The Nolan team based in Belfast are a group of BBC journalists well used to asking awkward questions. Nolan looks at the influence Stonewall has in public institutions across the UK. This 18 month investigation has already had significant impact behind the scenes in major public institutions. The podcast is the story of how it all unfolded.
A team of volunteers at Fair Play For Women have transcribed the main content from each of the ten episodes spanning over 6 hours of audio content. You can listen to the full audio here or read the condensed transcript below.
Episode 9: How close was Ofcom to Stonewall?
Was the media regulator too keen to please a lobby group?
Ofcom are talking to Stonewall about what was appropriate for broadcast. So Stonewall’s opponents, what about them? How are they getting fair treatment from Ofcom, if Ofcom are taking briefings from Stonewall?
So all of this began with an FOI to Ofcom. They said that they were subject to contractual confidentiality in relation to information. So they signed essentially an agreement that they would never give out the feedback that Stonewall gave to them.
Ofcom are asked a question by Stonewall. They’re asked what they have been doing to further LGBT equality in the wider community. And the response from Ofcom is to cite judgments that they had made on broadcasting issues or complaints that had been made about broadcasters to Ofcom and what action they had taken.
Here’s Ofcom actually supplying real case data to Stonewall. So does that influence their decision in the first place? If they’re coming to a decision about a broadcaster is Ofcom thinking in the back of their head ‘oh, well, we will be able to show this to Stonewall.’? That’s a fair question.
In its submission to Stonewall, as an example of why the lobby group should be impressed by Ofcom, the regulator cited an example of where they had written to a local radio station warning them of the potential for offence. The potential offence, Ofcom said, was when a radio presenter said he would be uncomfortable with his six year old daughter changing in an environment where the changing rooms were not segregated based on sex.
[00:00:54.930] – Stephen Nolan
Could Stonewall be so influential that they have influenced not just the BBC, but its regulator? Ofcom oversees broadcasters throughout the UK and it is incredibly powerful. Could even Ofcom have been influenced by Stonewall?
[00:01:16.750] – Stephen Nolan
In this episode after they initially resisted giving us the information [under Freedom of Information law], we appealed it, so we can now reveal what Ofcom were telling Stonewall behind the scenes. We can reveal exclusively that Ofcom were using the rulings against broadcasters to impress Stonewall and meet their stated aim of climbing up Stonewall’s index.
[00:02:01.970] – Stephen Nolan
How is that at all healthy or right for Ofcom to do? They’re supposed to be arm’s length from Stonewall. And after our questioning, Ofcom pull out of one of Stonewall’s schemes. Before we get to that, let’s rewind to last year.
[00:02:30.970] – Stephen Nolan
Have a listen as an SNP politician, John Nicholson, throws an allegation about the LGB Alliance group. He calls them transphobic. And Ofcom seemed to say they agree. How is that impartial? This was in Westminster in December 2020:
[00:02:51.260] – John Nicholson MP SNP
“I notice that the BBC seems to be under the impression that it’s got to balance all its reports about trans issues now by calling in transphobic groups like the so called LGB Alliance to give a counter argument. I think this is absurd because you would never do a report on racism, for example, and call in a racist organisation to say that they don’t think the black people have a right to equality.”
[00:03:18.970] – Dame Melanie Dawes – OFCOM CEO
“I think it’s a very good point and actually a very good example of something that we’ve been talking to Stonewall about. Actually about how can the broadcasters, when they do feel they need to bring balance into a debate, do it in an appropriate way rather than in the way that you just described, which can actually be extremely inappropriate.”
[00:03:36.310] – Stephen Nolan
So Ofcom thinks it’s a very good point, does it? That the LGB Alliance are described as a quote ‘transphobic group’? Do they? Ofcom are talking to Stonewall about what was appropriate for broadcast. So Stonewall’s opponents, what about them? How are they getting fair treatment from Ofcom, if Ofcom are taking briefings from Stonewall? Here’s more of the conversation between the SNP. John Nicholson and Dame Melanie Dawes from Ofcom:
[00:04:07.450] – John Nicholson MP
“I remember making a documentary for the BBC about all the areas in which gay people were discriminated by law. It was in the 1990’s, I took Edwina Currie to Amsterdam actually, and daughter engaged in the issue and I remember that my commissioning editor said that he’d enjoyed the film, but he wanted to know why I didn’t have more anti gay voices in the film. Can you imagine everybody saying that now? They wouldn’t, of course. And yet the way that the BBC is behaving with trans people at the moment, shows that that mindset is still in existence 25, 30 years on because many of the arguments that are used to attack trans people now are the same arguments that were used to attack gay people in the 1990’s.”
[00:04:58.270] – Dame Melanie Dawes – OFCOM CEO
“I can only agree with you, Mr Nicholson, and I’m just so glad that things have moved on over these last decades, but there is still more we need to do and I do agree with you. And I think what we’re going to try to do, is to engage with Stonewall, who actually are really experts on this and who raise this actively, and make sure that we try to make sure that we give the right information to our broadcasters, so that they can steer their way through these days without causing offence and without…”
[00:05:28.270] – David Thompson
So Stonewall are the experts and they’re going to guide the broadcasters. And what’s an acceptable way to cover these issues.
[00:05:33.850] – Stephen Nolan
Stonewall may be one of the experts. Stonewall may have expertise. But they are not appointed by a Democratic process in this country as the experts. I know some people in Ofcom and they’re really really seasoned people, but we need to question Dame Melanie .. there it is again, this is coming through every time.
[00:05:56.590] – David Thompson
What you have here, what he’s talking about is the group, the LGB Alliance, who we’ve had on this programme who will take part in this podcast because they are part of this story. They are a group of gay people who reject Stonewalls ideology on trans issues. And here you have John Nicholson saying these people are not fit to be on their waves.
[00:06:13.570] – John Nicholson
“What can the BBC do to address this? And do you think it’s buckling under a very well funded concerted campaign to attack trans people, which seems to have been given undue prominence recently.”
[00:06:27.970] – Stephen Nolan
John Nicholson here’s what the BBC can do, because I’m part of the BBC. We can ask you questions back. It’s not buckling to afford another organisation, which may have views different to Stonewall, an opportunity to put those into the public domain. Also, Stonewall are not representative of how every gay person or trans person thinks. Trans people and gay people think differently.
[00:06:56.290] – David Thompson
Stonewall are one of the organisations in this debate. They’re being consulted about what’s appropriate. And Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, are consulting one of the lobby groups, not the other, and taking feedback from Stonewall. They’re also signed up to Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index, so they have an incentive if they want to be on their list, to please Stonewall.
[00:07:15.910] – Stephen Nolan
They’re on the index list?
[00:07:17.710] – David Thompson
Yes. Ofcom are signed up to the Workplace Equality Index in the same way the BBC are.
[00:07:23.890] – Stephen Nolan
So in order to climb up Stonewall’s index, they’ve got to impress Stonewall.
[00:07:29.110] – David Thompson
Yes.
[00:07:29.650] – Stephen Nolan
How is that not a conflict of interest? Dame Melanie, you are a senior person at Ofcom. What credibility does it give Ofcom if you’re suggesting a political lobby group, with a political agenda trying to change the way broadcasters speak in this organisation which some trans people disagree with, which some gay people disagree with and you’re anointing them as experts?
[00:07:54.730] – David Thompson
Bizarrely, the discussion there is not about Stonewall. The discussion is about trans, which is legitimate, and the coverage of trans. But the real story coming out of that and no one seems to have picked up on is the influence that Stonewall have.
[00:08:09.010] – Stephen Nolan
How is it possible, David, that all these credible organisations would be doing something that we are suggesting there are big questions around? Are we getting it wrong? Are we thinking there’s a story here when there’s not? Could you possibly have governments and the BBC and Ofcom not seeing the conflict of interest?
[00:08:31.810] – David Thompson
Well, one theory, about how this has happened, is that when the Equality Act came in, all these employers had boxes to tick about ‘we’ve covered these various aspects of diversity, sexual orientation, gender’ and the box is ticked. ‘We’ve provided training’ [tick box], so they can say, ‘Well, who does that? Stonewall does that. Stonewall selling this [training] product, say ‘we’re the experts, we’ll advise you’. And there hasn’t been enough critical thought about ‘are Stonewall the appropriate people to do this?’
[00:08:59.890] – Stephen Nolan
I’ll say from the beginning this story is much bigger than Stonewall.
[00:09:03.370] – David Thompson
They, on one hand, will say we’re a Charity and that all the connotations that come with that that, you’re just looking out for people’s best interests and representing people’s best interests. But they’re also a very hard political lobby group with political ideas that are not settled. So on one hand they’re a Charity and on the other hand they’re selling a service and they benefit financially from that as well.
[00:09:26.290] – Stephen Nolan
“Well, get me an interview with Melanie Dawes and let’s get an interview with that SNP guy too. I think that will be good stuff.” We did ask both Ofcom and John Nicholson for an interview, but both parties declined.
[00:09:43.490] – David Thompson
It’s interesting. All of this is about the influence that Stonewall have. It makes you wonder what would happen. Some will complain about this programme to the BBC and it goes as far as Ofcom. Stonewall advises the BBC and Ofcom. So how does that work? It’s extraordinary.
[00:10:01.430] – Stephen Nolan
Ofcom did send us through a statement. They said “Broadcasters need information to help them navigate sensitive topics. Likewise, Ofcom needs to talk to a wide range of bodies in order to ensure we understand the areas we regulate. We meet with different organisations to gather input and perspectives on all aspects of diversity and broadcasting. No third party directs or otherwise advises Ofcom on how it exercises its independent statutory functions relating to broadcast standards.” Well, that statement is fine. But remember the words that we heard from Dame Melanie Dawes from Ofcom.
[00:10:44.030] – Stephen Nolan
She had heard John Nicholson giving an example where the LGB Alliance were described as a transphobic group. And Dame Melanie said that was a good point. The LGB Alliance are another group who represent alternative views to Stonewall. And what actually happens is that when we as a programme, when the Nolan show, gives that alternative view through the LGB Alliance, we get a lot of hassle, a lot of criticism. And Thompson, something’s happened now, that we can actually see how there is a tension within the BBC itself, not about someone’s deeply held views, but actually within this group, what’s this group called?
[00:11:42.150] – David Thompson
So it’s the BBC Pride Group. We’ve been informed about some of the posts that are on that group.
[00:11:50.790] – Stephen Nolan
So this is the BBC, the BBC Pride Group. Presumably anybody that works in the BBC understands that all of our jobs is to give a breadth of opinion across society. And yet within the BBC Pride group, this is what the public need to know. It’s been described as evil that we’re giving the LGB Alliance a voice. Is it?
[00:12:16.650] – David Thompson
No. They were describing the LGB Alliance as evil. There was a post shared by BBC employees, and the LGB Alliance had again been lined up to complain. And there’s a comment beneath that, basically saying, what can we do about this within the BBC? They say once again, that charming and lovely person Steven Nolan platforms the evil that is the LGB Alliance and the whole of the BBC gets the blame.
[00:12:41.250] – Stephen Nolan
So I don’t think we need to say anything more than this. Thompson and I, and the vast majority of people who work for the BBC who take a salary out of this place, know what the founding principles are. And that is about reflecting views of people, no matter who they are, no matter how strongly you disagree with them in your personal life. So, yeah, to this internal BBC Facebook group. Yes, the Nolan show is going to give a breadth of you. And there’s nothing evil about that.
[00:13:25.270] – Stephen Nolan
Malcolm Clark is from LGB Alliance. They’re the group that other activists want to de-platform. Give me examples of fundamental disagreements you have in terms of policy with Stonewall, so that I and the people listening to this can get a sense of the difference of opinion within the gay community.
[00:13:45.310] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
Stonewall believes that you can be a lesbian and have a penis. They believe that you can be a male bodied person, do no transition, no medical surgery or even take hormones, grow a beard and you can identify as a lesbian. We were set up mainly by lesbians. To be honest, there are gay men involved, obviously, but it was mainly lesbians who decided that no, that’s not how we define lesbians. And it’s part of a bigger movement where they say that everyone should be able to self ID.
[00:14:15.010] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
You can just wake up tomorrow and say, I’m a man or a woman. We think that’s absurd and it will lead to real problems
[00:14:23.470] – Stephen Nolan
Although it would be absurd to suggest that many people do just wake up and the next day say, I’m a man. Why would someone want to do that? Why shouldn’t they have the right to identify as they want to?
[00:14:35.530] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
Well, it’s fine. But then, does that mean they can take part in women’s sport? Even although they were an award winning rugby player for most of their career? Okay, they don’t do it in one day, but maybe today I wake up and I’m a rugby player and I think in a month’s time I want to play in the women’s team. Well, male bodied people have huge physical advantages and it’s really dangerous for them to run at a woman on a rugby field. So in women’s sport, we think that’s one of the issues that are really important. Stonewall is fervently in favour of mixing all sports, and anybody who says that they’re a woman should be able to play women’s sport. That’s an issue that we think is really important and we don’t agree in the slightest.
[00:15:16.870] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
On kids who want to transition, there was a high court decision where the Tavistock, one of the gender identity clinics, was taken to court by a young woman who’d realised that she made a huge mistake. Stonewall denounced the high court’s decision, even though three senior judges had analysed a lot of evidence, they said it was mistaken and they felt that puberty blockers should be able to be given relatively freely to kids under 16. We totally agree with the High Court. We’ve been campaigning for some time that there were too many puberty blockers being given to too many kids. Puberty is a natural part of growing up. And if you want to become an adult, you have to go through puberty and it’s painful for everybody. And they’re taking young kids, some of them troubled and they’re giving them puberty blockers. And the High Court said that was a bad idea and from the future, in England anyway, if you want to give puberty blockers to a child under 16, you’ve got to go and get the court’s permission. I think that’s a brilliant piece of decision making by the High Court. It’s opposed fiercely by Stonewall
[00:16:26.470] – Stephen Nolan
as they’re entitled to do. But you’re expressing a different view, manifesting the plurality of different opinions that there are within the gay community.
[00:16:38.950] – Stephen Nolan
Now, David and I are trying on this podcast to have you come on the journey with us as we make it. And since that interview was recorded, the Tavistock won an appeal. In the case referenced by Malcolm, the court ruled that doctors can judge if under 16 year olds can give informed consent to puberty blocker use. The appeal was brought by the Tavistock Trust, which runs the UK’s only youth gender identity clinic. This ruling reversed the 2020 ruling that under 16 year olds lacked capacity to give informed consent to the treatment. Kiera Bell, who brought the original case, says the clinic should have challenged her more over transitioning and will seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
[00:17:30.050] – Stephen Nolan
Now we’ve already heard it once, but let’s remind ourselves about this exchange once again between the SNP MP John Nicholson and the then head of Ofcom Dame Melanie Dawes.
[00:17:42.590] – John Nicholson MP SNP
“I noticed that the BBC seems to be under the impression that it’s got to balance balance all its reports about trans issues now by calling in transphobic groups like the so called LGB Alliance to give a counter argument. I think this is absurd because you would never do a report on racism, for example, and call in a racist organisation to say that they don’t think the black people have a right to equality.”
[00:18:09.650] – Dame Melanie Dawes – OFCOM CEO
“I think it’s a very good point and actually a very good example of something that we’ve been talking to Stonewall about, actually about how can the broadcasters, when they do feel they need to bring balance into a debate, do it in an appropriate way rather than in the way that you just described, which can actually be extremely inappropriate”
[00:18:26.930] – Stephen Nolan
Malcolm Clark, in a sense, in terms of some of the policies and your views on some gay issues, you’re in a sense, in competition with Stonewall. And yet here is Ofcom. One of the fundamental purposes of Ofcom is to make sure that there is fairness and impartiality in the media landscape, and you have Ofcom siding with one of your opponents, one of the groups that objects to some of your policies. You haven’t had the accolade from the BBC and you haven’t had the accolade from Ofcom of being the experts. Two institutions which are not supposed to be defining anybody in a partial way.
[00:19:14.270] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
No, we’re not. And we wouldn’t claim to be experts on everything, but I look at Stonewall’s board and the people who represent Stonewall, and I don’t see that they are any more expert than us. They’re not scientists, but they speak out, about puberty blockers. They’re not sports experts, but they demand that sports should be mixed so that women rugby teams should be having male bodied rugby players on that. They speak out about a whole bunch of subjects that they can’t possibly be experts on. So we don’t feel that they should be introduced as the experts on many subjects. They’re an expert on making money, that’s for sure.
[00:19:53.990] – Stephen Nolan
Well, you say that, come on. The reason why Stonewall have so much might is that they do have so many supporters from within the gay and lesbian community. But you cannot minimise, Malcolm, the significant support Stonewall has from the gay community, and that’s why they should be listened to.
[00:20:14.210] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
Well, they certainly have significant support. Yes, absolutely. So do political parties. So do hobby groups or whatever. But it doesn’t mean to say that there’s ever one voice. We wouldn’t allow any part of politics to be represented by one lobby group. And I don’t see that it’s healthy. I don’t see the black community is represented by one black organisation. I don’t see that Welsh people are represented by one Welsh organisation. So why would gay people be represented by one gay organisation? And, of course, it’s more complicated because, of course, there are three or four different types of people now represented by Stonewall. It’s no longer representing just gay people. And we argue that these three groups of people have different agendas. They’re all valid. But it can’t possibly be the case that one organisation can represent all three types of people. And in every organisation that they all want the same thing. Do non binary people need the same thing in the Scottish government as gay people?, maybe sometimes, maybe not. I don’t see how this organisation can fairly represent gay people.
[00:21:24.650] – Stephen Nolan
Of course it can. It can have different people with different specialisms with different interests within the one umbrella organisation. Of course it can. My goodness, it’s a clever organisation. It’s got itself now as the advisor to Ofcom. It’s got itself as the advisor to the Scottish government. It’s got itself as the advisor to the BBC. What a powerful, clever organisation. I’m not too sure how clever their partners are allowing it to happen. But you cannot underestimate the might, the dexterity of Stonewall here. They’re blowing you lot out of the water.
[00:22:00.710] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
Well, we’ve only been going for a year. They’ve been going for 30 years. But you’ve got to remember that what they’ve done very cleverly. And I respect what they’ve done, is they’ve tapped into a sort of collective social guilt trip. For years, centuries, gay people were oppressed and treated bad. And Stonewall and the gay rights movement came along and said, look, this is a bad idea. Let’s sort all this out and we made immense progress. And Stonewall was a crucial part of that. Afterwards, once we got almost all the rights we needed, Stonewall then decided, well, look, you felt guilty about the gay people, now feel guilty about the trans people and that’s fine. Nobody should be anti trans. Nobody should be arguing against equality for trans people. But that argument sort of relied on the residual guilt trip about the way people have treated gay people. And it’s continued to happen that they use this sort of argument that you’re homophobic if you don’t do what we tell you to do on this or that, and a million other things. In a sense, we feel a little bit like gay people’s history and gay people’s names are sort of being used for this very narrow niche agenda.
[00:23:19.730] – Stephen Nolan
When we asked Ofcom about why did Melanie Dawes appear to agree with John Nicholson’s comments on the LGB Alliance, they said, “although a committee member expressed a view on the LGB Alliance and people who agree with the views of that organisation, Ofcom did not do so.” They pointed us to another part of the same committee, which they say proves their point. Have a listen and make up your own mind. Here’s the Conservative MP Damian Green.
[00:23:48.530] – Damian Green MP Conservative
“The whole trans issue and all the arguments surrounding it are extremely sensitive. And the arguments between women who regard themselves as radical feminists and some of the trans activists get very personal and very sensitive. Dame Melanie, you seem to agree with the proposition that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the current, if you like Orthodox trans rights position, is the equivalent of an old fashioned racist. The most famous person who agrees with that is JK Rowling. I find it slightly odd that a broadcasting regulator has effectively said JK Rowling, and women who think like her are the equivalent of old fashioned racists. Is that what you’re saying?”
[00:24:36.650] – Dame Melanie Dawes – OFCOM CEO
“No, I think that mis characterises my views considerably, if you don’t mind me saying so. What I’m saying is that care needs to be taken not to cause offence. And this is a very sensitive debate absolutely, and it’s one that’s changing I think all the time as well. And it’s very difficult to navigate. And our broadcasters do find it difficult to navigate. And what we need to do I think is to provide them with as much information as we can, about sensible ways that they can navigate it so that they can bring the range of views to bear, but in a way that doesn’t cause offence or needlessly step into a space where they would be making some of the mistakes that you’ve just described.”
[00:25:19.310] – Damian Green MP Conservative
“But you agreed with every proposition John put to you and John brought up the thought that this is the equivalent of people who 20 years ago wouldn’t have thought there was a balance between gay rights, and if you take anti gay rights, he bought that explicit thing to you and you both talked about racism as well. I would suggest that this issue needs to be dealt with by a lot more sensitivity. The answer you just given me seems perfectly sensible and appropriate, but in all seriousness and in a helpful spirit, I suggest you go back and look at what you agreed to in your earlier evidence because as I say, you did seem to be suggesting that women like JK Rowling were just beyond the pale. They’re not allowed to enter the debate. And I think that’s probably an inappropriate position for a senior regulator.”
[00:26:14.570] – Dame Melanie Dawes – OFCOM CEO
“I don’t think I suggested that with the greatest of respect. What I do think can easily happen is that voices that are providing balance in the trans debate can offend in a way that isn’t necessary and that’s what I’d like to achieve. Is for our broadcasters to have all the information they need to be able to make difficult judgments on challenging issues. Apologies for using that word again. And manage to make sure that all the issues are aired, but in a way that doesn’t offend people. So I haven’t expressed a view on JK Rowling and I certainly didn’t intend to.
[00:26:58.450] – Stephen Nolan
So Dame Melanie Dawes wanted broadcasters to have, quote, “all the information they need to be able to make difficult judgments.” But we can reveal that Ofcom had not met with either the LGB Alliance or Fair Play For Women. Groups that have different views on sex and gender. At this point Ofcom had only met with Stonewall. Malcolm Clark from the LGB Alliance was categorical about this.
[00:27:29.350] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
“The only meetings we’ve had, we’ve had two meetings with them, have been about the subject of their defamatory comments about us. So it’s a little disingenuous to make it sound like we are one of many stakeholders that they’re regularly meeting. They should be meeting us just as another stakeholder. So for them to suggest that they regularly meet us like any other group, it’s inaccurate.”
[00:27:55.450] – Stephen Nolan
Malcolm we asked Ofcom the following we said, “why does Dame Melanie Dawes agree with John Nicholson that it can be, quote, ‘extremely inappropriate’ for broadcasters to invite groups like LGB Alliance to discuss trans issues”. And Ofcom have said they didn’t do it. They said, although a committee member expressed a view on the LGB Alliance (that’s John Nicholson they’re talking about) and people who agree with the views of that organisation, Ofcom did not do so. And they said we made the point that broadcasters needed to collect information to help them navigate sensitive topics.
[00:28:31.330] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
“Well, I think anybody can go online and watch the discussion between John Nicholson and Dame Melanie. She appears to agree with him. I mean, it’s great they’re now saying Ofcom didn’t say something that everybody thought they said, but it would clarify everything if they issued a press release that said, we are correcting the misapprehension, we are correcting the press coverage. But they refuse to do that. And I don’t understand why.
[00:29:03.490] – Stephen Nolan
One of the other important things for me in this, though, is that Ofcom have got to, they are the Guardians of truth. One of their primary jobs in the media landscape is to make sure that organisations like the BBC and presenters like me that I am not giving any false impression in anything I do. So I actually think there is a material point here that Ofcom needs to address that you’re raising. So Ofcom are clearly giving the impression to the BBC during this investigation. They are clearly giving the impression that they have reached out to the LGB Alliance to discuss and gather input and perspectives on all aspects of diversity in broadcasting. So they’re clearly suggesting to us that they’ve reached out to you about trans issues and that they want to gain your perspective. Are you telling me that’s untrue? Because that’s a huge accusation about Ofcom, if that’s what you’re saying.
[00:30:10.030] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
Yes. I’m saying that we’ve discussed almost nothing except their defamatory comments about us. So we’d be more than willing. And they’ve given the impression to us that at some stage, they’re happy to chat with us, and they think they’ve said publicly they’re happy to chat with us. But as of yet, we haven’t chatted about anything except them withdrawing their defamatory comments.
[00:30:38.890] – David Thompson
The timing of this is important, Malcolm, because we asked Ofcom specifically in the context of this discussion between Dame Melanie Dawes and John Nicholson. The fifth question that we asked Ofcom was about, given that Stonewall are a participant in this debate, who else had they consulted at this point on the issue? And they refer us back to an answer which suggests that they consult with Stonewall, the LGB Alliance and Fair Play For Women. But at that point, Malcolm, you’re saying Ofcom had not met with you.
[00:31:09.010] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
“We’ve never met. To be fair to Dame Melanie Dawes, you may never have heard of us, but when John Nicholson mentioned us, she appeared publicly to agree with him. And the truth is that John Nicholson retweeted and suggested that she totally agreed with them, and they’ve never corrected that misapprehension. We’ve asked ‘publicly, John Nicholson and other people have made it seem like you totally bought into his view of us’, and they deny that, and they refuse to make it clear that they deny that. That’s the only time that they’ve consulted with us.”
[00:31:55.690] – David Thompson
We asked them ‘Has Stonewall ever suggested to Ofcom which group should and should not be allowed to participate in discussions about these issues, unless Stonewall have never suggested who shouldn’t shouldn’t be allowed to take part in those discussions?’ And with relation to the Diversity Champions Scheme and Ofcom membership of that scheme. So they say something very similar to what the BBC says on this, which is this is about their internal diversity policies for staff, and it’s not related to our Broadcasting Standards rule. Do you think there’s a conflict?
[00:32:29.890] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
“It’s fine for them to take advice from lots of different people about human resources, staff policies, whatever. But Stonewall has a very particular take on lots of issues and it would be surprising if they didn’t leak through into the general outlook of Ofcom or the BBC or other organisations.”
[00:32:54.790] – Stephen Nolan
If we’re being totally fair and let’s be totally fair to Ofcom as an institution. There are many people in Ofcom. I get it that Dame Melanie is at the top when she made this comment, but the whole thinking of Ofcom should not be defined by what one individual has said on one day, which brings me back to what they are actually proactively doing when they have time as an organisation to think. And they know that the BBC is doing an investigation. Part of that being into how Ofcom have treated Stonewall and their thoughtful considered position is that they are giving the impression to the public that they have reached out to you as a body, and they have consulted with you to get your input and your perspectives on diversity and broadcasting. Now for me, that’s the bigger point in this because you’re telling me that is false.
[00:34:00.550] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
Yes. Absolutely false.
[00:34:02.770] – Stephen Nolan
Because here’s what I want to do. I want to go back to Ofcom and I want to say to them that you are categorically stating on the record that there was no attempt by Ofcom to reach out to the LGB Alliance to gather perspectives and input on diversity and broadcasting. And I want Ofcom to be able to prove otherwise. So I’m going to ask them, what did you discuss?
[00:34:31.810] – Malcolm Clark – LGB Alliance
“I mean, in the discussion, we introduce ourselves, we say what we’re about, we say what we’re opposed to, but it’s all in the context of ‘excuse me, you just said something really defamatory about us and we want to correct it.’ That’s all that background is. It’s not that they were reaching out to us to find out how interesting our opinions were.”
[00:34:53.650] – Stephen Nolan
We had initially asked Ofcom the following, given that Stonewall are a participant in this debate, who else had Ofcom consulted at this point on the issue:
[00:35:05.530] – Ofcom statement
“Ofcom meets with a range of different organisations to gather input and perspectives on all aspects of diversity in broadcasting, including issues that broadcasters may seek to make programmes about. This includes meeting with Stonewall, the LGB Alliance and Fair Play For Women organisations which have very different perspectives.”
***ADDITIONAL NOTE: FPFW has had one meeting with OfCom. This was after the select committee hearing with Dame Dawes and at the request of FPFW in response to the comments made by Dame Dawes***
[00:35:27.430] – Stephen Nolan
So we went back and asked Ofcom to provide evidence about what input and perspectives on all aspects of diversity and broadcasting they received from LGB Alliance, before and after that committee meeting, we’ve listened to.
[00:35:41.770] – Stephen Nolan
We asked Ofcom how they were not misleading the BBC about having met and taken on board the views of LGB Alliance and Fair Play for Women, before Dame Melanie appeared at the committee. Ofcom have failed to answer those questions. And then in August 2021, a huge news line landed in our inbox. It was an email from Ofcom. They had decided to withdraw from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions game. It wasn’t long before that was leaked to the media.
[00:36:23.150] – BBC Newsreader
‘The media and telecommunications regulator Ofcom has told the BBC that it has left a controversial equality scheme run by the LGBT charity Stonewall. The organisation is just the latest to leave the Diversity Champion Scheme amid accusations Stonewall has been misrepresenting equality law, which it denies.’ John McManus reports’
[00:36:44.570] – John McManus
‘Hundreds of public and private sector organisations are members of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Scheme. In return for subscriptions, they get advice on how to make their workplaces inclusive for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender staff. That advice has come under increasing scrutiny with a recent report from the University of Essex finding that Stonewall gave it incorrect and potentially illegal guidance on transgender issues. Stonewall denies that. Now Ofcom which regulates broadcasters, has left the scheme, saying that it was important that it remained impartial and independent at all times.’
[00:37:21.290] – Stephen Nolan
Ofcom also told the BBC that comments made by its chief executive Dame Melanie Dawes, which led to her being accused of taking sides in the debate about transgender rights, had been misconstrued and that she was simply seeking to make the point that all on air debates must be balanced. John McManus, you just heard in that news clip, reported frustration within Ofcom about the circumstances of that particular exchange and the subsequent reporting of it. They told us:
[00:37:50.810] – Ofcom statement
“As the communications regulator, an important part of our responsibility is to ensure we remain impartial and independent at all times. Our commitment to supporting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ people is as strong as ever.”
[00:38:03.590] – Stephen Nolan
They give two reasons. First,
[00:38:05.870] – Ofcom statement
“Having laid the foundations that will help improve support for LGBTQ+ colleagues, we’re confident that we can move ahead positively without continuing with the Diversity Champions programme.”
[00:38:16.130] – Stephen Nolan
And Secondly,
[00:38:17.210] – Ofcom statement
“In recent months, there has been significant scrutiny of some of Stonewall’s policy positions. In Ofcom’s case, we have considered whether our relationship with Stonewall poses a conflict or risk of perceived bias. Stepping back from the Diversity Champions programme in light of this, is the right thing to do.”
[00:38:36.810] – Stephen Nolan
The conflict we’ve been pointing out in this podcast and to Ofcom is not a factor in their withdrawal.
[00:39:07.430] – David Thompson
So all of this began with an FOI to Ofcom and Ofcom wouldn’t give us the information under FOI. We appealed it, and we’ve now got part of the information we were asking for.
[00:39:41.690] – David Thompson
They said that they were subject to contractual confidentiality in relation to information. So they signed essentially an agreement that they would never give out the feedback that Stonewall gave to them.
[00:39:57.530] – Stephen Nolan
So let’s just remind people why we were asking questions of Ofcom at all. This was about the Equality Workplace Index that they had signed up to. Is that right?
[00:40:07.670] – David Thompson
They signed up to the Stonewall Diversity Champion scheme, whereby you pay Stonewall a fee and they advise you on your policies. They also submit to the Workplace Equality Index, which is the public ranking.
[00:40:17.690] – Stephen Nolan
So remember what we’ve said already in this podcast about that Workplace Equality Index. Lots of these companies want to climb up it because they see that as a validation as to whether they are, or are not doing things right in terms of workplace equality. So what you were doing, Thompson, is you’re trying to find out. Well, do you know what, how beholding are all of these different companies and organisations to Stonewall if they’re trying to impress them on this index? Because there’s a question around whether a regulator should be beholding at all to Stonewall. And that’s why what you’ve discovered here through this FOI is important.
[00:40:56.810] – David Thompson
The documents that we have today, in 2018, 2019, 2020, Ofcom are asked a question by Stonewall. They’re asked what they have been doing to further LGBT equality in the wider community. And the response from Ofcom is to cite judgments that they had made on broadcasting issues or complaints that had been made about broadcasters to Ofcom and what action they had taken.
[00:41:23.370] – Stephen Nolan
So what we can see here is what the public usually doesn’t see. This is the behind the scenes conversations where Ofcom is giving examples to Stonewall of how they’re a good organisation in terms of equality, right? And why they should rise up that Workplace Index. And they take an actual case that they have adjudicated on. The first thing I would say, Thompson is and it’s a genuinely open question. But is there a tension or at least a possible conflict of interest? That here’s Ofcom actually supplying real case data to Stonewall. So does that influence their decision in the first place? If they’re coming to a decision about a broadcaster is ofcom thinking in the back of their head ‘oh, well, we will be able to show this to Stonewall.’? That’s a fair question.
[00:42:17.250] – David Thompson
And the other thing that’s important is the question that Stonewall had asked them about. ‘Has your organisation done any further work in the past year to promote LGBT equality?’ So they’re given this as an example of promoting LGBT equality, if this is as Ofcom and these other organisations have always said, this is about internal staff policies, equality in the workplace. Why are they citing reports and investigations that they’ve done into broadcasters as an example of how they furthered LGBT equality?
[00:42:48.510] – Stephen Nolan
So why is Ofcom not only quoting things internally with its staff as they intimated that’s what they were doing right? Rather than quoting external real life cases in the role as a regulator? Is that what you’re saying?
[00:43:03.930]
Yeah.
[00:43:04.590] – Stephen Nolan
So let’s look at this real life example here. So this is our regulator, Ofcom, and they’re saying to Stonewall, well, here’s an example of how we have promoted LGBT equality in the wider community. In its submission to Stonewall, as an example of why the lobby group should be impressed by Ofcom, the regulator cited an example of where they had written to a local radio station warning them of the potential for offence. The potential offence, Ofcom said, was when a radio presenter said he would be uncomfortable with his six year old daughter changing in an environment where the changing rooms were not segregated based on sex.
[00:43:54.430] – Stephen Nolan
The key point here is that Ofcom gave this example when they were asked by Stonewall what they had done to promote LGBT equality. What about that presenter’s right to speak as he felt? What about freedom of speech? Ofcom told us:
[00:44:16.810] – Ofcom statement
“Under our Broadcasting Code specifically, Rule two, three, there is no prohibition on the broadcast of material which may cause offence. However, broadcasters must ensure that potentially offensive material is justified by its context. The code makes clear that context is assessed by reference to a range of factors, including the editorial content of the programme, the service in which the material is broadcast, the time of broadcast, and the likely expectations of the audience.”
[00:44:46.010] – David Thompson
There is also some interesting stuff in this around what happened within Ofcom and the internal matters, the staff policies and so on. In the FOI, we found out that Stonewall were running staff allied sessions for Ofcom. So Stonewall actually ran these and made a big play of this in the information they submitted to Stonewall. And they say the network, their internal staff LGBT Network, organised an Allies workshop which was run by Stonewall, held at Ofcom as a lunchtime session in May. It was well attended by colleagues, including Allies who were already part of the network and some who were not but have since joined up. And the key thing in that is that it was run by Stonewall. And about three times in that submission, they mentioned this meeting which was run by Stonewall.
[00:45:33.230] – David Thompson
So there’s one thing taking advice, I think, from an external charity or lobby group, and there’s another thing bringing them in to run staff sessions for your organisation. And it goes a little bit further even that, because Ofcom told Stonewall about two reports that they had done into diversity and equal opportunities in TV and Radio, and they quote, this is what they say to Stonewall. ‘Broadcasters do more to collect accurate information and to promote equal opportunities for all employees, highlighting positive schemes such as attending pride events and signing up to be a Stonewall diversity champion.’ So they’re encouraging broadcasters or they were encouraging broadcasters to sign up to be a Stonewall diversity champion.
[00:46:21.230] – Stephen Nolan
How is that at all, healthy or right for Ofcom to do? They’re supposed to be arms length from Stonewall.
[00:46:29.750] – David Thompson
Obviously, we put a lot of these points to Ofcom and they have subsequently decided that there is a conflict. They’ve accepted that there is a conflict with this rule. Their response to that was to leave Stonewall’s Diversity Champions scheme whereby they paid money for advice. But what they didn’t leave was the Workplace Equality Index, and that is as much of a conflict, if not more for an independent regulator surely, than membership of the other scheme.
[00:47:05.070] – Stephen Nolan
In response to questions from this podcast Ofcom said:
[00:47:08.910] – Ofcom statement
“It’s not unusual for commercial contracts to be subject to confidentiality requirements.”
[00:47:13.530] – Stephen Nolan
We asked Ofcom how there is not a conflict of interest in Ofcom providing real case information to Stonewall. They said:
[00:47:22.350] – Ofcom statement
“There is no conflict of interest. Broadcast Standards decisions are made by the Broadcast Standards team within Ofcom, wholly independently from any third parties. The details of the cases mentioned in Ofcom’s submission to Stonewall were already in the public domain. They were published and freely available on our website, in our fortnightly broadcast and OnDemand bulletin.”
[00:47:41.370] – Stephen Nolan
So no conflict of interest, say Ofcom. That’s despite stepping back from Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Scheme, after considering whether there was a conflict of interest. Why step back then?
[00:47:54.510] – Ofcom statement
“Our participation in the Stonewall Equality Index has no bearing whatsoever on any of our broadcasting Standards decisions.”
[00:48:01.530] – Stephen Nolan
We asked how Ofcom’s independent reports into the actions of broadcasters are evidence of “work to promote LGBT equality”, they said:
[00:48:12.030] – Ofcom statement
“Under the Communications Act 2003, we are required to secure the application of standards that provide adequate protection to members of the public from harmful and offensive material. We set these standards in the Broadcasting Code. In exercising our functions, Ofcom as a public authority, must have due regard to the matters specified in Section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 and Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In the Radio Case, published in March 2018, we made clear in our published decision that we had taken account of the audiences and the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression set out in Article Ten of the European Convention on Human Rights”
[00:48:50.970] – Stephen Nolan
In relation to Stonewall running a staff event for Ofcom, they said:
[00:48:55.590] – Ofcom statement
“This event took place in 2018 when we were publicly a member of Stonewalls Diversity Champions Scheme”
[00:49:01.470] – Stephen Nolan
On why Ofcom had encouraged broadcasters to sign up to Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme, they say:
[00:49:09.270] – Ofcom statement
“The latest of these reports was published in November 2020. Again when we were publicly a member of Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme.”
[00:49:19.990] – Stephen Nolan
Finally, we asked how is Ofcom’s decision to continue submissions to Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index not as much if not more of a conflict of interest for the organisation than its previous membership of the Diversity Champions Scheme?. Particularly given the points raised in this correspondence? Ofcom say:
[00:49:42.670] – Ofcom statement
“Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index is a free benchmarking tool involving no commercial relationship but which is widely recognised as an effective way for employers to measure their progress on LGBTQ+ inclusion in the workplace.”
[00:49:58.850] – Stephen Nolan
Throughout this series, you’ve heard how the BBC itself, our own organisation, has been working with Stonewall. In the next episode, you’ll find out just how much Stonewall influenced the culture within the BBC.
Want to read more? The transcripts for all 10 episodes are available
Nolan investigates: Stonewall. Episode 6 – Is Government Too Close to Stonewall?
Nolan Investigates: Stonewall. Episode 7 – Lobbying and the Law
Nolan investigates: Stonewall. Episode 9 – How close was Ofcom to Stonewall?
Nolan investigates: Stonewall. Episode 10 – Is the BBC too close to Stonewall?