It seems the BBC is tearing itself to pieces over a throwaway line by Justin Webb, one of its most prominent journalists and who regularly presents Radio 4’s Today programme. The Telegraph has the story:
The long-time presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, was discussing new rules banning transgender competitors from taking part in women’s international chess tournaments and said “trans women, in other words males”.
A zealous listener picked up on Webb’s words and lodged a complaint, accusing Webb, 63, of compromising the corporation’s strict impartiality rules. The BBC complaints procedure whirred into action and, a couple of weeks ago, delivered its verdict. Webb, it decided, was guilty as charged. His words, the Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) decreed, “gave the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area”.
Not surprisingly, some of the BBC’s female employees, in other words women, a term which the Telegraph has taken the risky decision to use, are up in arms:
Senior BBC women have written to Tim Davie, the Director-General, in their droves to express dismay at the way Webb has been treated. They claim that Webb only stated a fact: although gender identity is largely a social construct, biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed.
One wrote: “Clear statement of fact is not ‘one viewpoint’ and the fact that it is ‘a highly controversial area’ makes it more important to be factual, not less. If the BBC is to censure journalists for being factual we are slipping into very dangerous waters. Once we’ve decided to dispense with public trust we have nothing left.”
Needless to say, the ECU threw itself in with the lack of objectivity that plagues these furores, even though according to the BBC, “Justin accepts it would have been more accurate to use the term biological male”.
The ECU did not interview him about what he had said, nor allowed him any direct input into the inquiry it conducted. Webb is seeking to learn from whom the ECU took advice on the issue. The suspicion, sources suggest, is that the views of trans activists were given undue weight.
Anya Palmer, a barrister at Old Square Chambers who successfully represented tax expert Maya Forstater when she was unfairly sacked from her job at a thinktank for believing that people cannot change their sex, says that part of the BBC’s approach to Webb was unusual. “It seems really odd he wouldn’t even be given the chance to respond to the complaint before they reach any decision. As a matter of basic fairness, he should be able to respond,” she says.
The Telegraph incidentally estimates that only one in 65,000 complaints about a lack of impartiality to the BBC is ever upheld. Yet this time there was unseemly haste to dive in:
The ECU’s verdict in its damning judgement of Justin Webb is telling. Its statement reads: “In relation to impartiality, however, the ECU considered it could only be understood by listeners as meaning that trans women remain male, without qualification as to gender or biological sex.”
A senior BBC News insider says: “Does this ruling mean that the BBC now considers that sex and gender are independent of each other? If so, that is an important point and if the BBC is going to report these matters from that standpoint it should definitely make that clear to the audience.”
It has also highlighted the generational tensions in the BBC newsroom, with some senior journalists alarmed at how newer recruits seem oblivious of their obligation to be even-handed in their coverage of the transgender issue, among others. One says that there may be “a failure in the way BBC journalists are trained”.
Surely not.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Climate Scares False – latest leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, your new MP, your local vicar, online media and friends online.
Start a local campaign. We have over 200 leaflet ideas on the link on the leaflet.
https://www.unison.org.uk/events/stop-tommy-robinson-stop-the-far-right-unite-against-racism-islamophobia-and-antisemitism/
‘Stand Up to Racism has called a unity demonstration against Robinson to show that we will not let the far right take over our streets.
Our message is clear: stop the far right, unity over division.
We’re asking every trade union, faith group, campaign, anti- racist and the thousands who pushed back the far right in August to join our demonstration on 26 October.
We are the many, they are the few. Together we can stop the far right.’
I thought it was a bit quiet on here today.
Who pays for these Unison protestors?
Oh!
‘UNISON is the UK’s largest union, representing over 1.3 million members who work in public services, utilities……
UNISON members can claim tax relief on their subscriptions, and the union has a dispensation with HMRC to reimburse expenses to its members and activists.’
We do!
Sensible words and advice from Liam Tuffs here. The last rally went off with no problems at all and there’s no reason today’s should be any different. It’s predictable that the ones starting any trouble will be the agitators that are planted there, so look out for anyone with face coverings, because it’s highly likely it’ll be them as patriots would have no cause to cover their faces. It’s a family-friendly gathering and celebration, no matter how the opposition haters and MSM choose to twist it. If anyone is going please report back how it went. Looking forward to the footage which will be posted online later. Do Tommy proud!
https://x.com/liamtuffs1/status/1849868692290687161
As with the first and second world war it started slowly and grew
We have actually been in the third world war for some time now, we just haven’t realised it yet!
Troops from around the world are now involved in foreign campaign’s, it can only escalate
If Trump wins he will have to hit the ground running to have any hope of stopping this madness
The absolute lack of leadership in the west is staggering!
I imagine that we will see police in full riot gear inciting the TR supporters to violence so that the MSM will get the desired headlines and Starmer will once again be seen as a hard man castigating the “far right”.
I hope with all my heart that it goes wrong bigtime for the authorities, and that their incompetence and stupidity manifests itself in their failure and the naked exposure of their agents.
Traitors and filth, every one.
The only trouble was in the opposing rally, with arrests made. Strange that, the large number of Police around Tommy’s rally looked pretty stupid.
Local early evening news Look East yesterday headlined with an extensive item on an EV that spontaneously burst into flames on someone’s driveway. I was surprised the item was permitted but good on them.
“Get your Progress Pride poppy”
Never again! F#£k the British legion
Machine guns didn’t differentiate on the battle fields, neither should this so called charity
Indeed. I won’t be buying a poppy this year.
When I see one of their poppy sellers I am going to give them the same message. Although I refuse to support charidees I make an exception for a poppy, usually just a quid. Even thaat’s now finished.
Why is ASI measuring non-dims in £billions instead of in numbers of people.
If the chart I. The useless DT is meant to represent the aggregate wealth of non-dims why not say so.
I assume we have yet another useless journo or ASI “researcher” juvenile so does not understand the units of measurement.
I wonder how many of these non-dims have, in past years, subsidised Labour, its charities and Net Zero projects. Oh how much they must now resent the time they spent rubbing shoulders with Blair, Mandeldlime and their mates.
As investors are not “working people” then why is Starmer so keen to invest our money in the state, which has a very considerable proportion of non-working people? Why are all the welfare scroungers, the non-workers etc. getting our money invested in them? Are Starmer and MPs working people? Simply questions to consider.