The BBC's attempt to try and destroy my reputation rather than investigate my concerns shows just how desperate the BBC was to hide what had happened.It was an extraordinary attempt to cover up wrongdoing and the climate of fear it created may well have stopped other BBC whistleblowers from speaking out for a generation.I still find it staggering that the BBC was so determined to conceal the truth that it launched a smear campaign against me to protect its tainted scoop.I am grateful to Tim Davie and his team for finally setting the record straight. But the damage to the BBC's reputation is immense and you can understand if BBC employees no longer have the courage to speak truth to power.
Thursday, 30 June 2022
Wednesday, 29 June 2022
- I will never ever understand the appeal of Ukip in Wales.
- UKIP 2nd in RCT. 1901 Rhondda census listed greatest number of people born elsewhere living there in all UK. Immigration built communities.
- Nothing depresses me more than Welsh support for UKIP.
- Just when I thought I couldn't feel more disillusioned UKIP trumps Plaid.
- I find the level of coverage they get absolutely ridiculous. Farage on #bbcqt 15 times without a single MP.
- Oh bloody hell Nigel Farage on telly AGAIN. Time for bed #bbctw
Tuesday, 28 June 2022
1. Avoid using definitive words without caveat especially in headlines and introductions.Headlines which use the word “woman” to describe a transwoman implies that the writer, and publication, agrees with the proposition “Transwomen are women”. This is an opinion, not a fact, and so should not be used in the headline of a news report. Similarly, describing a person who has recently changed their name as a “transwoman” implies to the general reader that the person has made a sincere, permanent commitment to a gender change, probably with medical treatment. This may not be the case. In headlines, the words woman or transwoman are better avoided. In body copy, phrases can be used such as “The prosecuting lawyer said Smith now identifies as a woman” or “Smith claimed to be transgender and asked court officials to use female pronouns”.2. Report all quotes accurately even if this results in different pronouns being used by different speakers.In court reporting, as elsewhere, quotes should never be changed. If necessary, a brief explanation is best: “Although Smith was referred to as a woman by court officials, the witness referred to Smith as a man”.3. Seek to provide your reader with the most accurate information, where possible, regarding the person’s status such as an official name change, medical treatment, time of transition or GRC.Public understanding of trans terms is low, and even official definitions are so vague and all-encompassing as to be almost meaningless. In the majority of news reports, details of a person’s transition will be irrelevant, but is relevant where biological sex is a factor if the reader is to understand the facts, particularly where a defendant has transitioned, or claimed to transition, after arrest.4. Refrain from using pronouns, except in quotes, even if this results in awkward sentence construction or repetition of a name.To refer to a biological male with female pronouns is to tacitly agree with their claim that they are a woman or transwoman. Owing to the incentives of the justice system, this may not be the case. Using their chosen pronouns is to collude in their possible deception.5. Make clear the biological sex of the defendant high up in the story.Types of crime strongly correlate with biological sex. These differences remain even after transition. Public understanding of crime, particularly violent and sexual offences, will be corroded if a defendant’s sex is cloaked in euphemisms, or buried in a final paragraph, or if gender is conflated with sex.6. Use both birth and trans names where available, particularly for sex offences.Journalists have a duty to the public, as well as obligations to the subjects of stories. This can create a conflict when a person has changed their name. Many trans people greatly dislike being referred to by their original name, sometimes known as “deadnaming”, and in most news stories there is no need to use it. However, there is clearly a public interest case for reporting a defendant’s original name as well as their new name. Reports of sex offences are one of the most valuable methods of encouraging victims of earlier crimes to come forward. Complying with a sex offender’s demands to only use their new name in public reports may allow them to escape justice for other crimes. The existence of a GRC does not prohibit the publication of a previous name when used to investigate or prevent crime, as described in the societal benefits of court reporting above. An analogy would be with press treatment of far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, AKA Tommy Robinson. The media, across the political spectrum, routinely refer to him by both names, regardless of his preference.
It might look like ancient history but All About Trans has informed our approach in news and all content. It was embedded nearly a decade ago and it’s not gone away.
- And they think it acceptable to waste my license fee on this???? I would NEVER intentionally fund such a cause!! The BBC has totally forgotten its purpose....and is increasingly (and sadly) showing itself to be not fit for purpose.
- I am dismayed to learn that this is within the terms of the BBC charter. I am dismayed that they would fund any organisation pushing a particular point of view with public money - it conflicts at least with their ability to claim objectivity and lack of bias.
- Another reason not to pay my licence fee. Many of these public bodies seem to forget that ordinary people are slogging their guts out doing actual ‘work’ to finance these completely self-indulgent and erroneous “initiatives”.
Monday, 27 June 2022
The BBC's diversity group sent an email to ALL staff complaining at the "excruciating and unbearable" decision to continue using Michael Vaughan on TMS. Vaughan denies a racism charge by Azeem Rafiq. Who gave permission to the BAME group to send out the email? Just bullying.
- Seems they believe in the guilty until proven innocent cancel culture?
- The BBC "in-house diversity group" - All diversity is welcome, apart from diversity of thinking.
- He has been found guilty on two counts, of being a) white and b) a man.
The BBC has rewritten an article about abortion that suggested the US Supreme Court referred to “pregnant people” rather than “women” in its Roe v Wade ruling in 1973. The term was also used by Sophie Long on The World Tonight on Radio 4.
Somebody changed the word "women" in the first place for it to be changed back from "people" to "women" again. Fire that woke ignoramus for changing a cut and paste 1973 quote from Wade v Roe.
As for Sophie Long on The World Tonight on Radio 4, as mentioned earlier by Charlie, here things get even more interesting...
I initially read a few defences of her saying “pregnant people” that she was only indirectly quoting someone else - i.e. these weren't her own words. She was just reporting.
The Daily Mail's report on this only reinforced that and confused me even more. It directly quoted her bit on The World Tonight where she said:
The clinical director and chair of the National Abortion Federation, Lori Williams, said knowing how many women and pregnant people would now not be able to get care was “devastating”.
And the Daily Mail then quoted the BBC's response, defending Ms Long:
Sophie Long was quoting the language used by the chair of the National Abortion Federation.
Now, Sophie's The World Tonight bit, as quoted there, can be heard both ways.
It's possible to hear her as using her own choice of language or - as the BBC insists - simply paraphrasing what the National Abortion Federation said and, thus, just reporting.
And I must admit I was inclined to believe the BBC's explanation that Sophie was only paraphrasing the chair of the National Abortion Federation...
...until I checked out 'pregnant' AND 'people' on TVEyes this afternoon, and up popped Sophie Long unquestionably using the phrase off her own bat elsewhere on the BBC.
This comes from a BBC TV report from Sophie from the Mississippi Delta, broadcast repeatedly on 15 June on the BBC News Channel:
She had no choice but to have the baby, in the poorest region of the poorest state with the lowest number of doctors per capita anywhere in America, and where a basic lack of transportation and nutrition put many pregnant people in the highest risk categories. At the Delta Health Centre in Mount Bayou, its only obstetrician tells me banning abortion will exacerbate an already desperate situation.
Oh dear, BBC, you rascals! Your defence is hanging by a far less secure thread after that, isn't it?
Sophie Long wasn't quoting anyone else's language there. It was entirely her own woke-pleasing language.
When caught in a tangled web of deceit you spin your 'unspun world' to us and hope we'll fall for it like careless flies.
And why wouldn't we? You can sound so plausible, tempting us into your parlour.
I'm so glad I've access to tools like TVEyes and Newsniffer to help me glimpse you in action, spinning away like hyperactive, licence-fee-gobbling spiders.
2. Caller ID and call waiting - Dr Shirley Ann Jackson
Dr Shirley Ann Jackson is an American theoretical physicist, whose research from the 1970s is responsible for caller ID and call waiting.
Her breakthroughs in telecommunications have also enabled others to invent the portable fax, fibre optic cables and solar cells.
She is the first African-American woman to gain a PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the first African-American woman to lead a top-ranked research university.
Although some sources claim that Jackson conducted scientific research while working at Bell Laboratories that enabled others to invent the portable fax, touch-tone telephone, solar cells, fiber optic cables, and the technology behind caller ID and call waiting, Jackson herself makes no such claim. Moreover, these telecommunications advancements significantly predated her arrival at Bell Labs in 1976, with these six specifically enumerated inventions actually occurring by others in the time frame between 1954 and 1970.
Dr Shirley Ann Jackson is clearly a brilliant scientist, even if she didn't do what the BBC says she did. Goodness knows what she'd make of this BBC 'journalism'.
It's not great that it's still there on the BBC website either.
BBC fact-checkers really do need to start turning their focus onto the BBC itself.
But the data gathered in that time will help illuminate the secrets of star constellations 430 million light years away, says the chief executive of Equatorial Launch Australia, which runs the space centre.
"Without getting too deep into the science, it was effectively a large X-ray camera looking at various... phenomenon and trying to capture parts of boulders in the Milky Way and particularly the star cluster of Alpha Centauri," Michael Jones told the local network Nine.
But the data gathered by the mission's X-ray camera in that time will help illuminate the secrets of Alpha Centauri A and B, the closest double-star system to Earth that is located just 4.3 light-years away.
The earlier figure is a mere 100,000,000 times more than the correct figure.
The title of Radio 4's statistics show More or Less springs to mind. This was definitely 'More'. A LOT 'More'.
That it took eight hours and many editorial revisions to finally realise this and rectify it beggars belief in an organisation so big and so well-funded.
Though I don’t like festivals in general because of their subterranean standards of hygiene, Glasto is more irritating than all others because of its political pretensions. Its symbiotic relationship with the similarly Palestine-pandering, Brexit-hating BBC is a notable one, to the extent that it appears to be the foremost annual works outing; before Covid they sent a whopping 300 staff there, more than they did to the World Cup. I daresay it’ll have been roughly the same this year, after which these parasites will go back to piously detailing the poverty of those who have to choose between ‘eating and heating’ while blithely ignoring the burden the TV licence puts on the poorest - between ‘looking and cooking’ perhaps.
Sunday, 26 June 2022
Of course, Tim Davie has said there is problem, so the BBC does believe there is a problem. And I think when you refer back to Brexit and the BBC making statements saying it's all jolly good, I'd just like the accountability about that. I'd like some examination of it. And all we see in the BBC annual report is 'the Brexit coverage was rather marvellous, and so's the 2019 general election coverage'. And my question is: Was it? If you believe public service really matters, as I do, you have to make it better. And the BBC's supposed to be, not just where the market is, it's supposed to be better than the market.
I don't think it's always really helpful that the knee jerk is 'we're already doing a brilliant job'. I think it's better sometimes to look at the evidence, which is what we do as an independent regulator, and see where you could make improvements.
Roger Mosey: And now I'm outside the BBC you see that accountability is really important, and it's very crucial for the BBC that it is accountable. I think it's rather bad at accountability really. The complaints process is very complicated. I've only ever...Since I've been outside I've made one complaint in eight and a half years. And I know the system. And you just got stuck in this labyrinth of not being able to work out how it was that you got anyone to acknowledge that there was a genuine issue there.
And former BBC high-up now their regulator Kevin Bakhurst said that people get lost in the process and don't like the tone of the BBC's responses and “give up the ghost” - and also rather deliciously skewers a BBC 'defence' here:
Ros Atkins, BBC: But help me dig into the detail here. And, Kevin, you're the one making the request. So let me ask you, if I Google now 'BBC Complaints' I'm quite easily gonna end up on a page which says 'What would you like to say to us?', so the problem is presumably not that. The problem for you is what happens after that?
Kevin Bakhurst: I mean, our research shows audiences can Google it and find their way in really, really easily and quickly, and they approve of that. And, by the way, in general they approve of BBC First as the right way to deal with complaints. However, once they get into that system, they get lost. And, as Roger says, it is really labyrinthine for audiences. That's what our research shows. They are not quite sure where they are in the process, they don't like the tone of language they get in responses from the BBC, many of them...when we were discussing this with the BBC, the BBC said, well, you know, it's a measure of our success that people don't come through to Ofcom that much at the end. Our research shows people don't come through to Ofcom because they've given up the ghost going through the BBC complaints process, and don't really understand where they are or how to advance them.
As we've long said.
But on the broader issue of complaints. Here's a statement today from the BBC - and, by the way, we did invite the BBC onto the programme, but they've sent us a statement.
- I think it's time for Ofcom to investigate GB News for spreading anti-vax misinformation. It's Naomi Wolf again, building another conspiracy theory from data she doesn't understand - this time about recent neonatal deaths rather than Victorian legal records.
- In this interview Mark Steyn accepts her false claims about a rise in neonatal deaths in Ontario as truth and amplifies them. Then he agrees with her proposition that Bill Gates has bribed the BBC into suppressing the facts about it. Here are the facts.
- She then makes some defamatory allegations about an Office of National Statistics employee, who, she says, conceded that he had lied to the public. I recall the exchange from her now-defunct twitter feed, and how patiently he tried to explain why she was wrong.
- Then she makes a false claim about vaccines and sperm count. That one is fact-checked here. She speaks, in obscenely sensationalist language, about neonatal deaths in Scotland, and accuses the BBC of misreporting the story.
- Dr Wolf cranks her tombola of messianic ignorance for a good few minutes. Steyn nods it all through and then thanks her for her splendid work. To my mind all of this fails to meet some very basic journalistic standards. It went out on 23 June.
- So what should we do about this? A complaint to Ofcom I suppose - form below. But I can't help feeling it needs a more co-ordinated approach. A conspiracy theory/misinformation debunking service that could deal with this stuff as it arises in the media.
BBC staff told there are more than 150 genders and urged to develop ‘trans brand’Material provided to radio staff by Global Butterflies, a transgender group drafted in by corporation for training sessions last year
- “The BBC simply doesn’t understand what’s going on with gender identity ideology. They’ve been pandering to a social contagion amongst young people rather than being the adult in the room.”
- “‘Inform and educate’ from the BBC Charter has left the BBC when it covers trans issues.”
- “Stories from the ‘gender critical’ – pro-woman, pro-safeguarding – point of view are being pitched by individuals, but they are rejected because the top of news won’t commission them.”
- “Any story that doesn’t affirm gender ideology originates from outside the news cabal and when it appears it’s always sent upstairs, heavily scrutinised, triple checked – whilst gender affirmative stories go straight to output.”
- “And there’s a complete lack of understanding at the most senior BBC editorial levels that pronoun declarations align with a belief in gender identity ideology.”
Third party voluntary training material does not instruct BBC staff, but is available to increase awareness and understanding. There is no link to, or influence on, any editorial decision making and to suggest otherwise is wrong. As we have said many times before, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines are sacrosanct, our staff know this and they understand their responsibilities.
Well, this former BBC “whistleblower” says otherwise.
Saturday, 25 June 2022
Abortion: What does overturn of Roe v Wade mean?By Robin Levinson-King & Chloe Kim & Paul Sargeant
In 1973, the court had ruled in Roe v Wade that pregnant people were entitled to an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy, while allowing for legal restrictions and bans in the second and third trimester.
In 1973, the court had ruled in Roe v Wade that pregnant women were entitled to an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy, while allowing for legal restrictions and bans in the second and third trimester.
Update: Language in this story has been amended to more accurately reflect the specifics of the Roe v Wade ruling.
Most have said they will not prosecute women for trying to end their pregnancy, reserving criminal penalties for abortion providers and others who try and help people get abortions.
Most have said they will not prosecute women for trying to end their pregnancy, reserving criminal penalties for abortion providers and others who try and help women get abortions.
Update (Sunday): The Mail on Sunday has also picked up on this.
One of the BBC’s most high-profile presenters has been criticised for using the term “pro-life” to describe anti-abortion campaigners in a discussion about the US supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade.The term, which is considered partisan, was used twice by Amol Rajan during Saturday morning’s Today programme on Radio 4, in segments about the landmark ruling ending Americans’ constitutional right to abortion.The BBC News style guide advises journalists to “use anti-abortion rather than pro-life, except where it is part of the title of a group’s name”.
Now, a BBC reporter using the term 'pro-life' in the context of abortion is not what I'd expect, given the BBC's pronounced social-liberal bias, but Christopher Snowden of the free-market think tank the IEA makes an interesting point in response:
Both sides picked a name that makes their cause sound more appealing (pro-choice/pro-life) and everyone understands that. Unless this guy called the pro-choice people “pro-death”, I don’t see the problem.
And Christopher points out that the Guardian/Observer is mired in this language slough as well. See the image at the top of this very post for that tweet and his proof of that.
It's an interesting one. Though 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion' aren't perfect terms, especially for some 'pro-abortion' people, they are understandable and not quite as loaded as 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice'. Maybe the BBC should stick to those?
From my own perspective, which I suppose I ought to put on record, I think our British compromise on the issue gets it about right - as BBC editors appearing on the BBC's Newswatch would say.
Update (Sunday): To expand on Christopher Snowden's point, here's BBC Washington correspondent Nomia Iqbal yesterday evening on the BBC News Channel:
It is day two of those protests, not as many numbers as they were yesterday when that ruling came through but there are hundreds of protesters. I would say they are a largely pro-choice group. Earlier, there were anti-abortion protesters as well and there was a slight stand-off between them where you had pro-choice groups surrounding those anti-abortion ones and shouting, my body, my choice.
Gary - a true survivor - has done very well for himself, despite racism. The BBC licence fee has truly set him free.
Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty he is free at last...to endlessly tweet his controversial opinions as a top BBC star, despite that BBC high-up bloke Tim Davie - remember him? - supposedly trying to rein him in.
‘I’m black Gary, you’re white.’— GB News (@GBNEWS) June 25, 2022
Nana Akua gives her views of Gary Lineker and his comments ‘trivialising the experience of racism.’
📺 Freeview 236, Sky 515, Virgin 626
💻 GB News on YouTube https://t.co/KHMl3BAwQ2 pic.twitter.com/VTk0hakQQ1
The authorities later said the suspect was a Norwegian national.
Hm. Up to a point, Lord Copper. 'The BBC and half the story', as the saying goes hereabouts.
The BBC knows what it's up to, and it's clearly being very deliberate in its careful obfuscation.
Later Update: In a further edit to the BBC's main article about this, the BBC has dropped the word 'extreme' from “Police said they consider the attack an act of extreme Islamist terrorism.”
Ranganathan said that slave trading was something “..the white British did..” - a racist statement ignoring African involvement. British involvement in the slave trade was shameful but could not have taken place without active involvement of Africans. The programme covered the history of Freetown without mentioning who set it up or efforts by Britain to end the slave trade. African involvement in the trade was not mentioned at all.
In Freetown, slaves freed by the Royal Navy walked through the ‘Freedom Arch’ to the Old King’s Yard to be given treatment and food. Declared a National Monument in 1949, it is a UNESCO World Heritage site. Its website says, “The Gateway to the Old King’s Yard compares with the Statue of Liberty in the United States in enduring as a highly potent symbol, inspiring contemplation of ideals such as freedom, human rights, democracy and opportunity…”. Surely such a monument was worth showing. But no mention.
There is little difference in airtime between the statement made: ‘Freetown was set up for freed slave’ and an alternative ‘Britain set up Freetown for freed slaves’? Again, what is the different between the statement made ‘Freed slaves were brought to Freetown’ and an alternative ‘British Navy ships brought slaves they had freed to Freetown’?
I am glad the second reviewer admits what was said. Quoting the full context does not alter the sentiment which was that slavery was “…. something the white British did. …..” adding “It is part of British history…” Romesh added “…. the standard of living that is built upon benefits that were gleaned from slavery” which is much disputed by some very eminent economic historians. Your reviewer then adds “…. these are Romesh’s views on the complex legacy of slavery.”Your reviewer also stated this was a travel programme. Well, it took time to delve into history in a way to discredit Britain. The programme sets out clearly racist views because the whole programme section blames the white British for the slave trade and mentions only items which discredit British history.There is much for Britain to be proud of in Freetown, including the UNESCO World Heritage site. Many more rescued slaves were taken to Freetown than ever were shipped as slaves from Bunce Island. Clearly a lack of balance was shown.In a programme about Sierra Leone and Freetown that talks about history it would have been easy to mention that Freetown was set up by the British to take slaves freed by the Royal Navy where they would be safe because black Africans continued to enslave and sell other Africans. It did not. This clearly shows the programme makers wish to avoid mentioning anything good about Britain.Let us be clear. A travel programme does not need to mention history but if it does, it needs to be balanced. This was not. Further, this programme was racially biased because it blamed only the British but did not mention black African involvement.Some people are now claiming that the BBC has lost it impartiality and is keen to interpret history in an anti-British way. So far, they are proved right.
On to the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit then...
Incidentally, just looking up the UNESCO World Heritage Site Chris Tett mentions, a Trip Advisor reviewer adds something intriguing:
The original plaque clearly visible now joined by a modern one from the BBC.
Wonder what those plaques say?
Emily Kate: Not surprised by this. Ofcom only left Stonewall a year ago. But I think organisations employ Stonewall to entrench existing views anyway. So leaving the scheme isn't going to change much, ideologically speaking. It won't make the organisation fairer or more balanced, necessarily.
The beautiful symmetry of the national broadcaster being investigated for bias by a regulator who agrees that Position Normal is the one taken by the broadcaster! It's perfect.
BBC bosses believe they have solved the problem of perceived Left-wing bias on Newsnight, after Lewis Goodall announced he was leaving to join Emily Maitlis at a commercial rival.The Telegraph understands that the corporation did not make a counter-offer when Goodall, the programme’s policy editor, told them he had been approached by Global.
The departure of Goodall and Maitlis is being viewed as an opportunity to reset the programme and focus on impartiality after the pair were at the centre of damaging rows with the Government.
Two down, several thousand to go.