This is cogent and highly relevant to the situation we are now in.Policing powers vis a vis protest have been ramped up,and the grounds on which police forces police by consent and are accountable have been fudged .
Thank you Sarah and Fair Cop,this is very useful information. I
Excellent article. I find all this pseudo legal stuff bandied about by Stonewall activists very concerning. It’s being adopted by the media and other organisations as though it is the law 😱 As a rule following autistic woman this whole Gender Identity debacle is an anxiety provoking nightmare. I am terrified of men I don’t know in enclosed spaces after being sexually assaulted by a swimming baths attendant as a teenager. All the publicity about it awakened the memory which I had buried and now I obsess about it and avoid going anywhere I might have to use a public toilet. Thanks for all you do. I am grateful and admire your bravery. You speak for women like me - professional strong women who can be immediately reduced to 13 year olds at the whim of abusive men.
4.3.6 When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
and
4.3.7 We must take particular care to achieve due impartiality when a ‘controversial subject’ may be considered to be a major matter[2]. ‘Major matters’ are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance, or of a similar significance within a smaller coverage area. When dealing with ‘major matters’, or when the issues involved are highly controversial and/or a decisive moment in the controversy is expected, it will normally be necessary to ensure that an appropriately wide range of significant views are reflected in a clearly linked ‘series of programmes’, a single programme or web item, or sometimes even a single item in a programme.
and
4.3.17 The BBC must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial.
and
4.3.18 Careful thought will be necessary to ensure perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality are maintained when content is scheduled topically and coincides with a third party’s campaign or initiative. It is advisable to contact Editorial Policy.
4.3.19 Social action output can form an important part of the BBC’s public service. However, care is required to ensure the BBC sets its own social action agenda and decides its own priorities:
we must ensure that our output does not simply embrace the agenda of any particular campaign groups or charities and that we treat groups objectively and do not favour one above another
It is objectively clear that Deborah Turness (Director of News & Current Affairs) and Mary Hockaday (Head of Newsroom) have decided that the BBC's Editorial Guidelines can be ignored, just as a number of Chief Constables in England and Wales have determined that the College of Policing's Code of Ethics can be ignored in their entirety.
Two arms of the State, both bound by written ethical charters, both being demonstrably ignored. Indeed in the cases of both individual Police Forces and the BBC, there is evidence that senior staff are actively encouraging the abuse of their professions ethics standards, and using the tax-payers money to fund incursions into their organisations by lobbying groups.
Beyond the scope of the gender/'transing-the-gay' debate, there is a greater fear; that both Police and BBC journalists, having been encouraged to ignore their ethics codes on one subject, won't ignore them for other subjects and political/commercial concerns.
I've noticed that BBC News appears to be actively ignoring climate change stories that are reported elsewhere in recent months. Is that because it's journalists are being influenced by corporate interests? 'Partygate' was blown-open by ITN News, but the BBC News political correspondents somehow managed to ignore it, for months. Downing Street & Number 10 are under constant armed police surveillance 24/7 which reported the parties to senior officers. Why did the BBC reporters and senior Metropolitan Police officers manage to not intervene/report earlier? Was it because both professions were encouraged to ignore their Code of Ethics?
Only this week BBC News declined to report that two whistleblowers involved in Operation Linden had been threatened by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for complaining
I reckon there's enough material evidence collated by the likes of Fair Cop to warrant an independent public inquiry into BBC News impartiality (and the BBC can pick-up the cost from its budget). For English and Welsh Police Forces, the answer might just have to be a wholesale range of early retirements and sackings of senior officers, particularly in the six Forces now under 'special measures' from next week, namely The Metropolitan Police, Gloucestershire Police, Wiltshire Police, Staffordshire Police, Greater Manchester Police and Cleveland Police.
Whilst the likes of the BBC's Deborah Turness and Mary Hockaday seem intent on trashing the reputation of BBC News beyond the trough it's already in, the abandoning of 'policing-by-consent' and any visage of 'ethical policing' by The College of Policing and Chief Constables would appear to leave both professions vulnerable to corruption.
Fair Cop? This is another side project for Jeremy Hosking’s group of antivaxxers the ‘reclaim party’ isn’t it? They have blood on their hands spreading lies about Covid vaccines. Far-right nutjobs and crazed conspiracy theorists who think the WEF control the world.
At a very minimal base level, this piece will be very useful to share with other interested parties, and also a valuable basic information resource with regards to the appalling Stonelaw-driven ideological capture of our once-valued and (sometimes) respected police forces.
As ever, please do let me know if there is anything I can do to help you....
I'd extend this out further than just gender identity to all the other kinds within wider LGBT activism and general support. The underlying assertion of unequal rights or treatment is a highly contested (and eminently expandable) issue. Or, also the presumed cohesiveness of the alliance between widely different groups, it presupposes. It should not be the role of state actors to parade their support for niche communities, but only the overarching community: citizens.
This is cogent and highly relevant to the situation we are now in.Policing powers vis a vis protest have been ramped up,and the grounds on which police forces police by consent and are accountable have been fudged .
Thank you Sarah and Fair Cop,this is very useful information. I
Excellent article. I find all this pseudo legal stuff bandied about by Stonewall activists very concerning. It’s being adopted by the media and other organisations as though it is the law 😱 As a rule following autistic woman this whole Gender Identity debacle is an anxiety provoking nightmare. I am terrified of men I don’t know in enclosed spaces after being sexually assaulted by a swimming baths attendant as a teenager. All the publicity about it awakened the memory which I had buried and now I obsess about it and avoid going anywhere I might have to use a public toilet. Thanks for all you do. I am grateful and admire your bravery. You speak for women like me - professional strong women who can be immediately reduced to 13 year olds at the whim of abusive men.
Thank you, shared to Twitter
The College of Policing Code of Ethics, particularly Section 3.1 states;
treat all people fairly and with respect
treat people impartially
and 6.5;
Police officers must not take any active part in politics. This is intended to prevent you
from placing yourself in a position where your impartiality may be questioned.
The Code is reflected in the BBC Editorial Guidelines (https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/impartiality/guidelines/) particularly;
4.3.6 When dealing with ‘controversial subjects’, we must ensure a wide range of significant views and perspectives are given due weight and prominence, particularly when the controversy is active. Opinion should be clearly distinguished from fact.
and
4.3.7 We must take particular care to achieve due impartiality when a ‘controversial subject’ may be considered to be a major matter[2]. ‘Major matters’ are usually matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy that are of national or international importance, or of a similar significance within a smaller coverage area. When dealing with ‘major matters’, or when the issues involved are highly controversial and/or a decisive moment in the controversy is expected, it will normally be necessary to ensure that an appropriately wide range of significant views are reflected in a clearly linked ‘series of programmes’, a single programme or web item, or sometimes even a single item in a programme.
and
4.3.17 The BBC must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial.
and
4.3.18 Careful thought will be necessary to ensure perceptions of the BBC’s impartiality are maintained when content is scheduled topically and coincides with a third party’s campaign or initiative. It is advisable to contact Editorial Policy.
4.3.19 Social action output can form an important part of the BBC’s public service. However, care is required to ensure the BBC sets its own social action agenda and decides its own priorities:
we must ensure that our output does not simply embrace the agenda of any particular campaign groups or charities and that we treat groups objectively and do not favour one above another
It is objectively clear that Deborah Turness (Director of News & Current Affairs) and Mary Hockaday (Head of Newsroom) have decided that the BBC's Editorial Guidelines can be ignored, just as a number of Chief Constables in England and Wales have determined that the College of Policing's Code of Ethics can be ignored in their entirety.
Two arms of the State, both bound by written ethical charters, both being demonstrably ignored. Indeed in the cases of both individual Police Forces and the BBC, there is evidence that senior staff are actively encouraging the abuse of their professions ethics standards, and using the tax-payers money to fund incursions into their organisations by lobbying groups.
Beyond the scope of the gender/'transing-the-gay' debate, there is a greater fear; that both Police and BBC journalists, having been encouraged to ignore their ethics codes on one subject, won't ignore them for other subjects and political/commercial concerns.
I've noticed that BBC News appears to be actively ignoring climate change stories that are reported elsewhere in recent months. Is that because it's journalists are being influenced by corporate interests? 'Partygate' was blown-open by ITN News, but the BBC News political correspondents somehow managed to ignore it, for months. Downing Street & Number 10 are under constant armed police surveillance 24/7 which reported the parties to senior officers. Why did the BBC reporters and senior Metropolitan Police officers manage to not intervene/report earlier? Was it because both professions were encouraged to ignore their Code of Ethics?
Only this week BBC News declined to report that two whistleblowers involved in Operation Linden had been threatened by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) for complaining
(https://ca.style.yahoo.com/were-mafia-two-rotherham-whistleblowers-140800916.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMn_zsA5W53XA0sS1JDLAjwAY5mRkdmhKAXMGp0xCkzPgbhJJNy8XNS3CJHPyJ2uVF_lUr2JBUZdfS4CJzHt9rBa8YM8adz6KYjOypxzYxsd8JFlImKNOQLh6b2pTr6EPW7xZ42IHE2Y_Bsj8cl_5D36Tun64ZE6KHFovxlQhJhk). Sky News had no difficulty in interviewing the complainants-at-length, but BBC News appears to have been unable to. Was the story 'spiked', in a similar fashion that whistleblowers at BBC News are reporting womens-rights stories are 'spiked'?
I reckon there's enough material evidence collated by the likes of Fair Cop to warrant an independent public inquiry into BBC News impartiality (and the BBC can pick-up the cost from its budget). For English and Welsh Police Forces, the answer might just have to be a wholesale range of early retirements and sackings of senior officers, particularly in the six Forces now under 'special measures' from next week, namely The Metropolitan Police, Gloucestershire Police, Wiltshire Police, Staffordshire Police, Greater Manchester Police and Cleveland Police.
Whilst the likes of the BBC's Deborah Turness and Mary Hockaday seem intent on trashing the reputation of BBC News beyond the trough it's already in, the abandoning of 'policing-by-consent' and any visage of 'ethical policing' by The College of Policing and Chief Constables would appear to leave both professions vulnerable to corruption.
Fair Cop? This is another side project for Jeremy Hosking’s group of antivaxxers the ‘reclaim party’ isn’t it? They have blood on their hands spreading lies about Covid vaccines. Far-right nutjobs and crazed conspiracy theorists who think the WEF control the world.
Why are you working with far-right racists and misogynists in the horrid reclaim party?
Thank you, shared to Twitter
Fair Cop? I thought they were the BNP in new clothes?
Thank you, once again.
At a very minimal base level, this piece will be very useful to share with other interested parties, and also a valuable basic information resource with regards to the appalling Stonelaw-driven ideological capture of our once-valued and (sometimes) respected police forces.
As ever, please do let me know if there is anything I can do to help you....
Thanks,
M
I'd extend this out further than just gender identity to all the other kinds within wider LGBT activism and general support. The underlying assertion of unequal rights or treatment is a highly contested (and eminently expandable) issue. Or, also the presumed cohesiveness of the alliance between widely different groups, it presupposes. It should not be the role of state actors to parade their support for niche communities, but only the overarching community: citizens.