Episode 2 – Stonewall’s Schemes and the BBC

Episode 2, the BBC's deployment of Stonewall's ally scheme and the workplace equality index. No one's show is a daily video show on Radio Ulster. We do investigate journalism, heart-hitting politics. It's also the biggest program in Northern Ireland. No, no, no. As a leader of this country, why don't you take responsibility? Steven is a force of nature. Like he basically doesn't take any crap from anyone. Do you withdraw that remark or are you standing over it? Light, aggressive, talented, he does call things as he sees them. What's different about it is we allow the public to have their say. So no matter what story we do, people phone in and give their views. We physically fought to stay within the United Kingdom. Will you have shunned fear in the alarm? No! Yeah, I felt like I looked from the drug cartel. Your leggings were bleepin'. What did you die your leggings? No, you are a swinger. Stop rooting politics before people. It's a platform for people in Northern Ireland to talk to people in bar. Minister, it's not surely a private matter for us the public to know. And that's because we do stories of people care about. People know that they can have their say alongside the politicians alongside the experts. I have to go here because I'm here work. The reason why we get away with it and the program we do is that we stick to the BBC editorial guidelines really tightly and Steven's obsessed with them. As long as we stick to the guidelines, then the gloves are off. That's not the question that you said something an hour ago. Are you standing over it? It's the best job in the world and I really mean that. Like it's an incredible job. To be able to come into the BBC and have the might and the authority and the resources and the passion that the BBC has and to therefore be given an opportunity to fight for that ordinary punter. That's my typical day. So there's an ordinary punter that has a brick wall to put up against them. There's an ordinary punter that's been ignored for years. And my typical day is fighting for the answers. I absolutely love it. Right, so we're going to phone Steven. It's our first and only meeting of the day and it's not what you might imagine the BBC meeting. It sounds like to be honest. Hello. Morning. Morning. Oh, it's a beautiful morning, Ross. Some of the shining we've got the other office report which is clearly our *****. Every day, Steven has another idea. Like some of the stuff he wants to do, you would never hear pets in a normal BBC meeting, never mind, actually make it all air. I mean, this is a perfect example. A lot of stone work remains below the radar. Extomwall Chief Executive, Baroness, Ruth Hunt. So my social media, you won't tell from my social media who I've had meetings with. You know, I will never go. Here's me with a minister and this is what we've discussed. Well, there's a lot around, isn't there at the moment about BBC impartiality? And that's why this story that we're doing, investigating stone wall is so so important because there are questions for public institutions, including the BBC, as to are they treating stone wall like everybody else without fear or favour. Can the BBC actually look at how it has treated stone wall and say we've given them no better or no worse treatment than anybody else? You have one new message, BBC response to FOI Request on Stonewall. Right, so from what we're done here, I've did Steven on the latest FOI back in today, which is extraordinary to be honest. So here's what the BBC said, first of all, they were out of time by how many weeks? The Nolan show wanted to know if there had been any conversations or deals or arrangements between the BBC and Stonewall behind the scenes. How is the BBC not compromised? If on the one hand it is trying to win approval from Stonewall and climb up its equality index league table and being marked by Stonewall, while at the same time needing to have enough editorial independence to investigate it. Will the BBC fall down that league table for example because of our podcast? Did Stonewall have any role in the creation of our new LGBT and gender identity correspondent jobs? Here's a question, is the language the BBC uses? BBC language or Stonewalls recommended language? We've been digging for this information for months. Way back in December 2020, we got a knockback from the BBC. So they should have replied certainly by the end of October and that's given them even more time than they were allowed. So all of November and then in the middle of December they write back and essentially say no. Yeah, the kinder public interest has decided it's not in the public interest to release this information. Well it's not the public interest, it's not the BBC's interest to distinctly different things. Well it's been in the public interest for every other organisation that we've gone to, you have released information, maybe small reductions around personal information but they've given us the information. The BBC have taken a completely different approach from everybody else. So the BBC has been the least open and transparent of anybody we've sent in Apple I did. Absolutely. There's no other organisation that's just said no, you can't have this. So we've went to governments, we've went to arms length bodies, linked to governments of public bodies, nobody has said no. In Northern civil service tried to redact a bit, we appealed it and then they changed their mind. They used the commercial interest argument to redact some scores on the workplace, the quality index, the BBC had refused to release any of it. Basically, it's the conversations between them and Stomall every year but like you have to look at the relationship between the BBC and Stomallness and how they started because the reason we're doing this podcast was because I saw something on the BBC staff website which made me think, where's that coming from? So there was a statement on their page which said, "It was about the BBC Allies, came you know about the Allies, came." And this one line struck me, interventions made by non-LGBTQ+ people as they are not done out of self-interest, kind of a greater impact than if-raised by LGBTQ+ staff themselves. So here we have the BBC issuing a UK-wide initiative across the organisation and isn't a coincidence that it was taken from a Stomall policy document. Hello everyone, I'm James Pennell, I am the sponsor of the LGBTQ+ work stream. We spoke to lots of you and one of the suggestions that came back was to have an Allies programme. We work with Stomall on the review and they emphasise that as well. What critical thinking was there within the BBC? Before it recommended, straight staff would wear badges indicating that they were available to speak on behalf of LGBT people because quote, "They can have a greater impact." Can you imagine if you were saying to a woman, we're going to get a man to speak on your behalf because they might be listened to more? Yeah, exactly what they said, right, was interventions made by non-LGBTQ+ people because that's the BBC's new term that they use as they are not done out of self-interest, kind of a greater impact than if-raised by LGBTQ+ staff themselves. So I asked were they evidence supposed for this? Because it's quite a big claim, it also sounds quite outdated to me almost. Really? Decided to give people what? Nothing, that's really quite cheeky. You put people in my eyes. That does not make me comfortable. Yeah, nah. Why do we need to be represented by straight people if we're gay? Can we not represent ourselves? I don't think it's really for being gay, doesn't change anything about you as a person, doesn't change like your personality or your belief so I don't see why you need to be represented by anyone and remind of straight person. I think it's probably maybe more of a like given LGBT people the ability to kind of convey their opinions because I think they, you know, they don't need a straight person to translate further. We can reveal for the first time why the BBC had driven this policy throughout the organisation in an extraordinary twist. Stonewall has told this, this was actually from an old document over there. Now Thompson, how can you stand over that the BBC, rather than thinking for themselves, was actually taking a policy just because they thought it was Stonewalls and farcically, it wasn't. So whenever I asked the BBC manager, which is the diverse inclusion department you'll hear a lot about in this podcast, it responded to me saying, "The statement you're querying has been taken directly from Stonewall, who as you'll be aware, I'm sure work with most large employers and from their experience have produced an allies guide for employers." So the BBC are not explaining to you when you're asking them why the policy is logical or hard logical, they're just automatically defaulting to, well, Stonewall like it so therefore we like it. Yeah, they've basically cited Stonewall and I put it to them, but perhaps the thing to do then was and their tail and BBC staff about this, it should be attributed to Stonewall, rather than the BBC. - Yeah, but that's a little bit of a red herring for what I'm talking about here, which is, here you have a policy throughout this organization, the BBC. And when we ask the BBC to tell us why it is the right thing for the BBC, the BBC automatically defaults back to, well, Stonewall of toll is its right. - Yeah, and that's what-- - The danger in just defaulting back to what Stonewall of toll is, is that actually, Stonewall didn't like this policy anymore. And yet here it was in modern day BBC. - And that's where it comes down to the key line, where in an attempt to defend using this line, they say. - The BBC's position is that we accept that Stonewall, as the experts in workplace equality, for LGBTQ+ people, work with most large employers, and what is true there is likely to be true at the BBC. (dramatic music) - That is a huge statement. That's one of the biggest statements of this podcast. So in that one line, that's that manager from the BBC, emphatically stating, Stonewall are, quote, "the experts." - And it literally says the BBC's position is, that we accept that Stonewall, as the experts in workplace equality, for LGBTQ+ people, the BBC's position is that, similar to the experts. (dramatic music) - Here's Benjamin Cohen, CEO of Pink News. - I'm not sure whether what you're actually describing is a problem with Stonewall, or a problem with the BBC with updated policies and advice. - Can you imagine the furor that there would be, if someone was running around worrying about saying, "I am a white person, I will speak on your behalf black man, because I will be listened to more than you." Can you imagine her insulting that? - I'm agreeing with you. So I don't agree with that. It seems actually quite insulting. - Well, if you take that out of it, what does the Allies, because Stonewall promote Allies schemes in lots of organisations, but what does that achieve? - And Allies scheme is something different now. So I don't like this. I'll be your voice because I'm a cisgender, straight person that will advocate for you, because that diminishes the voice of LGBT people. - If anybody ever in this world tries to speak on my behalf, no matter what I am, I'll tell them to (beep) off. I'll speak for myself. - The ones if you ask them to advocate to you. - That's completely different. - Yeah, but isn't that, so sometimes, Allies schemes are about knowing people who are willing to offer help, support, advice. So that is a slightly different issue. - It's only anecdotal, Benjamin, 'cause obviously I haven't, we don't have exact numbers here, but I don't, like, for example, I look around in my workplace, and I don't know of the gay people I know. I don't know many of them who are involved in the Allies schemes or the networks. Like, is it helpful to LGBT people who stop to have these schemes? Like, are they actually advancing? - I wouldn't say that they're unhelpful, so it depends on the contacts. So in a large employer, it's probably a good thing to have some sort of scheme and it's also aware about including people. So for Allies to feel part of things like pride and things like that. So I think broadly it's a positive, I definitely can't see it as a negative. - Well, here's a possible negative. If you've only got one Allies scheme within the organization, and there are gay people who happen to disagree with that particular thrust of that particular Allies scheme, is this not just homogenising gay people as if they all think in the one way? - I'm not sure it is. I think that I, you can choose if you're LGBT, whether you want to participate in something. You might choose not, if an employer has an LGBT post network, or have a, I don't know, the BBC, it's called LGBTQ post network, you might choose not to be part of it for personal reasons. - The BBC wouldn't put anybody up from the diversity and inclusion department for interview, nor would they put anybody else up from within the entire organization. This is an organization, which actually exists on the basis that people come and answer questions. When it was a question about the BBC, absolutely nobody available. The BBC did not directly answer all of the specific questions we put to them. Instead, they issued the following statement from a BBC spokesperson. - The BBC acts independently in all our aspects of our operations, from each of our policy to editorial guidelines and content. We aim to be industry leading on workforce inclusion and take advice from a range of external organizations. However, we make the final decision on any BBC policies or practices ourselves. We are not a member of Stonewall, we do not take legal advice from Stonewall, and we do not subscribe to Stonewall's campaigning. The charity simply provides advice that we are able to consider. As a broadcaster, we have our own values and editorial standards. These are clearly set out and published in our editorial guidelines. We are also governed by the Royal Charter and the off-com broadcasting code. - On the 30th of January 2020, the BBC told all its staff that they were really pleased that Stonewall have recognised the work we have been doing over the last year to advance LGBTQ+ inclusion at the BBC. The BBC went even further, telling all its staff just how much of an intimate relationship it had with this controversial lobby group. We will be working closely with Stonewall over the coming months in preparation for next year's index. Can the BBC name any other lobby group, which it would be working closely with? We feel it's in the public interest to disclose to you what staff in the BBC are being told within a BBC Allies training meeting. - We think we have enough evidence to ask our question as to whether the BBC is training behind the scenes, 'cause the public don't get to see this, is biased. Now, it is the bias apparent when the BBC's training is using a gender-bred person to give its staff one particular view on sex and gender. How is this not biased? Because some groups like LGBT Alliance, for example, fundamentally reject the whole premise that is portrayed in the gender-bred person. And yet the BBC is using it in their training. None of the LGBT alliances or other people who object yet, none of that is discussed. Let's have a listen. - Okay, next slide, please. So this is what's called the gender-bred person. So this is quite a nice way of explaining gender and it can help us understand a bit more about it visually. If you look at gender identity, so that points at the brain. And this is how we, in our heads, define our gender. And it is based on how much we align, or don't align, with what we understand to be the options for gender. It means that it doesn't always correlate with sex that we are assigned at birth. So if I go on to biological sex, this is the physical-saxual characteristic you're born with. Though this could include your genitalia, your body shape, your hormones, so that it's very much the biological side. And then expression. This is the line that goes around the whole of the gender-bred person. So expression is the way we sort of present our gender. So this would be our actions, the way we dress, our mannerisms, and how we sort of interpret those against gender norms. - What is the gender-bred person, Thompson? - Gender-bred person is, I wouldn't describe it as a meme, but it's like a graphic that's been used by different organizations like Stonewall. And it's literally like a gender-bred man, but it's called a gender-bred person. It points to different parts of this gender-bred person that talks about the identity that's in the brain, the attractions in the heart, on the external or gender expression and sex. And it gives definitions of how these things respect them. - So what's the disagreement or not? Why would anybody disagree with the gender-bred person? - Well, if you're like the LGBTQ Alliance and you don't believe that gender identity is real, that it's a real tangible thing, then you wouldn't agree with staff and organizations being told actually, you know, everyone's got this gender identity. - Why are we talking about this? Ring up the LGBTQ Alliance. And who's the boy from there? He's a guy we've spoken to him before. Malcolm Clark is it? - Yeah. - Ring up Malcolm. - Malcolm, how are you? - Malcolm, have you seen this online graphic of the gender-bred person? - I have indeed, it's become infamous. (laughing) - What do you make of it? What's your position on the message within it essentially? - I mean, it's ridiculous. I mean, it basically is telling children and teachers that everyone has a gender identity. If you looked at it in detail, it contains complete nonsense. I mean, at one stage, I think the last time I looked at it, it said that some people have born male of female, 99.99% of people are born male or female. female. It's just, it's, so it's, it's absolutely absurd. We don't believe as people have gender identities, we believe that the vast majority of people are male or female 100%. If they weren't, you know, this, the human species would have disappeared long ago. How would you feel, Malcolm, if the BBC was using that gender-bred person as part of training for wider staff? I mean, if that was true, it would be a polling. It would suggest that an institution that is known across the world for the quality of its actual television had somehow allowed idiots to take over its own internal education. Well, no, you know, you're being purgeored of your describing people as idiots. I'm trying to keep this respectful and this is about BBC impartiality, giving you and them a fair crack of the whip. Yes, but I mean, unfortunately, if the BBC doesn't realize that 99.9% of human beings are biologically male or female, and if they're teaching inside the BBC, that's not true. Okay, I would say it was an idiotic thing to teach. Maybe the people who are doing it aren't idiots, but the content is idiotic. And if you, any science producer within the BBC is what her soul will tell you, that. Okay, pretty clear, Malcolm. I think we know where you stand on that one. Thanks very much. Cheers. Bye-bye. So that's what we're talking about. The debate's round sex in gender is what this is all about. Still more on one side of that. There's the other side of it. And yet, the gender-bred person has been used in training sessions in the BBC. Undesfeated, unchallenged. Yeah, there was no other perspective given in that training session. And why would there be, because when all eyes schemes were set up, they're set up with training from Stonewall? Thompson. You answer him? How are you right? No one there? Well, I'm on this stupid road where the signal keeps on cutting out. Oh, great. And this is why it's moved by the phone. The company said this 100% coverage. Here, have you seen the workplace equality index? Let me see if I'm getting this right. Stonewall have created a leg table. And all of these companies around the UK are trying to climb up this leg table in order to say to the public that you're LGBT, you friendly, right? Yeah, it's like a stump of approval to say, look, we're really good for LGBT employees. So some of the documents we're getting in, we're seeing like public bodies who are setting it as one of their goals, their strategies to get further up the leg table. But there's one way you can get further up the leg table. And that's to do things that Stonewall want you to do. Stonewall are a charity, but they're also a lobby group. And there are lobby group that have controversial positions on certain things that lots of those public sector employees might disagree with. The BBC is keen to climb up that leg table. In the same way that the BBC would be asking itself very, very serious questions. If it was trying to climb up some type of leg table that the Conservative Party had created, you know, the top 100 organisations that the Tories like, the top 100 organisations that the Labour Party thinks are good companies in the UK, the BBC would run a mile from that. They would go nowhere near it because it would question their impartiality. So how on earth are they in a situation where they're publicly openly saying they want to impress Stonewall? Or like a woman's right, and like you can imagine the mass, they would get themselves into with that if they picked one group over another because obviously every group has different lobby names and different policies that they pursue. And there's this kind of presumption that all lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender people must think like Stonewall if they think that Stonewall are the people that can fairly judge all of us. But if the BBC is de facto accepting that Stonewall are the experts, then in order to get up Stonewall's little chart of ranking, then they've got to do what Stonewall tells them. Yeah. How is that healthy for the BBC? What about the other lobby groups on behalf of gay rights that disagree with Stonewall? What about all of the gay people in this country who disagree with what Stonewall believe is in the interests of the gay people they represent? Yeah. Why is this healthy? The BBC didn't give us the documents we were asking for as part of our investigation. Those documents were the submissions they made to Stonewall. To help them get up Stonewall's leg table, in other words that workplace equality index. But other organisations did, like the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The information on those documents was really interesting. We could see the score Stonewall were giving out, and we could see Stonewall's feedback. And even more interestingly, we could see what Stonewall were trying to sell. One bit that really stuck out for me was at the bottom of every page of feedback they have offers. So civil servants could go to London to a conference and the tickets were priced at 349 plus that. And so, and then not shall, Stonewall are marking the homework of all of these bodies. And basically sent to them, well look, it didn't do quite well enough to have that coveted place higher up our leg table. But by the way, we will sell you courses so that you can climb up them. Exactly. Like not only are the public bodies paying a lobby grip to be marked by the lobby grip, but then this lobby grip is also saying, well you're not doing well enough, pay us some money and we'll tell you how to get up higher next year. How is there not an obvious conflict of interest? And so far as if Stonewall were to mark a company immediately highly, then that company would not possibly need to buy courses from Stonewall and therefore it would be the financial disadvantage to Stonewall to mark someone immediately high. Well, whether that happens or not, wave the evidence, but it's the perception of this. We put this to Benjamin Cohen, CEO of Pink News, who says he is a critical friend of Stonewall. Sometimes perception is also what's important and here's the reality. The reality is that organizations that surely should have their own momentum to do the right thing are forming that process out to Stonewall. And then what they're doing is they're being marked by a company who will sell them courses, which will help them move further up that scheme. And that's not an obvious conflict of interest. But I want to clarify, all the courses not to help employers improve the policies and the provision for LGBT staff within their own company. From Stonewall's perspective? Agreed. Who's there then marking them the next year on whether they should move up the league table? No, I think it's too simplistic to assume that an employer would be paying purely for moving up a ranking. And then they'll give you a different view and obviously I'm an employer and I guess you guys aren't. Just a quick explainer, you'll hear a lot in this podcast about schemes run by Stonewall. There are two that we're looking at. First, there's the Diversity Champions scheme. That's a scheme that organizations pay for, and Stonewall will provide support and advice for those organizations on staffing issues and diversity. Organizations can promote themselves as Stonewall Diversity Champions. And then secondly, there's the Workplace Equality Index. Now that's a public ranking of organizations and there is no fee to enter. Organizations will submit evidence to Stonewall and Stonewall will mark them on how they're doing on LGBTQ+ equality. According to Stonewall's criteria. That's the key. It's according to Stonewall's criteria. You don't have to pay to be in the Diversity Champions scheme to apply to be publicly listed on the Workplace Equality Index. But what you do have to do is please Stonewall in order to be scored high enough to reach their top 100 list. Here's the Libra MP, Rosie Duffel. A lot of organizations have left the Stonewall Champions scheme. We sort of hear more and more names added to that list every day. They'll say in public that it was costing a lot of money because that's another issue. If they're accountable to their customers and their shareholders, they've got to justify spending this amount of money on what is essentially a lobby group. And I think to be fair to those companies, they probably did it in good faith. They probably thought we're getting this equality and inclusion advice and it's really great in these people of champions. And if they're going on Stonewall's history, of course they've been a great campaigning organization. But this is lobbying at the end of the day. Benjamin. and CEO of Pink News. So how is it not a conflict of interest for the same company that is charging to train you to get a higher score scores you in the first place? Appreciate that, but there's actually quite a few private businesses that are doing activities not dissimilar who also run lists of the top 100 executives nothing to do with Stonewall and there's lists, there's all sorts of them. But we're talking about Stonewall here. No, I know, but what I'm saying is that those companies also offer training services, support services that are not that are actually competitive to Stonewall. So the arena that Stonewall is operating in that is actually quite competitive. So I am both a critic, I suppose, or like friendly critic of Stonewall, but we also, from a business perspective, we are offering not those services, but other things. For example, we run the Pink News Awards, Stonewall used to run the Stonewall Awards. At the time that they're both existed, we were competing for both the same speakers and the same sponsors. So it's not the Stonewall has never been in this space where there is competitors and it's not the only player in there. But I do accept. It's a dominant player. There's a quality index when you look at the type of companies that are trying to climb up that league table. Yeah, I agree with that, but there's quite a lot of notable companies who have either climbed up the league table and decided to no longer enter themselves, because they feel that they are in a good position or other companies who are quite notable in their absence. So if we think about some of the large American social media and digital media companies, they're not included in there, but we know that they have fantastic provisions for LGBT staff. So it's certainly not mandatory. I don't believe I haven't actually checked the last one, but I don't believe, for example, like Google or Twitter or in there, but I know they have really, and Facebook, they have really good policies. Let's take an example. The BBC is trying to climb up that league table. Yeah, no, it's agreed. There is a really legitimate question to say, does the BBC need to expand time on entering that? But as a licensed fee payer, I have a lot of questions about the things that the BBC decides to do. But isn't that separate then? No, I'm not sure it is. The reason why it's not, I'm not sure it's separate because being in this very more equality index doesn't cost any money, but it does cost time. So even the organisation decides that it wants to spend its time doing that. That is kind of up to them. But it does cost money to be part of the diversity champions game, which will help you go up the workplace of quality index, because that's where Stoomal will advise you that they'll give you the policies that they think you should put in place. Because the equality index is 100 companies and not that 850 employees that are members of the diversity champions scheme. So you've only got a 1 in 8.5 chance of even being included if you're looking to someone else's perspective. So I'm not sure that they are actually suggesting that you can get up the index if you are paying them as a member, because if they are, it's not very good deal because the vast majority of the companies of the organisations that are paying on to that. The companies pay to be part of the diversity champion scheme and then Stoomal give the advice and then they're marked on whether or not they meet the criteria that Stoomal set out. How many organisations are members of the Stoomal diversity champion scheme? I believe it's about 850, but there's a 100 member, there's a 100 places on the workplace equality index. So what happens to the other 750 employees? So I'm saying that by joining one scheme doesn't mean you get on the other and are you sure that every single one of the 100 employees who are on the workplace equality index have paid? But Stoomal rank those companies way beyond the 100, the 100's published? No, I understand that, but the only ones that we see publicly are the top 100 and they're all breakdowns, so they used to do like the top like 10 banking and things like that. But the question I would ask by suggests, journalistically, one would want to look at, is there a direct correlation? So for example, I don't know, I haven't invested time, we don't have one, and we suddenly have the same resources as the BBC to be looking into things like this, whether every single one of the 100 employers that are in the workplace equality index, the last one, are actually paying to diversity champion subscribers. If there's only 100 places that are public, it's just a mathematical impossibility that every member would be featured in the top 100. The BBC did not make anyone from its diversity and inclusion department available for interview. They also didn't address a series of specific questions we ask them. They docked the questions. We are not a member of Stoomal, we do not take legal advice from Stoomal and we do not subscribe to Stoomal's campaigning. Stoomal wouldn't put anyone up for interview, they didn't directly answer any of the 50 or more questions we ask them. Here's what they said in a statement. At Stoomal, we're fighting for a world where all lesbian, gay, bi-trans and queer people are free to thrive as themselves. In 2021, we know that LGBTQ+ people are still held back because of who we are. Our research shows that more than a third, 35% of LGBTQ+ people have hidden their identity at work for fear of discrimination. We also know that one in five LGBTQ+ staff, 18%, have been the target of negative comments or conduct from work colleagues in the last year because they are LGBTQ+ and one in eight trans people, 12% have been physically attacked by customers or colleagues in the last year for being trans. This situation is unacceptable and we are incredibly proud to work with organisations around the world to better support their lesbian, gay, bi, trans and queer staff. Our guidance to employers supports them to understand the needs of their LGBTQ+ employees and create an inclusive workplace culture through their policies and wider activity. When it comes to inclusive workplace policies, our guidance follows the simple principles that workplace policies should apply to all employees, regardless of their gender or the gender of their partner and they should use language that makes it clear to LGBTQ+ employees that they are included. The research mentioned in Stonewall's response to the BBC was carried out by YuGov on behalf of Stonewall. LGBT people in England, Scotland and Wales took part in an online questionnaire, however it did not include Northern Ireland. Now changes to the BBC license fee will come into effect tomorrow they were delayed from the 1st of June because of coronavirus. The BBC, unlike any other, major broadcaster in this country is paid for directly by the public through a license fee. If people are paying in to an organisation like this through effectively attacks, of course those people are entitled to transparency about the arrangements that that organisation has particularly when it's with a lobby group, a lobby group that's seen by many of those people as controversial. The integrity of the license fee is built upon every person that pays for it, gets an impartial service from the BBC. That's why I believe this podcast is so so important. The real risk for the BBC in this is that there's to some extent it can be overplayed but to some extent there's a bit of a culture war going on in the UK which is not to similar to what's happened in America and if people feel or enough people feel that the BBC is on one side of that debate, like you hear this allegation all the time that the BBC is woke. If we have close relationships with organisations like Stonewall, if we are paying money to them, how is that going to help the perception of our impartiality? Some people are going to think, well yeah they are woke, they will just associate us with Stonewall and everything Stonewall believe in and it's always about the perception whether the reality is that the BBC has been massively influenced by Stonewall or not, the public's perception will be that the two organisations work together. It's just about trust and confidence in us as impartial broadcasters. This is how impartial the BBC is. It is the license fee paying for us to ask tough questions of the BBC. That's how impartial we are, we have the freedom to do so, we have the support of the BBC to do so, so when you're wondering if the BBC has intent on impartiality every day of the week it does but I guess we're just questioning whether that's been played out in actual practice with Stonewall. So in this episode we've just heard how the BBC pushed a Stonewall inspired allies programme in which they said straight people might be better listen to but the twist was that it was from an old Stonewall document that even Stonewall said was outdated, we've heard how the BBC were trying to climb up Stonewall's index and coming up in the next episode we get to the heart of one of the most contested topics in the whole sex gender debate, Self-ID, can a biological male suddenly declare themselves a woman with no process and should non-binary people be recognised in law?