[cycloon]

Oh christ, STOP PLAYING A GAME YOU CAN'T WIN.

[Cyclist]

One assumes noone on BBC TV will be wearing a poppy from now on.

[Projective Unity]

Anything about Kuenssberg and her 'sources'?

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

[Bones McCoy]

Vague guideline designed to promote self-censorship.

Are we allowed to say that Anti-Semitism is bad, or not?

Another chart-topper for Domonic and the Incels.

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Well indeed. Sounds like those poppies have to go.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ah, they've thought of that one. Poppies are explicitly OK.

So what about Children In Need? The BBC can host a show raising money for various campaigns, but a BBC individual isn't allowed to endorse the campaigns?

[spoonman]

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.

[Boiler]

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]

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.

[spoonman]

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.

[Samanfur]

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.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ah, I get you now, Spoony.

I'd expect the employer to have more rights than that. I'd be surprised if you could campaign at weekends against your employer, for instance.

I wonder you'd need to change contracts for a change like this?

[Tubby Isaacs]

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.