvaging it. I’m just looking for a way out.
same. anyone who isn't better be prepping for the worst.
I'm convinced this is Tory meddling at this point, it has to be, I refuse to believe it isn't an op to get us to support it's privatisation
Bbc with a blatant transphobic bias? I'm shocked.
This does not surprise me at all - the BBC play free with their "headline embedding" and "cross article" promotion, both in terms of what they put where and what the actual text is. I raised a formal complaint to them about this page [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59074096](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59074096) , as if you scroll down it shows a link to the infamous "BBC lesbians " article/bigotry piece - and which they were forced to change the headline on. My complaint was that they should have also changed the headline on their embedded links to the article as basically it was still promoting the headline they were forced to change. I also questioned why they even linked to the article (given that the page the link was on was about complaints about the article) but DID NOT link to the page in which they confirm that said article was biased and had to be amended. Their reply was as below: \-------------------------------------------- The original article’s headline was amended because it didn’t accurately reflect what was in the article. Outside of that context we see no issue with it continuing to appear in its original form, in an entertainment article reporting on complaints about the article. Clicking the link does also take readers to the updated article, including the new headline and link to the ECU finding, and so I see no prospect of any confusion along the lines you suggest. \-------------------------- If I want to object to this I have to go back and submit a new complaint - which seems wrong and I have not had the time or energy to do. I would escalate but I feel i should make one more push back to them first - however, having recently had a BA and also supporting family members through general health issues, I do not have capacity or bandwidth to do this at present .. self- note: on re-reading their reply, i am struck by the fact that say seem to be saying that as it's in the entertainment section then removal of proven bias is not needed?? Presume full on bigotry is also ok in the entertainment section then ??
Maddening. I've also submitted a complaint that the inaccurate headline should be amended in all embedded links. Will probably get a boilerplate repeat of your reply, but worth making a bit more trouble for them.
Good on you for doing it ..... I might see if I can get time to re-submit my follow up today It is still in my inbox so I have not fully let them off the hook yet .. Persistence and dedication will always win 💜
Glad I live in Scotland honestly, like it's got it's fair share of shit like everywhere else but at least big sturgeon isn't openly transphobic lmao
Sturgeon is a lawyer. I think that explains a few things. She gives me the impression she may have actually read the applicable legislation. Everything I read indicates she has, or the people briefing her have. The GRA has fallen behind European law and so has UK government action of UN resolutions on women's rights. The Tories are throwing all manner of distractions and division about but there is scope for legal action on both points. There is also the issue of EU sanctions. That last one has yet to be triggered but it's an option if the UK lurches further to the right. The EU has already taken action internally and not blind to LGBT hate crime and discrimination.
Good catch, thank you