Legal Rights / PoliticsTraumatised employees living in fear as BBC expected to quit Stonewall’s Diversity Programme

submitted by ChunkeeguyTeam T*RF Fuck Yeah from vice.com

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]JulienMayfair 26 insightful - 3 fun26 insightful - 2 fun27 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Oh yeah -- as though an über-woque organization like the BBC is somehow suddenly going to become a hostile place for LGBTQIA2S+++ to work. What a pile of bullshit.

[–]MyLongestJourney 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems like the tide is turning...at least in England.

[–]RedEyedWarriorGay | Male | 🇮🇪 Irish 🇮🇪 | Antineoliberal | Cocks are Compulsory 20 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And of course Vice is making this out to be some epic tragedy. Hopefully the BBC actually quits the Idiot Programme.

[–]our_team_is_winning 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

As a broadcaster, we have our own values and editorial standards

Which will unironically be exactly the same as Stonewall's Wokeism, I'm sure.

“It’s starting to feel like we’re working for the enemy."

HAHAHHAHA!

“They’re saying that they don’t care about our welfare in the workplace, they don’t care about treating LGBT employees with respect and dignity."

There are NO "LGBT" people on earth. There are L, G, B, and then there is a very separate group of disturbed individuals known as T.

I would LOVE to find out (please let it be true -- right now it's just my dream, but fingers crossed) that the BBC higher ups who said let's sever ties with Stonewall are LGB. Wouldn't that be magical? If a lesbian BBC executive had been behind axing Stonewall?

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Seems like they are not disclosing the real reasons they are distancing themselves, but it's fairly obvious.

They are not nearly as woke as the Guardian, so reserve some hope for the BBC actually meaning what they say here. It is the most obvious public framing of a withdrawal, in any case. It's not like they are going to come out and share their real opinions about Stonewall; Stonewall is kryptonite just as much as TRAs are, as far as being associated with or responding to them goes. Quietly slipping out the back is standard procedure when dealing with people with personality disorders, and dealing with their enablers.

[–][deleted] 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Maybe it'll mean the BBC will actually start being unbiased on these issues.

I know that's a lot to ask for, but I can be hopeful, right?

[–]ThiccDropkickGay 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What a great article. Tons of (conveniently anonymous and vague) accusations about the BBC’s supposedly rampant transphobia, plus not a single mention of why Stonewall has attracted controversy recently.

Stonewall has received a huge backlash in some sections of the UK media because of its vocal support for trans rights, and other organisations have withdrawn from the diversity scheme this year

No, Stonewall received backlash because they were accused of interpreting the equality act in their own way and giving inaccurate advice, which caused a bunch of companies who paid Stonewall to give them advice to question the charity’s value.

[–]spanishprofanity 7 insightful - 13 fun7 insightful - 12 fun8 insightful - 13 fun -  (0 children)

i'm picturing the employees cowering under their desks, clinging on to their pronoun badges with shaky hands

[–]SerpensInferna 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

My eyes are now permanently rolled up into the back of my head.

[–]Femaleisnthateful 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've never understood why anyone thinks it's appropriate for an organization - especially a taxpayer funded one - to have a formal relationship with any special interest group. Stonewall's Diversity Programme is even more insidious in that it was essentially blackmailing these organizations into doing its bidding under threat of being labelled 'transphobic' or 'not an ally' or whatever. And misrepresenting the law in ways that put it's 'client' or 'partner' organizations in legal jeopardy.

All of these organizations wouldn't be walking away from Stonewall if Stonewall had provided actual value.

[–]PatsyStoneMaverique 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The £1,000,000 question: scared of what?

I combed the article and found no answer. Several people are, like, so scared.

[–]Horror-SwordfishI don't get how flairs work 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're scared because their cult tells them to be scared. I'd be willing to bet that even they wouldn't know what they were scared about if you pressed them for an answer. I'm sure they'd say, "Transphobia," or something equally vague, but if you tried to get any specifics they'd just attack you instead.

[–]reluctant_commenter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, this is great news! Very late to the party but it seems that some major developments have been happening as I've been gone.

I noticed that the person who wrote this article is Ben Hunte, who I recall wrote an article for BBC that had to be updated since at had misinformation-- I think about suicide statistics?

(Ben Hunte, the reporter on this story, previously worked for the BBC before joining VICE World News.)

And:

Supporting LGBTQ+ people in the workplace should not be seen as a political or controversial act.”

Supporting Stonewall != supporting "LGBTQ+" people. One's a corrupt organization, the other is a set of demographic groups-- three of which are a different type of demographic than the others...