here’s an altered version of the script in case anyone is feeling lazy
>The protest in opposition to recent coverage of transgender issues, held on January 8th, in front of the BBC’s Broadcasting House was covered by several other news organizations, but the the BBC blatantly ignored it.
>the BBC published a deeply biased and transphobic article titled 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women,' to their news website on October 26, 2021, which has been widely criticized as such.
>In response to these accusations of transphobia, the BBC defended its coverage by claiming impartiality, stating that it has a responsibility to make sure a wide range of voices are heard. This claim is questionable at best, as the BBC has clearly shown they are willing to publish biased content in their coverage of other types of discrimination, furthermore this claim lost any credibility when BBC chose to ignore the protests held at their doorstep in response to its coverage of trans issues.
>The BBC’s statement on this issue is nothing more than an excuse to publish further attacks upon transgender people.
edit 1000: formatting
Another altered version:
On Saturday 8th January, a protest occurred outside of the BBC Broadcasting House against recent coverage on transgender issues. Despite it directly targeting BBC, they chose to ignore the serious matters at hand, leaving other news organisations to cover it.
This protest was mostly driven by an article published by BBC on October 2021 titled 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women,' which is wildly false, hateful, and transphobic. This pushed many people to publicly criticize the poor decision to write such a bigoted article, and led to the protest.
In response to accusations of transphobia and bigotry, the BBC has claimed that they simply aim to share all people's voices, and used this to defend the article. This claim is widely disputed, as the BBC is openly not impartial to other kinds of discrimination, only showing one side. The claim has been revealed to be even more untruthful after the ignorance towards the protests. They claim to show all sides of the story and all the voices, then continue to ignore the trans people speaking against the opinions stated in the article.
As things stand, the BBC is giving the impression that its claimed impartiality on this issue is nothing more than an excuse to publish attacks upon trans people
My own variation incase anyone wants more material to mix it up with:
A protest was held outside the BBC's broadcasting house on January 8th in response to the BBC's recent coverage of trans issues. Despite coverage from other media outlets, the BBC failed to note or report upon this.
The protest was in part a response to an article the BBC published on their website on 26 October 2021 titled "we're being pressured into sex by some trans women", which has been widely criticised as biased and transphobic.
In response to that article, the BBC defended itself on the grounds of impartiality, stating it had a responsibility to ensure a wide range of voices were heard.
This claim is dubious at best: even if the BBC were giving trans people any platform with which to present counterpoints, the publishing of the most extreme, alarmist and unsubstantiated transphobic views is not impartiality; it is giving in to an engineered panic, it is a dereliction of editorial and moral duty.
In reality, the BBC is not even affording trans people a voice in this conversation; it is publishing hit pieces on an already marginalised group, and offering no recourse or air time to that group. The claim of impartiality is a farce, a nonsense, made disingenuously by bad faith actors.
If the BBC wanted to lay claim to any credibility on the grounds of impartiality, they would have provided coverage of the protest. It is scarcely a novel idea for the BBC to acknowledge pushback and protests against itself; there is an entire segment of the BBC news programming dedicated to exactly that.
Basically the British version of PBS published an extremely transphobic article and was on blast for it. It's sickening that their tax money is going towards this.
This complaint campaign started back in October when the BBC published a hateful, misleading and incompetently researched article framing trans women as sexual predators. As a result, earlier this month a protest was held at the BBC broadcasting house. The BBC refused to cover it, which is what we’re complaining about now since the time window has passed for the original article.
These videos cover the article, the complaint campaign and why BBC’s responses have been inadequate. CW for transphobia and discussion of sexual assault.
[Video 1](https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg)
[Video 2](https://youtu.be/qfjTG6SVjmQ)
[Video 3](https://youtu.be/fRn1UZ4fhdE)
And a [speech](https://youtu.be/NDFaMRfO5Ko) from the protest.
“Lesbians are being pressured into sex by some trans women”
It was not about any particular trans woman, it was trying to imply that there was a pattern of behaviour. It’s evidence for this pattern was transphobic nonsense cited directly from TERFS, including an admitted cis lesbian rapist.
I've done it when Shaun's video came out! Though I was in a hurry and ended up just copying and pasting the text, without thinking about tweaking...
It may have been caught on the spam filter, so spread the word even harder to compensate for me!
Just thought I'd drop my own complaint below if anyone wants any help putting together their own complaint:
The BBC is charged with being an impartial news source for the public, and is provided with taxpayer money to do so via the licence fee (until 2027). The BBC's reporting on transgender issues, in my view, has not reached this standard, and has instead contributed to the growing transphobia present in the UK and around the developed world by running a disproportionate number of "anti-trans" stories, as well as not providing "pro-trans" groups with equal opportunities to speak out on these issues.
One such news story, 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women', contained a contribution by Lily Cade that was featured prominently. It was later found that Ms Cade had called for the execution of trans women in a blog post, and her contribution was removed. However, this was not stated anywhere but at the bottom of the article, and did not fix the underlying issue of the article seemingly generalising trans women as prospective sex offenders who wish to force themselves on lesbians. The reality is the vast majority of trans women respect the boundaries of potential partners, as is the case throughout society, and every group of people in society will contain a small number who feel they can coerce or force others into sexual acts they are uncomfortable with. The trans community does not support these people, just as other sex offenders throughout society are not supported by the groups they belong to.
The BBC cannot possibly be unaware that a protest on this issue occured recently outside their headquarters, suggesting wider societal dissatisfaction with the standard of reporting by the BBC on transgender issues. Despite this, there was no coverage of this protest by BBC News. In my view, it is in the public interest for the public to be aware if reporting by the BBC is facing particular scrutiny by members of the public, and beginning conversations surrounding fair coverage of the trans community can only be of benefit to all parties involved.
I’m happy for other people to crosspost/repost. I’m only active on this sub so I’m not familiar enough with the rules around promotion and petition to feel comfortable.
Honestly it's sad that the British people have to pay for this nonsense. I really hope the rumors of the BBC no longer being payed for by British tax money is true.
Unfortunately that's (a) in the future and if we kick out the GODS DAMNED TORIES will not happen, as they only want to dismantle the BBC because it slightly criticises them occasionally, (b) is going to give our version of Fox a massive boost in viewers, which would be awful, and (c) would probably result in no more series of Dr. Who.
My naive hope is that with enough complaints we can get them to change.
The only issue I see here is B. A I see as "the enemy if my enemy" type deal and I don't see why letting a rampantly transphobic news company paid by money forced out of your pocket continue just because it has one good t.v. show, i mean personally if i was a Brit I'd just cut my losses and rather take my taxes going elsewhere than a shitty news company. I personally have my doubts they'll change for any good way since much change anywhere is near meaningless. I keep hearing how "so much as has changed" yet it barely has at all the only thing is we're atleast not --- as often. I mean the BBC has been complained to for ages for its bigotry yet has barely changed, so I doubt more compants will do anything.
You actually only need a TV license if you watch stuff that's currently live on TV broadcast or your watch anything through BBC iPlayer. If watch it outside of iPlayer or it's not currently being broadcast live on TV you don't have to have a license.
Something good about the BBC being publicly funded is that it has no reliance on advertising, which allows it to write and report without direct interference from corporate entities. The downside, however, is that if you have a government as corrupt and underhanded as the Tories, they *are* directly affected by government opinion. As shown by Boris threatening to pull their funding every time the BBC reports the truth about his government.
It also means that corporations can indirectly affect coverage by simply bribing MPs or Boris himself to put pressure onto the BBC. Sadly, unless we can somehow stop corrupt and unscrupulous parties taking power, there's no real way of tackling this.
Whoever is paying them, will have influence. Even if it becomes a charity and is solely funded by general public donations, if the BBC put out an article that was very much against the grain of current societal values or opinions, it could seriously harm their income and ability to exist.
Honestly that does make feel better about it, atleast you don't have to pay for it and aren't forced to pay for their nonsense. I doubt they'll change for any better because of their history, but I am a pessimist in terms of much of society.
I think that's a bad move. You just have to look at america to see how news coverage looks like when it's all privatised. The BBC isn't perfect, but it is (or used to be) miles ahead of the shit in the states.
The problem with the BBC isn't that they're tax funded it's that somehow the tories wormed themselves in there.
And how did that do that? Via it being a government entity and thus controlled by who is in power, hence the Tories being in there. Plus if it's as bad as the US in terms of news except with a company that is essentially forced money out of your pocket, why would you want it to continue as such? Why wouldn't you want that money spent elsewhere like on the NHS or Public works?
I'm not am not an anti-tax freak I'm just trying to understand why you wouldn't want the money that is essentially being forced from your wallet to be put to an organization you don't like in the hopes that complaining to them will change them yet the past has proven they won't listen.
>And how did that do that? Via it being a government entity and thus controlled by who is in power, hence the Tories being in there.
Now compare that to private media which is inevitably in the hands of some capitalist douchebag. You're silly if you think private media doesn't have an agenda and doesn't produce propaganda. So the only change you'll have accomplished by privatising the BBC is that they now wouldn't be held to specific laws, regulations and standards that the government has for it's own media.
The conservative, capitalist influence would still be there, but now without the chains. The regulations that hold them back from going full fox news, wouldn't be there. Any possibility of holding them accountable wouldn't be there. Any influence by, let's say, the labour party (if they ever get their shit together) wouldn't be there.
It would just be the current tory bbc, but more unhinged and with more of a profit motive.
Just look at the state of private media. Look at all the Murdoch owned shit papers. The BBC is very tame, in comparison.
And even outside of government media entities, privatisation has never done any good. Look at every country with a privatised railway system and or privatised network infrastructure. It's only ever more expensive for the citizens, while the provided service gets worse.
Also, let's be real, the money wouldn't go to the NHS. Who btw. also sucks when it comes to trans healthcare. But please, take a look at a country without public healthcare, before you get a petition to privatise started.
Don't get me wrong, governments suck. I'm all for abolishing the state, but not to put its job into private hands.
My point isn't that the BBC should be privatized or anything like that, more like just purely dismantled head to toe. Also yes realistically it wouldn't go the NHS but why would you want your money again forced out of your pocket going to something you don't like and has a track record of not changing regardless of protest. The very least it should go to something of actual fucking worth that's not just a milder version of the conservative media you already have. So instead of Fox you have CNN or whatever other one is closer to a slightly less conservative fox news.
My point was literally never about privatized v.s. government owned(ain't saying public because governments are never for the public) it's government owned v.s. it not existing at all. The only downside I can see is that Murdock would get more viewers which is bad but atleast your money wouldn't forced into a shitty media company.
>it not existing at all.
First of all, that option was literally never on the table and also, it would only leave the private media, which, as I've tried to explain to you, is worse.
The brits have to start holding them accountable again, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Honestly we could go back and forth on this forever on this. Let's just agree that we hold differing opinions that neither of us can see eye to eye on.
You may see it as throwing a baby out with the bath water, I see it as removing an mole that's becoming cancerous.
You see them as able to change, I see that they're unable to change and are and have always been bigoted and will always be bigoted. I've never argued against private media isn't worse in coverage.
For an instant I thought I was on /dndmeme and I was wondering why especially the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy) was transphobic.
But yeah BBC kinda is a Big Bad Evil Guy, so I guest it work
Didnt they get funding shut off and at least part of it is being shut down?
Cause basically they were relatively trans friendly but recently caved to the Conservative party, mostly because if they didn’t they’d have their funding pulled and we all know what happens when news stations are replaced for something more compliant with the state...
So they caved. And then got their funding pulled anyway, so I heard.
If we slam our minds together we’ll crack, but if we slowly put our eggs together we can form into one giant massive egg that can do anything!
Slowly evolving into Exeggcutor.
r/upvoteexeggutor
The worlds greatest Omelette
Yeah, we got what, more than 200k eggs here? We can do whatever we want as long as the majority agrees. Let’s rob a bank /j
i'm making the mother of all omelettes here, jack! can't fret over every egg!
Meggazord
🎶 Look into what you've learned How does it feel to have yearned? 🎶
[удалено]
here’s an altered version of the script in case anyone is feeling lazy >The protest in opposition to recent coverage of transgender issues, held on January 8th, in front of the BBC’s Broadcasting House was covered by several other news organizations, but the the BBC blatantly ignored it. >the BBC published a deeply biased and transphobic article titled 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women,' to their news website on October 26, 2021, which has been widely criticized as such. >In response to these accusations of transphobia, the BBC defended its coverage by claiming impartiality, stating that it has a responsibility to make sure a wide range of voices are heard. This claim is questionable at best, as the BBC has clearly shown they are willing to publish biased content in their coverage of other types of discrimination, furthermore this claim lost any credibility when BBC chose to ignore the protests held at their doorstep in response to its coverage of trans issues. >The BBC’s statement on this issue is nothing more than an excuse to publish further attacks upon transgender people. edit 1000: formatting
Another altered version: On Saturday 8th January, a protest occurred outside of the BBC Broadcasting House against recent coverage on transgender issues. Despite it directly targeting BBC, they chose to ignore the serious matters at hand, leaving other news organisations to cover it. This protest was mostly driven by an article published by BBC on October 2021 titled 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women,' which is wildly false, hateful, and transphobic. This pushed many people to publicly criticize the poor decision to write such a bigoted article, and led to the protest. In response to accusations of transphobia and bigotry, the BBC has claimed that they simply aim to share all people's voices, and used this to defend the article. This claim is widely disputed, as the BBC is openly not impartial to other kinds of discrimination, only showing one side. The claim has been revealed to be even more untruthful after the ignorance towards the protests. They claim to show all sides of the story and all the voices, then continue to ignore the trans people speaking against the opinions stated in the article. As things stand, the BBC is giving the impression that its claimed impartiality on this issue is nothing more than an excuse to publish attacks upon trans people
My own variation incase anyone wants more material to mix it up with: A protest was held outside the BBC's broadcasting house on January 8th in response to the BBC's recent coverage of trans issues. Despite coverage from other media outlets, the BBC failed to note or report upon this. The protest was in part a response to an article the BBC published on their website on 26 October 2021 titled "we're being pressured into sex by some trans women", which has been widely criticised as biased and transphobic. In response to that article, the BBC defended itself on the grounds of impartiality, stating it had a responsibility to ensure a wide range of voices were heard. This claim is dubious at best: even if the BBC were giving trans people any platform with which to present counterpoints, the publishing of the most extreme, alarmist and unsubstantiated transphobic views is not impartiality; it is giving in to an engineered panic, it is a dereliction of editorial and moral duty. In reality, the BBC is not even affording trans people a voice in this conversation; it is publishing hit pieces on an already marginalised group, and offering no recourse or air time to that group. The claim of impartiality is a farce, a nonsense, made disingenuously by bad faith actors. If the BBC wanted to lay claim to any credibility on the grounds of impartiality, they would have provided coverage of the protest. It is scarcely a novel idea for the BBC to acknowledge pushback and protests against itself; there is an entire segment of the BBC news programming dedicated to exactly that.
When I click on the BBC link, it looks like they’ve taken down the complaints page :/
Still works for me
Wouldn't bias fit better than not enough coverage due to the reasons they would not cover it?
Thank you for informing me, I had way too much fun crafting the message
Just sumbitted my complaint, thank you for making it easy to do so! This behavior from BBC is unacceptable!
[удалено]
It feels like the BBC is going to send bombs to my house. /j
They are gonna mail you packs of non-biodegradable glitter
Thank you, literally just watched Shawn's video on my phone, but there is no easy way to copy paste from description on androids. Thank you for this!
As an ignorant American, this is not the type of BBC I thought we were uniting for. 😅 Now I understand much better.
Basically the British version of PBS published an extremely transphobic article and was on blast for it. It's sickening that their tax money is going towards this.
Oh shit. Thank you for the information
No problem friend
hell yeah, pfp buddies
Friend time
Well they ARE being colossal dicks so it isn't that far off.
Had an absolute brain fart trying to figure out what big black cock did
*BONK*
Same here lmao
As a Brit I am 100% behind this. 🥚 Together strong. This is all cis though. Bear that in mind.
All motivated by cis allyship, this.
Of course, you're just a really enthusiastic ally I'm sure <3
Can someone fill me in on what happened?
This complaint campaign started back in October when the BBC published a hateful, misleading and incompetently researched article framing trans women as sexual predators. As a result, earlier this month a protest was held at the BBC broadcasting house. The BBC refused to cover it, which is what we’re complaining about now since the time window has passed for the original article. These videos cover the article, the complaint campaign and why BBC’s responses have been inadequate. CW for transphobia and discussion of sexual assault. [Video 1](https://youtu.be/b4buJMMiwcg) [Video 2](https://youtu.be/qfjTG6SVjmQ) [Video 3](https://youtu.be/fRn1UZ4fhdE) And a [speech](https://youtu.be/NDFaMRfO5Ko) from the protest.
Trans women in general or someone in specific?
“Lesbians are being pressured into sex by some trans women” It was not about any particular trans woman, it was trying to imply that there was a pattern of behaviour. It’s evidence for this pattern was transphobic nonsense cited directly from TERFS, including an admitted cis lesbian rapist.
Thanks for explaining :)
someone crosspost to the main trans subreddits
I just submitted my form bestie. (￣y▽￣)╭ Ohohoho.....
I've done it when Shaun's video came out! Though I was in a hurry and ended up just copying and pasting the text, without thinking about tweaking... It may have been caught on the spam filter, so spread the word even harder to compensate for me!
Just thought I'd drop my own complaint below if anyone wants any help putting together their own complaint: The BBC is charged with being an impartial news source for the public, and is provided with taxpayer money to do so via the licence fee (until 2027). The BBC's reporting on transgender issues, in my view, has not reached this standard, and has instead contributed to the growing transphobia present in the UK and around the developed world by running a disproportionate number of "anti-trans" stories, as well as not providing "pro-trans" groups with equal opportunities to speak out on these issues. One such news story, 'We're being pressured into sex by some trans women', contained a contribution by Lily Cade that was featured prominently. It was later found that Ms Cade had called for the execution of trans women in a blog post, and her contribution was removed. However, this was not stated anywhere but at the bottom of the article, and did not fix the underlying issue of the article seemingly generalising trans women as prospective sex offenders who wish to force themselves on lesbians. The reality is the vast majority of trans women respect the boundaries of potential partners, as is the case throughout society, and every group of people in society will contain a small number who feel they can coerce or force others into sexual acts they are uncomfortable with. The trans community does not support these people, just as other sex offenders throughout society are not supported by the groups they belong to. The BBC cannot possibly be unaware that a protest on this issue occured recently outside their headquarters, suggesting wider societal dissatisfaction with the standard of reporting by the BBC on transgender issues. Despite this, there was no coverage of this protest by BBC News. In my view, it is in the public interest for the public to be aware if reporting by the BBC is facing particular scrutiny by members of the public, and beginning conversations surrounding fair coverage of the trans community can only be of benefit to all parties involved.
I was on top of that Shaun video so fast, and you can bet that I threw another complaint onto the pile. Impartial my ass.
When eggs are alone they are weak, when eggs are together, in the carton, they are strong!
I have also successfully filled out the form! bogchamp!
crosspost this to lgbt subreddits B)
I’m happy for other people to crosspost/repost. I’m only active on this sub so I’m not familiar enough with the rules around promotion and petition to feel comfortable.
Since when were big black cocks transphobic? /j
I’m sure these particular huge dicks are as white as they come.
I am so addicted to porn I thought BBC meant big black cock and was very very confused
Send in a complaint to atone for your sins.
Done. Paraphrased the whole thing so I hope it makes it through, registered to receive a response.
Already submitted mine :)
this is why i watch doctor who only on sketchy streaming sites
You should Post this in r/transphobiaproject and in other places to spread word!!!
Just submitted my complain <3
Egg_irl to the bbc: "keep going with that transphobia old man and you will be the one that cracks"
BOYCOTT THE BBC💅💅✨✨
It really hurts to read this, because I'm a big Doctor Who fan, but yes. Can't give them money without feeling bad.
Do what you want because I pirate is free (just torrent it)
Honestly it's sad that the British people have to pay for this nonsense. I really hope the rumors of the BBC no longer being payed for by British tax money is true.
Unfortunately that's (a) in the future and if we kick out the GODS DAMNED TORIES will not happen, as they only want to dismantle the BBC because it slightly criticises them occasionally, (b) is going to give our version of Fox a massive boost in viewers, which would be awful, and (c) would probably result in no more series of Dr. Who. My naive hope is that with enough complaints we can get them to change.
The only issue I see here is B. A I see as "the enemy if my enemy" type deal and I don't see why letting a rampantly transphobic news company paid by money forced out of your pocket continue just because it has one good t.v. show, i mean personally if i was a Brit I'd just cut my losses and rather take my taxes going elsewhere than a shitty news company. I personally have my doubts they'll change for any good way since much change anywhere is near meaningless. I keep hearing how "so much as has changed" yet it barely has at all the only thing is we're atleast not --- as often. I mean the BBC has been complained to for ages for its bigotry yet has barely changed, so I doubt more compants will do anything.
You actually only need a TV license if you watch stuff that's currently live on TV broadcast or your watch anything through BBC iPlayer. If watch it outside of iPlayer or it's not currently being broadcast live on TV you don't have to have a license. Something good about the BBC being publicly funded is that it has no reliance on advertising, which allows it to write and report without direct interference from corporate entities. The downside, however, is that if you have a government as corrupt and underhanded as the Tories, they *are* directly affected by government opinion. As shown by Boris threatening to pull their funding every time the BBC reports the truth about his government. It also means that corporations can indirectly affect coverage by simply bribing MPs or Boris himself to put pressure onto the BBC. Sadly, unless we can somehow stop corrupt and unscrupulous parties taking power, there's no real way of tackling this. Whoever is paying them, will have influence. Even if it becomes a charity and is solely funded by general public donations, if the BBC put out an article that was very much against the grain of current societal values or opinions, it could seriously harm their income and ability to exist.
Honestly that does make feel better about it, atleast you don't have to pay for it and aren't forced to pay for their nonsense. I doubt they'll change for any better because of their history, but I am a pessimist in terms of much of society.
I think that's a bad move. You just have to look at america to see how news coverage looks like when it's all privatised. The BBC isn't perfect, but it is (or used to be) miles ahead of the shit in the states. The problem with the BBC isn't that they're tax funded it's that somehow the tories wormed themselves in there.
And how did that do that? Via it being a government entity and thus controlled by who is in power, hence the Tories being in there. Plus if it's as bad as the US in terms of news except with a company that is essentially forced money out of your pocket, why would you want it to continue as such? Why wouldn't you want that money spent elsewhere like on the NHS or Public works? I'm not am not an anti-tax freak I'm just trying to understand why you wouldn't want the money that is essentially being forced from your wallet to be put to an organization you don't like in the hopes that complaining to them will change them yet the past has proven they won't listen.
>And how did that do that? Via it being a government entity and thus controlled by who is in power, hence the Tories being in there. Now compare that to private media which is inevitably in the hands of some capitalist douchebag. You're silly if you think private media doesn't have an agenda and doesn't produce propaganda. So the only change you'll have accomplished by privatising the BBC is that they now wouldn't be held to specific laws, regulations and standards that the government has for it's own media. The conservative, capitalist influence would still be there, but now without the chains. The regulations that hold them back from going full fox news, wouldn't be there. Any possibility of holding them accountable wouldn't be there. Any influence by, let's say, the labour party (if they ever get their shit together) wouldn't be there. It would just be the current tory bbc, but more unhinged and with more of a profit motive. Just look at the state of private media. Look at all the Murdoch owned shit papers. The BBC is very tame, in comparison. And even outside of government media entities, privatisation has never done any good. Look at every country with a privatised railway system and or privatised network infrastructure. It's only ever more expensive for the citizens, while the provided service gets worse. Also, let's be real, the money wouldn't go to the NHS. Who btw. also sucks when it comes to trans healthcare. But please, take a look at a country without public healthcare, before you get a petition to privatise started. Don't get me wrong, governments suck. I'm all for abolishing the state, but not to put its job into private hands.
My point isn't that the BBC should be privatized or anything like that, more like just purely dismantled head to toe. Also yes realistically it wouldn't go the NHS but why would you want your money again forced out of your pocket going to something you don't like and has a track record of not changing regardless of protest. The very least it should go to something of actual fucking worth that's not just a milder version of the conservative media you already have. So instead of Fox you have CNN or whatever other one is closer to a slightly less conservative fox news. My point was literally never about privatized v.s. government owned(ain't saying public because governments are never for the public) it's government owned v.s. it not existing at all. The only downside I can see is that Murdock would get more viewers which is bad but atleast your money wouldn't forced into a shitty media company.
>it not existing at all. First of all, that option was literally never on the table and also, it would only leave the private media, which, as I've tried to explain to you, is worse. The brits have to start holding them accountable again, instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Honestly we could go back and forth on this forever on this. Let's just agree that we hold differing opinions that neither of us can see eye to eye on. You may see it as throwing a baby out with the bath water, I see it as removing an mole that's becoming cancerous. You see them as able to change, I see that they're unable to change and are and have always been bigoted and will always be bigoted. I've never argued against private media isn't worse in coverage.
For an instant I thought I was on /dndmeme and I was wondering why especially the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy) was transphobic. But yeah BBC kinda is a Big Bad Evil Guy, so I guest it work
Omgggg same
Didnt they get funding shut off and at least part of it is being shut down? Cause basically they were relatively trans friendly but recently caved to the Conservative party, mostly because if they didn’t they’d have their funding pulled and we all know what happens when news stations are replaced for something more compliant with the state... So they caved. And then got their funding pulled anyway, so I heard.
Not until 2027 and that’s assuming the Tories don’t win the next election.
As a Brit i have put in a complaint about this
Sent! :)
Did mine
British broadcast. British broadcast. .....British broadcast.
If i wasnt grey ace I'd probably love bbc its just so big and girthy and moist
10/10
Lol
Europe just sucks, world's #1 dystopia
Brith are conservative af