Here's a well-presented video from Caroline ffiske concerning the BBC's reaction to criticism over its promotion of a particular ideology:
Here is the BBC's response under discussion:ripx4nutmeg: The BBC has refused to answer an FOI request about its work with Stonewall (but admitted it gives them thousands of pounds). Reason: 'The public interest is not served by [other] public bodies being less willing to engage in programmes which help them improve LGBTQ+ inclusivity'.Solange: The BBC really, really doesn’t want to spill the beans about its relationship with this political lobbying group.C Isaksson: Are you appealing?ripx4nutmeg: It wasn't me that asked for the FOI but is there even an appeal process? If there is, it probably isn't necessary - the 'impartial' BBC has now effectively admitted it is terrified of doing anything that will risk its project of disseminating Stonewall's gender identity propaganda.
The world turns topsy-turvy and, because of the viciousness of the transgender debate, the Guardian's previously ultra-Guardianista Suzanne Moore left the paper and transitioned to being something I'd never have expected her to be in several months of Sundays: a Daily Telegraph columnist. (What's next? Polly Toynbee writing for The Conservative Woman?)
Today she asks "a few little questions", one of which is: "Why can't the BBC talk about Stonewall funding?"
The same tweeter featured in the post above replied, saying "The BBC's argument seems to be that if they talk about their association with Stonewall this could have a detrimental effect on Stonewall's aims. But they don't explain why this would be the case or why that's any of the BBC's business when they're meant to be impartial."
And The Times's Janice Turner crystallises the argument further here:
Here the BBC refuses to answer a Freedom of Information request about what advice it pays Stonewall £6k a year to give it. Because its reply might jeopardise the commercial interests of Stonewall. Amazing.