Laut BBC hat Martine Croxall gegen Regeln bezüglich des Gesichtsausdrucks „schwangerer Menschen“ verstoßen

>It added that „congratulatory messages Ms Croxall later received on social media, together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm that the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue“.

The Twitter TERFs are responsible for this complaint being upheld. Ironic.

This was after the Supreme Court ruling, right? We are now allowed to say pregnant women I think. Another storm in a teacup imo.

[removed]

“The ECU said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it „indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans ideology.“”

I wonder if the ECU realise that describing the existence of trans people as “trans ideology” is also indicating a particular viewpoint, regardless of the action they’ve taken here.

EDIT: It seems this BBC News article has actually edited what the ECU said from “trans identity” to “trans ideology”, which definitely seems like the author of this piece has also breached impartiality by doing so.

[removed]

[removed]

It’s worth noting when cases like this arise, where there is so much indignation about using inclusive language and how it’s supposedly morally righteous to refuse to do so, that it costs nothing at all.

Yet at the moment the line being pushed by the EHRC, media, and certain government figures that trans people will not be detrimented by mandatory implementation of exclusionary policies, because places will end up providing alternative facilities too even if it has a substantial price tag. How is this believable if trans people can’t even ask for inclusion that costs nothing at all?
And when the very people like Croxall that espouse news stories in a manner shaped by their biases, how is there any hope at all that should there be negative consequences to the equality of trans people due to policies that they favoured then they will honestly report on them?

Slightly off topic

Has anyone else read the internal memo by the ex BBC Editorial Guidelines and Standards Board adviser Michael Prescott published in full by the telegraph? I wonder if Croxall was cocking a snook at some of her own colleagues and superiors.