One small thing:
If you watch Live TV you need a licence even if it’s on the iPlayer.
Wait until programs finish and watch them then.
I like the new direction PinkNews is taking with greater comment (with clear demarcation, vitally). You do desperately need to sort out the problem with links though, as whilst they aren’t working your basis loses credibility.
I don’t have a TV. One of the best decisions ever made!
Stuart: not having a TV frees the mind :-)
six years free of one and I haven’t missed it once.
I complained about the Stephen Green interview to the BBC yesterday. I’ve not received any reply (not even an auto response yet).
As someone pointed out on Facebook though the logic BBC’s using means that the next time they cover any issue to do with Islam, they will have to get the Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones to comment on it to get that “balance”. Totally sick – and they don’t deserve money from anyone who they offend.
Don’t be so hypersensitive, everyone knows the BBC is uber PC, stop looking for ways to be offended at every litle thing, it’s pathetic
how about holding a gay pride outside the BBC in wood lane instead of feeding the commercial scene and being ignored year after year by the media , the Pope attracted a small fraction of those who attend PRIDE each year and got unprecedented attention , PRIDE in WOOD LANE this coming year 2011, time to get political instead of constantly insulted ignored
What bothers me is the BBC’s failure to include the fact that Stephen Green is in favour of the death penalty for gay people. They should have broadcast his extremist views to the full instead of making him look like an ordinary anti gay person.
‘an ordinary anti gay person.’
I thought that was just what he was.
Pride outside the BBC sounds good to me.
Would they have interviewed someone who was in favour of genocide if an item dealing with racial tension was being discussed? Of course not. A tad disproportionate to have interviewed Stephen Green then..
The ordinary anti gay person is not in favour of killing gays – no.
London Pride 2011 , assemble Holland Park march to Television Centre Wood Lane via Shepherds Bush Green , I for one have had just about enough of the insidious agenda from the BBC news room and the stereo typing in its drama department . time to get political ? I bloody well think so .
I have taken part in one of the focus groups the BBC held to consult the LGBT community. But they still purposely offend LGBT people and have taken nothing on board.
It seem all they wanted was to tick a box and shove the consultation onto a shelf never to get dusty.
I have been investigating the National Union of Journalists
I appears that the BBC’s journalist standards (with regards the Mr Green itnerview) possibly contravenes the unions code of conduct concerning public interest.
It is possible to contact them using the following e-mail address
As the BBC never seem capable of even reporting London Pride is even taking place maybe pride happening outside the BBC might give the a clue.
How can the BBC stand behind the fact that the Elton John News needs to be “Balanced” by someone saying horrid via and anti humanine comments like that , perhaps next year on Christmas coverage around England they will show people being stoned to death for their religous beliefs or views in their home conutries , perhaps that will maintain the balance of happy times undermined with horrid images of people being killed ……perhaps thats teh type of people who should be made redundant , that way they might venture into the real world and see where we all live and how.
On a day-to-day basis, most of my tv viewing is done on various Iplayers after the programme has been aired on “normal” tv. Unfortunately, I had to pay my tv license this year because my broadband package comes with cable. And according to the BBC, because I pay for cable and have a cable box in my home, I have to pay for their license. Next year, however, I’m going to restructure my broadband package so that it does not include cable.
To sum up? Count me in!
Since we now have the BBC on the defensive . . . thanks to every ones hard work sending e-mails to OFFCOM and the BBC
The ultimate Irony I think would be . . . A big protest outsiude BBC house, with Sky covering it
If you cannot beat them . . . why don’t we just wind them up like spinning tops. The BBC would hate to be trumped by Sky
One can only assume that the news that the Queens grandson has become a father will illicit an interview with Ian Huntley or Ian Brady , in order to balance the article and all in the best possible taste
I notice that there was no one from an anti-monarchy group on the bulletin tonight when they were going gooey over the Queen’s great grand daughter. For the sake of balance shouldn’t they have had some republican on moaning about another drain on the taxpater? Or is it only gay people for whom balance is required?
Why not have a protest outside Church BBC, Shepherd’s Bush, then refuse to speak to anyone from the BBC, have it covered by Sky News, and let the BBC News’ team get it all second-hand from Sky? Brilliant!
All we need now is a blacklist of all those at the BBC who have been homophobic, and who continue to be, and refuse to have anything to do with the lot of them.
Better still have everyone from the arts; writers to actors and producers, artists, in fact anyone, to have no direct contact with their arts programmes, news programmes or current affairs programmes. After that they’ll have nothing to produce and we can all get our licence fees back.
First on the blacklist – Mzimba. If he comes anywhere near you in Leicester Square. Walk on by and let him figure it out for himself.
Mike . . . you got it
. . . and other delights!!!
As a libertarian I get constantly frustrated when hearing people discuss things like the license fee and ignoring the moral question of whether or not it is acceptable to force someone to pay for a service they have not voluntarily purchased. Gays should get a license fee rebate because the BBC offends them? The BBC offends me every time I see it. Where’s my right to quit paying? Where’s my sympathy, gay people?
You shouldn’t be forced to pay for something you don’t support. NOBODY should. The argument shouldn’t be “gays shouldn’t have to pay for the BBC”, it should be “nobody has to pay for the BBC unless they want to receive it”.
So PLEASE direct this enthusiasm into the general anti-license movement, which you can find by searching “anti tv license” on Google. Otherwise it’s a little hypocritical to suggest that gays get a free ride for being easily offended (Chris Moyles is NOT worthy of your distaste, people!) while the rest of us should be forced to pay for something we never asked for to begin with.
Much as I dislike the BBC’s faults, including the homophobia and discrimination, I do feel that by and large the BBC is a good public service broadcaster, and therefore deserving of guarded support.
Bear in mind that no-one wants to see the likes of Murdoch’s Fox News here in Britain if it can be avoided.
dave: Are you aware that Sky News is the #1 news channel on UK satellite TV, and owned by Murdoch? Fox News is bad because it’s pandering and intellectually bankrupt, not because it’s Murdoch and profit-seeking. The BBC is bad for a much more fundamental reason: it forces you to pay for it. How can you defend that basic violation of one’s own volition?
underattack86: It’s because the licence fee is a bit like paying tax. The point is that I approve of paying tax because I’m not only interested in myself, but also in the advancement of others as well.
Homophobic as the BBC may be, it is essential at a tme when Rupert Murdoch is planning to make the British media as laughable and absurd as the US or Italian media.
I want the BBC to start being properly representative, I do not want it to disband.
I totally agree with you, SteveC.
dave: Paying the license fee is a lot like paying taxes; it is a tax, and by supporting you are doing harm to others by refusing them their right to make their own decisions, rather than helping their advancement.
But if we’re going to refuse people the right to make their own decisions, lets not be hypocrites and suppose that homosexuals have any privileged right just because the BBC is occasionally homophobic. Lets try and be consistent in our principles. If it’s okay to force some people to pay for something, then it must be okay to force everyone if we’re treating people as equals.
SteveC: you mean the US media industry which generates billions of dollars in revenue and produces shows that are watched and beloved worldwide? It’s hardly laughable. Laughable is gay people being forced to pay the wages of a DJ that uses “gay” as a derogatory term! Laughable is having a hateful Christian bigot on the news to discuss Elton John’s homosexuality! A laughing stock, that’s what the BBC is, and your support for it is the punchline.
We just need to keep our eyes open for any BBC journalists broadcasting live from anywhere and ambush them. They’re always on Parliament Green, outside the Old Bailey etc. When there’s a Manchester story they are sometimes in Albert Square and so on. Rolling News being what it is, they can be standing in the same spot for hours. So let’s get down there.
This was quite effective with Kay Burley of Sky News this year who ended up with protesters behind her shouting ‘Sky News is sh*t’.
GS: I’d imagine that even one clearly legible banner about “BBC homophobia” would have them in apoplexy.
to re-work the words from Mitch Benns Proud of the BBC song
“I’m proud of the BBC! its not that smart but it was never supposed to be.”
okay so they get it wrong some times,
but most of the times they hand story lines and news stories to researchers and writers who haven’t a clue.
if we didn’t have the BBC what would we have? seriously? are the other channels any better?
Least the BBC are trying, you’d be complaining more if they didn’t even try
I do support the BBC but I think it has lost its way completely over the last 10 years and things need to change. Mark Thompson has been the worst Director General in history. But god help us if Murdoch keeps on getting more powerful.
my TV works just as well without a license :)
I agree with all those who say that however bad the BBC gets it’s got a lot of ground to cover to be as rabidly homophobic as Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch)
I could go on, but giving Murdoch a bigger market dominance would be encouraging even more overt homophobia in place of what we already get from the Beeb. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
I wouldn’t give money to a charity that supported such views, so why am I forced to pay the BBC that clearly supports such views?
Being that I don’t watch the BBC, I shouldn’t have to pay for such drivel.
The BBC make a habit of this – and not just on gay issues. They think balance means having two extremes of every argument. In this case, they overlook the hurt and offence they cause to us gays..
And if I don;t like their totally biased exclusion of anything whatsoever supportive (or balanced!) about homoeopathy, can I call for my licence fee to be refunded?
I have recently complained to the BBC over the use of the word “poof” by the character Janine in Eastenders!
I did get a reply but it was justified as “trying to represent real live characters and situations”. So on this principle ANYTHING could be acceptable! I think its time to start a “hate the BBC campaign on facebook”! ;-)
Homoeopaths are not an underprivileged group in our society, nor is their belief in a methodology that has no sound theoretical or evidential basis fundamental to them as people.
DEAR HOMOSEXUAL BIGOTS,
Do you know that we have free speech in this country? Also, don’t you think that comparing sexual perversion to race or Jewishness is nonsense?
“you mean the US media industry which generates billions of dollars in revenue and produces shows that are watched and beloved worldwide? It’s hardly laughable”
I mean specifically the US News media
I do not mean its entertainment; film,drama or comedy media.
The US News media is utterly laughable and absurd – Fox News is allowed to describe itself as a news channel when it openly supports the Republican Party.
Since deregulation of the media in the US a couple of massive media companies (owned by right wing billionaires) have swallowed the entire industry and espouse a right wing agenda.
Take CNN’s reporting of Julian Assange this week. They basically said that he was a criminal. Now CNN are meant to be journalists. How could they not have known that revealing secret information is NOT illegal and it is in fact the modus operandi of all investigative journalists.
Be careful what you wish for.
I do NOT want the British media to be deregulated like the US media. Before too long Britain’s news media will be as ridiculous as the US or Italy.
If my TV license fee pays for a balanced, neutral and representative organisation I have no problem paying it.
There is no question in my mind that Stephen Green was the wrong person to add ‘balance’ to the report and I have added my complaint to the rest.
And yet the BBC employs a great many gay people.
Without defending the homophobia, I don’t think that the position is as clear cut as is suggested here. We can look at people like Matt Lucas who do a lot to reinforce the gay stereotype despite being gay, himself.
I think it is wrong to suggest that the BBC is homophobic. It is more complicated than that.
Do you know what is actually meant by free speech?
Stephen Green holds some very bizarre and contradictory beliefs.
Green believes a man should be able to rape his wife whenever he likes and not face criminal proceedings.
Green believes that abortion is killing people and equal to the holocaust …meanwhile he supports the creation of holocaust conditions for gays in Uganda where he thinks they should face the death penalty.
I completely agree that the BBC is institutionally homophobic and it appalls me time after time (I’ve written to the BBC, the BBC trust and even my MP, all to no avail.)
BUT… in my view the alternative (private broadcasters, notably owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch) is much MUCH worse. We need to keep our press free and we need to defend it against the likes of Fox News.
So while we need to keep pressuring the BBC to change its ways (and its director, who is clearly homophobic to the core) I think, if it disbanded altogether, it would be a very grave step indeed.
I never bothered to pay the license anyway.
“Should the BBC be executed?”
Let’s get the sex back into heterosexuality. Let’s have all heterosexuals be defined by their sexual practices. Let’s have every person ever interviewed or commented upon be asked ‘So you admit to being heterosexual then?’, or introduced as a ‘well known heterosexual’ no matter how relevant the context. That would level the playing field a bit. After all homosexuals have sex, heterosexuals feel love. It’s sex these bigots hate to the point of self-loathing. So if ever asked to ‘admit to being homosexual’, ask them what they do for sex before answering anything. Define these bigots by their own sexual practices and always by their own sexual practices. After all, that’s the only reason why they ask anyone to admit to being homosexual. So fire it straight back with heterosexuality – the crime of original sin.
This article promotes Channel 4 (perhaps quite right). However doesn’t the proprietar of PinkNews work for Channel 4? Can readers have an assurance that he has nothing to do with this article or the coverage of this story?
Actually I don’t work for Channel 4, I I work some of the week for ITN who produce Channel 4 News. But I also work as a journalist for other media organisations including the BBC itself where I presented a programme for Radio 4 just a few months ago, so I got paid some of your licence fee! This year I’ve also written for the Sunday Times, Readers Digest, Attitude and more.
As the founder and large shareholder in PinkNews I do take a keen interest in all of the stories on here but my appearances on Channel 4 don’t come into it.
But the fact is that Channel 4 has won more Stonewall awards for its coverage than any other broadcaster and has never been found guilty of broadcasting homophobic content by Ofcom. Unfortunately that is not the case with the BBC.
In the US that’s called a non-denial denial!
I confirmed that I have involvement in all stories on this website including this one. If you’ve seen my Twitter feed, that would be obvious as I’ve been discussing the story right there. No denial there.
And in the interests of full disclosure, I’ve also confirmed that I sometimes work for the BBC in addition to appearing on Channel 4.
I think the UK it’s called honesty and good journalism.
Hey! I have an iMac & stream all my programmes off the internet.
I was informed by the TV licence call centre that I needed a TV licence for this, even though I’m not watching programmes as they are broadcasted.
The Pink News article states I don’t need a licence for this?
I’ll look further into this & will cancel my licence right away.
If it’s not homophobia, gay stereotypes & wording of gay issues that get on my nerves about the BBC, it’s the way they are biassed on reporting on various issues.
An example of this is when they covered the Raul Moat case. After he was shot by armed police the reporting of the incident by the BBC made it sound like the police were at fault, because they shot a man who was armed & who before this murdered a man & attempted to kill a police officer. They kept on saying that the police may have been excessive & when they were speaking to members of public, they only broadcasted those who said he was a fine bloke & not one person who thought he was a complete meat headed, criminal, murdering idiot!
The reason why I say the above is that it appears to be ok for the BBC to broadcast positive comments only about a murdering thug, yet when it comes to the LGBT community they’re quick to add the negatives!
We should start a campaign & burn our TV licences!
There are other communities who are also planning to scrap their TV licence fees because of the BBC cuts. Maybe we could all group together!
I haven’t had a licence for years. In the news, the only time balance is thought to be needed is on LGB-related stories. If you don’t think the BBC is homophobic, how can you explain: should gays be executed?
David: Do you have a problem forcing others to pay for it? I far prefer Sky News to the BBC for a number of reasons (most notably the BBC’s refusal to air the Palestinian aid request), but preference isn’t the issue here, the issue is volition. Your apparent fear of Murdoch is no moral justification for forcing others to pay for something YOU want.
“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.” –Robert A. Heinlein
The technical term for government regulation of news media is fascism, by the way. What you’re referring to as “deregulation” is traditionally called “freedom of press”. Be careful what you wish for? I wish for what is due to me, my right to make my own decisions.
Pavlos: sounds like a man who read the Bible and mistook it for a guide for moral living.
Helen: your views are contradictory, how can the press be “free” when it is state-funded and state-controlled? Fox News is an example of free press, their insanity is tolerated because ultimately the American people still respect individuality over conformity (a rare virtue quickly fading from this world) and want to allow people to make their own decisions regarding what they will and will not watch. Why can’t we demonstrate an equal level of self-respect? If people don’t want the BBC, what moral right have you to force them to pay for it?
“Let’s get the sex back into heterosexuality. Let’s have all heterosexuals be defined by their sexual practices. Let’s have every person ever interviewed or commented upon be asked ‘So you admit to being heterosexual then?’ ”
Brilliant idea, Miike! :D After all, it would provide that all-important balance, eh? ;)
No, I don’t think we should stop paying the licence fee, but I DO think we should complain to OFCOM. I also think we should give this as much publicity as we can. We’ve all heard of Green before but most people haven’t and so might not have realised the offence caused.
I’m also wondering whether the decision to use Green was the individual journalist’s or came from above. That’d be interesting to know.
underattack86 said: David: Do you have a problem forcing others to pay for it? I far prefer Sky News to the BBC for a number of reasons (most notably the BBC’s refusal to air the Palestinian aid request),
I’m almost certain that Sky also refused that Palestinian aid broadcast.
Dave’s idea of mass burning of TV licenses by gay groups would be a good idea too.
dave: Well observed, but I have a choice NOT to pay for Sky News, that’s the point. The BBC was the only terrestrial channel to refuse the appeal, and I was forced to pay for it. It’s repugnant for the same reason that homosexuals being forced to pay for the broadcasting of homophobia is repugnant.
“Dave’s idea of mass burning of TV licenses by gay groups would be a good idea too.”
Excellent . . . and lets get Sky to cover the mass burning of licenses outside BBC TV centre.
I’d just like to mention, I’ve just finished working at the BBC, where I’ve been for the past few years. I enjoyed it very much, and it’s probably one of the least homophobic corporations/companies I’ve ever worked for (including several other broadcasters). I worked in various BBC departments, and I’ve never encountered anything other than acceptance from colleagues.
For people to say that the place is ‘institutionally homophobic’ is just wrong. It simply isn’t – and the high number of gay employees within the BBC should attest to that.
And yes, interviewing this right-wing Christofascist nutcase was clearly a mistake. He doesn’t represent anyone other than himself (and perhaps the Westboro Baptists….) – and his views really have no place on a national media platform, in my opinion.
But, the fact remains that this gentleman is entitled to his opinions, and the BBC does have a duty to represent a balance of viewpoints – which is an almost impossible task to do without offending anyone. Take, for example, any of the gay EastEnders storylines – they always draw criticism, from both sides; those who say ‘there shouldn’t be any gay kissing on TV’ are as vocal as those who say ‘your gay characters are 2D and unrealistic, please portray more realistic gay characters’… You’ll never please everyone, and someone will always be offended.
As I say, in this case, it clearly was a mistake to use this guy to represent the other side of the argument, but there IS ongoing debate about these kind of issues. Some people simply don’t agree with gay adoption, and the BBC has a duty to represent their opinions as much as they have a duty to represent yours or mine.
I think a lot of what you say is fair comment – and when I was busy complaining to the Beeb, I didn’t object to them flagging up that there is controversy per se. But this wasn’t a one off misstep – the BBC have been well over all this ground with Stephen Green before – they know exactly who he is, and how extreme and murderous his views. Still they choose to use him for cheap effect. I think it’s a very, very fair cop on this one. There are loads of Xian commentators of many shades of opinion and if their extensive religious affairs department can’t provide a list, then they are not doing a very good job.
Alan there was no ‘argument’ it was a simple matter of reportage on the birth of a child. The fact that the BBC decided to make it a matter of ‘argument’ by bring in nutcase Stephen Green was a clear case of bias, nobody was asked to comment other than Green, some balance that was, not. I ask again is the reporter of that piece a member of a fundamentalist or charismatic Christian Church? Who decided to ask Green to comment from the BBC and why?
Hyperbole worthy of the Daily Fail.
Well done, Pink News, oh well done. In keeping with the spirit of this comments section -
BBC MAKES MISTAKE IS TOTALLY HOMOPHOBIC AND OUT TO KILL US ALL, OH MY GOD! BOYCOTT BBC, I’M BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU ‘CAUSE I DON’T OWN A TV! LET’S PROTEST AND SHOW OUR VICTIM COMPLEX!
Seriously, guys, seriously?
@SK . . . would you expect Nick Griffin to be ask to give an alternative view point about a celebrity mixed racial birth?
Well done PN the BBC will think first. and where is self appointed stonewall ?
Pavlos: sounds like a man who read the Bible and mistook it for a guide for moral living.
Care to explain that?
I am a secular non-theist though I certainly have a read ther Bible and I am aware of how it was cobbled together and how translations & interpretations have been commisioned to make it say what certain people want it to say…a guide to moral living it is not by any means.
If you were merely responding to my post about Stephen Green then understood…kindly disregard my last post.
What do you expect from an organization that is run by a misogynistic, homophobic catholic patriarch who spent more time, effort and money trying to get his home boy the Pope to speak on Radio 4 this Christmas than the BBC has spent covering LGBT issues in it’s entire history?
The BBC are correct in reporting abnormalities
Alan: “Some people simply don’t agree with gay adoption, and the BBC has a duty to represent their opinions as much as they have a duty to represent yours or mine.”
Some opinions are wrong. No self respecting broadcaster will sit down with Grand Wizards from KKK to show balance for having blacks on TV.
The issue is beyond debate except for religious fanatics.
Ask Taliban’s opinion on murdering 50 people on London Underground. Their views are equal, no?
the Murkdog already controls the BBC his puppets/ boys are called Cleggy and Conmoron dont be fooled
Pavlos: yes, that’s what I was referring to. The examples of insane Christianity you’re referring to are merely literal interpretations of The Bible. Personally I consider the whole book nothing more than a waste of perfectly good paper and ink.
The incumbent political parties are preparing the grounds for a new homophobic wave in our culture, and those who are denying and sometimes defending them are willfully and/or foolishly participating in this task.
A ink to the Independents coverage of the story
Please forgive my ignorance on this subject, but as an American, how does this license thing work? Do you get a bill in the mail; do you pay a license fee when you purchase a television?
I’d like to lend my support as I really enjoy the programming on BBC America. I’d hate to think my cable subscription could contribute to bigotry.
RG – info here:
It’s assumed people have a TV and need a licence so if the BBC Licensing Dept records show your home doesn’t have a licence, you get a letter informing you of your obligation to have one if you watch TV. You can then buy a licence by post or online etc, and you get an annual renewal reminder.
Sorry – let me try again:
Come and join the new group “Media Watch” on mypinknews
Group dedicated to action on media bias and homophobia
If the BBC thinks this is the best response to this self manufactured row, they really should think again. What are the Gay M.P.’s going to do about this outrage?
(BBC Email Response)
Thank you for your feedback regarding the BBC News bulletin at 18:20, broadcast on 28 December 2010.
We appreciate some viewers were unhappy that a report on Sir Elton John recently becoming a surrogate father included the views of Mr Stephen Green.
We recognise this issue can arouse a diverse range of contrasting opinions. This brief report featured Sir Elton John’s thoughts and an opposing view on the matter at hand. It must be stressed that over time we have heard from all sides of this debate, dealing the subject in a fair and impartial manner.
We acknowledge the strength of sentiment on this matter, thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
BBC Audience Services
Never mind the TV license tax. Why should any of us pay income tax until we get equality?
Here is the complaint I sent to Ofcom (as there is clearly no point whatsoever complaining to the BBC)… I know it’s a little stilted but there was a character limit and I had lots to say!!
This programme contained an item on Elton John’s new son. It consisted of an old clip of Elton John discussing surrogacy, followed by an interview with homophobe Stephen Green.
I would like to express concern about this:
- Stephen Green is an extremist Christian and believes gay people should be murdered. This was not mentioned in the report, and his opinion was presented as valid. To put this into context: when Dawn French and Lennie Henry adopted their child, the BBC did not interview a member of the KKK.
- The BBC repeatedly offends the LGBT community. It would never tolerate similar abuse towards racial minorities (eg abusive slang).
- The item itself was not a debate, but an entertainment piece. For every item the BBC reports, it does not have an interview with someone who disagrees with it.
To compound this, the BBC responded to my complaint with an automated reply which did not address any of my issues,
According to a news report, the BBC refuses to release complaint figures where there is lobbying. While I am aware of the internet campaign, this does not mean the point is invalid. People are communicating in the normal manner and gathering together to protest (much like a street protest .)
While we are forced to pay the licence fee, the BBC has a responsibility to protect minorities rather than pandering to the prejudiced. I sincerely hope Ofcom will take action.
okay, so they have blundered with this one BUT you have to give the BBC its due. The BBC has funded a number of gay programmes in the past decade. Tipping the Velvet, Affinity, The Secret Diaries of MIss Anne Lister and most recently, an entire series of |Lip Service, which is to have a second series. I know that most of these are lesbian based and therefor ‘safer’, maybe titilating but its a visibility.
The BBC may not be getting everything right in terms of queer politics but the BBC seems to be trying and it is a minefield.
BBC is beyond disbelief! I just watched an item on the world news about men wearing make-up. Two heavily made up females tittering about vanity and metrosexuality. What hypocracy! What sexism! Grow up BBC, this is the 21st centuary
I think that the more proactive approach that the Pink News is taking her is really refreshing… but lets take it one step further… as complaints to the BBC are falling on deaf ears lets take our complaints to our local MPs! If the law says we should get a tv licence.. then lets get the law makers to change it! At the very least it would help raise the profile of the cause!
Haha this article is laughable … so people can say what they want on the BBC as long as it doesn’t disagree with your “pink” agenda. News is meant to be balanced and presenting another side of the debate is a good thing, especially for something as controversial as two men adopting a child from a segregate mother. Grow up and stop crying.
The government has now published their response to the consultation on the Public Sector Equality Duty (which requires public bodies to promote equality), and their proposed list of public bodies to which they intend it to apply. The content of BBC and Channel Four, are excluded. There is no information on why. They do not bother to say.
> The Government will be finalising the draft Order amending
> Schedule 19 to the Equality Act [ .DOC at
> http://tinyurl.com/6g5cj7v ], which sets out the list of public
> bodies to which the general Equality Duty will apply, and laying
> it before Parliament for debate in late January 2011.
The draft order says:
| 1. After the entry for “the armed forces” insert the following
| headings and entries—
| The British Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”), except in respect
| of functions relating to the provision of a content service
| (within the meaning given by section 32(7) of the Communications
| Act 2003()); and the reference to the BBC includes a reference
| to a body corporate which—
| (a) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the BBC,
| (b) is not operated with a view to generating a profit, and
| (c) undertakes activities primarily in order to promote the
| BBC’s public purposes.
| The Channel 4 Television Corporation, except in respect of—
| (a) functions relating to the provision of a content service
| (within the meaning given by section 32(7) of the Communications
| Act 2003), and
| (b) the function of carrying on the activities referred to in
| section 199 of that Act().
| The Welsh Authority (as defined by section 56(1) of the
| Broadcasting Act 1990()), except in respect of functions
| relating to the provision of a content service (within the
| meaning given by section 32(7) of the Communications Act 2003).
This would be the time to raise this with MPs and in the media.
I was one who made a complaint to the police when the BBC made a Talking Point debate for whether gay people should be executed.
But the system works – BBC was reprimanded for that. If it breaks the law it can be taken to court, redress can be sought and obtained.
The BBC is a great power for good in the UK, and pretty much the only organisation standing preventing a UK run by Rupert Murdoch. We all sacrifice it out our own peril.
what a stupid article. Count your blessings that you live in country that accepts and recognises gay men and women as human beings rather than sex crazed child rapists. The BBC does a decent job unlike TV stations in other european countries and further afield where gays are either demonized or ridiculed. One munter does not make a mountain. And as for making fun of Will Young .. my heart bleeds and I doubt his does either
Grow up. The BBC is if anything too liberal. You’re pathetic! The BBC does nothing to offend gays in any way shape or form. There are stereotypes that exist within the gay community and until they are changed from within, it cannot be expected that the BBC will pretend that they do not exist. The BBC is not a gay content producer…. but a content producer for all of us! If you are offended by what the BBC report, then don’t watch it. Freedom of speech and all!