The ideological vandals within the BBC
The BBC is risking its own future by promoting hogwash, from a thread by Malcolm Clark
Does the BBC deserve more money? Here's just a few ways it could stop wasting license payers' money, provide a better service and give less of an impression it functions as the plaything of a tiny, unrepresentative minority.
Many BBC journalists say privately they feel unable to speak openly about gender issues. It might be an idea for the @BBC to dispel the sense it's enforcing a narrow agenda at the behest of lobby groups including its own LGBT+ staff group @BBCPride.
The unhealthy influence of this daft group was enshrined in 2018 when the BBC issued its LGBT Culture and Progression Report which was co-authored by our august national broadcaster and its tiny loudmouth staff group no one voted for.
In the Report @BBCPride claimed they'd surveyed the LGBT staff at the Corporation and announced "Along the way you've told us LGBT is much more fluid, where the boundaries of sexual orientation and gender identity blur beyond the L, G, B or T." Oh do stop making it up
I hear endless suggestions from insiders that senior BBC management feel the need regularly to consult this unrepresentative group of self-appointed social justice warriors. Yet, in the Report the staff group made clear their agenda was essentially driven by @Stonewalluk.
Not only does the Report advocate sucking up to a lobby group, Stonewall, by trying to get into its Top 100 employers, it recommends launching an ally programme with the charity's "support" that COSTS license payers money. Training a group of just 12 people costs £6500.
Yes, the @BBC was paying Stonewall to advise a pro-Stonewall staff group who then advocated spending huge amounts of money on Stonewall. By the way, "allies" are non-LGBTQ+ people. In other words, Stonewall had found a way to get paid to guilt-trip straight people.
Of course, this makes sense. If you misrepresent gay people's sexuality to other gay people they might contradict you by stating a heresy like lesbians neither have nor like dicks. Straight people might believe the BS you tell them about gays, as silly BBC execs clearly did.
No wonder when @StephenNolan and @dt_ni investigated the undue influence of Stonewall on institutions including the BBC for their Nolan Investigates podcast they were warned off by colleagues. A rainbow-coloured omerta has gripped the Corporation.
Naturally, @BBCSounds never promoted the podcast despite its rave reviews. You wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the Pink Stasi would you? Instead, it relentlessly promoted stuff like Queertopia. Let me know if you see rave reviews for that.
Here's another radical thought. If cash is tight does the BBC really need an LGBT+ correspondent? Is there a Working Class Correspondent? And I wonder if new LGBT Correspondent @joshparry will avoid the conflict of interest Ben Hunte presented by hosting a Stonewall event.
A look at his timeline suggests Josh hasn't listened to the Nolan podcast and its reminder it's inappropriate to take sides with charities, or their policies; no matter how worthy. How can Josh report objectively on, say, an HIV treatment, if he is also advocating it?
Cabotegravir is a promising new drug that may revolutionise HIV treatment but questions have been raised about its cost-effectiveness. Maybe gay men and taxpayers generally might prefer an LGBT+ correspondent to report on the pros AND the cons too.
The question about identitarian correspondents is are they activists or reporters? Take @meghamohan, the BBC's "Gender and Identity Correspondent". What does that even mean? It seems to mean taking pot shots at feminists who don't follow the line. @ChimamandaReal is an avowed champion of Nigerian LGB & T rights, yet when she said transwomen retained advantages from being brought up male, Mohan's piece suggested this was some sort of extreme view. Maybe in North London it is. The idea it's unusual in Nigeria is absurd.
So the views of one of Africa's cultural luminaries was weighed against those of a trans beauty queen based in London with no attempt to interrogate either. A narrow gender identity bias ran through Mohan's work. Here she is on the "gender binary".
It contains the legend, "some people in Western cultures say that gender is binary and divided into male and female." Yep, 95% of the population are convinced of that, and the joke is that's a smaller % than every other culture in the world (which has managed to survive).
The BBC doesn't just waste our money with nonsense like this. It does a disservice to good journalists like Mohan, Josh and Ben Hunte who would do much better work if they were pressed to be independent-minded and not uncritical amplifiers of ideological positions.
The BBC is undermining the integrity of its journalists and its own credibility by refusing to insist on impartiality. And it hasn't learned. After it was forced to part with Stonewall it signed up to another expensive gaslighting service.
Involve promote the same Diversity and Inclusion baloney as $tonewall, ie virtue signalling dressed up in management speak. Here's them describing a successful Intervention they made in a company that faced an epic challenge of our time: Lack of + representation
Yep, a company paid good money to improve the representation of "those who identify as ...part of the +" I hate to seem unsympathetic but if you describe yourself as "part of the +" maybe it might help to come up with a descriptor that isn't a mathematical symbol.
The BBC says it's short of cash yet it refuses to reveal how much it lavished on Stonewall. Perhaps, now money is going to get even tighter, it will reveal how much taxpayers' money it's throwing by the bucket load over Involve to brainwash its staff in unscientific garbage.
The BBC is an extraordinary cultural treasure. I loved working for it; as almost everyone who passes through its portals does. It would be utter vandalism to destroy it. But the BBC's case would be so much stronger if it could be bothered to tackle its own vandals within.