Topics about the BBC
:sunglasses: 53.8 % ❤ 2.6 % :thumbsup: 10.3 % 😯 5.1 % :grinning: 17.9 % 🙏 5.1 % :cry: 5.1 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#628214
Unbelievable.

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/bbc-soci ... -accounts/
BBC social media guidelines ban 'virtue signalling', criticism of colleagues and breaking stories on your own accounts
I mean, what the flying fuck is that anyway? It's an alt-right insult trying to make any sort of support for something don't like sound bad.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#628221
Avoid ‘virtue signalling’ – retweets, likes or joining online campaigns to indicate a personal view, no matter how apparently worthy the cause.
Joining a campaign isn't "virtue signalling". It's trying to get something bad changed. More people who join it, the more chance of actual virtue happening.

Very instructive that they used this phrase, which is only used for particular sorts of campaigning. We can tell who's been complaining. I don't see how anybody can have any trust in the BBC on this. I mean, I could write better guidelines off the top of my head. "Don't endorse campaigns of direct party political controversy", something like that.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#628282
I'm going to suggest that this "virtue-signalling bollox" guideline along with forcing all personal accounts to be as if they were official BBC output will have a lot of trouble standing up in court - it's one thing bringing an organisation into disrepute, it is quite another dictating how an employee spends their free time when not at work for them - essentially to be employed at the Beeb, you'll need to be willing to give up your freedom of expression. It should just take one unlawful or constructive dismissal case to see this turned on its head.

Edit: Not only poppies getting exemptions, I wonder if BBC NI staff that are on-screen in March that wear shamrocks for St. Patrick's day will be given exemptions as well? If not, I can see a major shitstorm brewing in Broadcasting House in Belfast, with the NI Equalities Commission having a major case on their workload.
 
By Boiler
Posts LikeBB
#628287
Oh, it just gets worse.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/ ... e-protests
BBC journalists have been told that new rules on impartiality mean they may no longer be able to go on LGBT pride marches, even in a personal capacity, in case their presence is taken as a sign of political bias.
Tubby Isaacs liked this
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#628293
spoonman wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:40 pm
I'm going to suggest that this "virtue-signalling bollox" guideline along with forcing all personal accounts to be as if they were official BBC output will have a lot of trouble standing up in court - it's one thing bringing an organisation into disrepute, it is quite another dictating how an employee spends their free time when not at work for them - essentially to be employed at the Beeb, you'll need to be willing to give up your freedom of expression. It should just take one unlawful or constructive dismissal case to see this turned on its head.

Edit: Not only poppies getting exemptions, I wonder if BBC NI staff that are on-screen in March that wear shamrocks for St. Patrick's day will be given exemptions as well? If not, I can see a major shitstorm brewing in Broadcasting House in Belfast, with the NI Equalities Commission having a major case on their workload.
I don't know anything about the law, but I expect an employer has some power over what employees say. Whatever, it's a terrible look for the BBC to go to court on this. Would they want to do that when it came to it?

I assume shamrocks will be exempted when somebody thinks "Oh shit!" There may be a few more such "oh shit" moments. Hopefully the Pride ban is one such.
 
By spoonman
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#628294
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:31 pm
spoonman wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:40 pm
I'm going to suggest that this "virtue-signalling bollox" guideline along with forcing all personal accounts to be as if they were official BBC output will have a lot of trouble standing up in court - it's one thing bringing an organisation into disrepute, it is quite another dictating how an employee spends their free time when not at work for them - essentially to be employed at the Beeb, you'll need to be willing to give up your freedom of expression. It should just take one unlawful or constructive dismissal case to see this turned on its head.

Edit: Not only poppies getting exemptions, I wonder if BBC NI staff that are on-screen in March that wear shamrocks for St. Patrick's day will be given exemptions as well? If not, I can see a major shitstorm brewing in Broadcasting House in Belfast, with the NI Equalities Commission having a major case on their workload.
I don't know anything about the law, but I expect an employer has some power over what employees say. Whatever, it's a terrible look for the BBC to go to court on this. Would they want to do that when it came to it?

I assume shamrocks will be exempted when somebody thinks "Oh shit!" There may be a few more such "oh shit" moments. Hopefully the Pride ban is one such.
BiB: Hence the disclaimer of "bringing the organisation into disrepute". However I would expect any other employer, including other broadcasters, to have books thrown at them if they sought to take essentially total control over what their employees did in their off-time that has no direct effect to what they're employed for. Would they have been drawing up such guidelines if Andrew Neil was still on the Beeb's books?

It's another example of right-wing political correctness gone mad. A quasi-legal chilling effect from 10 Downing St. if you like.
 
By Samanfur
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#628296
If any of the staff they're blocking from going to Pride are LGBT+ themselves, I'm wondering how it would stack up against the Equality Act.

Whilst the guidelines apply equally to straight people, would the fact that LGBT+ people are disproportionately affected count as indirect discrimination, or could it be argued that this is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"?

I'm not convinced of the latter.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#628298
Samanfur wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:52 pm
If any of the staff they're blocking from going to Pride are LGBT+ themselves, I'm wondering how it would stack up against the Equality Act.

Whilst the guidelines apply equally to straight people, would the fact that LGBT+ people are disproportionately affected count as indirect discrimination, or could it be argued that this is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim"?

I'm not convinced of the latter.
Badly, per this human rights lawyer.

  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
US election 2020

He's probably in hiding now, due to death threats.

I don't have the words to express my disgust at th[…]

Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Commentariat are spinning this as proof of intern[…]

On the Radio

Driving home tonight, The Moral Maze , on the sub[…]