Now they’re in trouble.
I am not a defund the BBC sort, but I can understand the frustrations of those who are. I have spoken at length (here, here and here) about the BBC consciously lying to (and therefore losing the trust of) its audience, and I will never forgive its treatment of the heroic Cath Leng. However, there are some good people inside it, trying to make a difference.
But…
On 6 August 2026, BBC Three Counties local radio station, which covers Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, ran a half hour current affairs chat on the Jonathan Vernon-Smith Show. The midday item was posed as a question: “Do you think it’s right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?”
The first contributor put on air to talk about that question was Robin Moira White, a male barrister who claims to be a woman. Robin advocates for men to be able to use women’s toilets and does so himself. The next guest was Nora Padilla, a full-time policy officer at the campaign group TransActual, which also advocates for men to be able to use women’s toilets. Then we heard from “Michelle” from Watford. Like Robin, Michelle is a man who claims to be a woman and – surprise surprise – advocates for male use of female facilities.
Enter Bob
Can you tell what’s missing from Jonathan Vernon-Smith’s debate? My colleagues at Seen in Journalism spotted it and posted their critique and the audio from the programme on X.
Bob Hamstead, a twitter user who I have known for a couple of years, was also listening.
Bob, like Ripx4Nutmeg is good at keeping a close eye on the BBC and complaining when its own staff seem too dazzled by the gender woo to realise they are producing inaccurate and/or unbalanced bilge.
On 10 August, Bob complained about the Jonathan Vernon-Smith Show and about Jonathan Vernon-Smith, saying “the host makes the strange assumption that he doesn’t think women in this situation would really be bothered… Naturally, the men interviewed agreed with him (Robin Moira White in this case), that women are seemingly too stupid to be able to determine who is a man and who is a woman.”
Bob asked the BBC, rhetorically, “How are you still so utterly captured by trans activists?… The law Is the law. The BBC should not be in the business of encouraging these men to defy the law… Given the scandals that have engulfed the BBC in this area, how do you still seemingly have an open-door policy with radical trans activists, and no women’s groups to hand to offer balance and fact checking… Why were no women or women’s groups involved In this conversation? Everything uttered by Robin Moira White was false, and yet your host lapped it up without question.”
Falling Materially Short of Impartiality Standards
Yesterday, Bob got his response. I detect the hand of the same author behind this response about another BBC local cock-up. It read:
“Thank you for getting in touch about the Jonathan Vernon-Smith Show of 6 August 2026. Our apologies for the delay in replying. You are absolutely right to bring this topic up – it is vital we get the balance right and we appreciate your thoughtful note. You make a number of valid points. The discussion did not include a contributor, notwithstanding the callers, who could articulate the perspective of women concerned about the protection of single-sex spaces more broadly, rather than focusing solely on toilets.
“Nor did we make it clear that a guest – Robin Moira White – is a trans woman. It would have provided the listener with important additional context about which they could come to an informed judgement. An Invitation to a women’s group, well versed in discussions of this nature was extended but no one was able to appear [NB: remember this bit]. Jonathan Vernon-Smith did seek to challenge callers by putting alternative perspectives. However, in the absence of contributors able to represent those views directly, those interventions were not sufficient.
“As you’ve rightly pointed out the half hour phone in segment fell materially short of the standards we would expect for due impartiality on a topic such as this. It was for this reason we removed the programme from BBC Sounds. We are sorry for the breach in standards you’ve identified. It should never have happened. But we believe the shortcomings arose from editorial misjudgements made in good faith rather than any deliberate attempt to favour one perspective over another.
“We will be carrying out a review into how those failures happened. That is something we have already discussed with the programme team and will take Into account for future coverage. Again, we would like to thank you for writing to us, but we are sorry you had cause to do so.”
Bob took to X to call this a “rare sign of sanity” from the BBC. Sadly, there was a problem.
Fiona McAnena from the campaign group Sex Matters read the sentence in bold above in Bob’s post. She wrote on X “But it’s not true that no one was able to appear! We were asked and then told we were not needed.”
Uh oh.
Fiona McAnena asked Bob to reply to the BBC complaints unit and seek a further investigation. Maya Forstater, also from Sex Matters got involved, writing on X:
“This is very shoddy. A BBC researcher spoke to my colleague @DerryBanShee [Fiona’s X handle] in plenty of time, and then said we weren’t needed. Now they are apologising for not having any women speaking about women’s rights and saying they couldn’t find any. 🤯”
Today a letter was sent to the BBC by Fiona, Maya and Helen Joyce from Sex Matters. It is addressed to Peter Johnston, the editorial director of complaints at the BBC. I have been given sight of it. It says:
“Something has gone very wrong at BBC Three Counties radio or the BBC Complaints team, or both. The Jonathan Vernon-Smith Show ran a phone-in on 6th August 2026 on the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for service providers, asking ‘Do you think it’s right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?’
“The guest, Robin Moira White, was introduced as a barrister, but it was not mentioned that he also identifies as a woman. Callers expressed a range of views but neither the presenter nor the guest, who was presented as an expert, made the case for single-sex facilities, nor did they attempt to explain why women might prefer male-free toilets. Listeners complained about the lack of balance.
“In response, the BBC Complaints team wrote that: ‘An invitation to a women’s group, well versed in discussions of this nature was extended but no one was able to appear.‘
“This is untrue. A producer for the show left a voicemail for the head of public relations at Sex Matters at 9:40am asking for a spokeswoman to do a five-minute slot some time between 12:00 and 12:30. The voicemail was passed on to Fiona McAnena.
“At 10:38 am Fiona called to say she was available. She spoke for a couple of minutes with the producer, who said they had a guest and did not need her. Fiona recalls this clearly, as she was struck by the biased framing of the phone-in as described in the voicemail – ‘Do you think it’s right to tell transgender people which toilet to use?’ – and she would have welcomed the opportunity to explain why that was not the issue.
“The result was the appallingly unbalanced piece that attracted considerable criticism on social media, along with complaints. The complaints team’s letter apologises for the lack of balance and says that a review will be carried out. This review must cover the rationale for withdrawing the invitation to Sex Matters to participate, and the source of the subsequent claim that no one was available to provide balance.
“How can BBC licence-payers believe in the sincerity of the intention expressed, to do better in future, when this lack of balance did not come about by accident or circumstance but was someone’s conscious decision, a decision now being covered up? We would like an answer.”
This Is Not Good
Bob has also gone back to the BBC. His email says:
“Firstly, I’d like to thank you for taking my complaint seriously, and upholding the majority of my observations. However, I am a little confused about the following remarks in your response: ‘An Invitation to a women’s group, well versed In discussions of this nature was extended but no one was able to appear.’
“Are you absolutely certain that this Is correct? I appreciate that you are very unlikely to have been personally involved In the organising of the episode, but my understanding is that Fiona McAnena, of the charity Sex Matters, was approached by the programme, and agreed to appear – but, contrary to your response, I understand that her offer was then subsequently declined by a BBC researcher, shortly before the programme was recorded/aired.
“I would appreciate it if you could go back to the producer of the programme, to ensure that your Initial response is an accurate reflection of what happened. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Ms Forstater and Ms McAnena, but I’m happy to accept that you may not currently have all the details at your disposal.
“I have every faith that, given a little more time, you might be able to clarify these slight inconsistencies relating to this matter. I think It is vital that, In order to avoid a similar situation In the future, we ascertain what happened here. I recognise you are trying to do better in this highly contentious area of politics, so I trust that you will get to the bottom of this perplexing series of events. I’m sure there’s a rational explanation for what happened.”
What Now?
I have asked the BBC how they propose to handle this. Having worked in local radio I am already beginning to feel slightly sorry for the overworked, underpaid and possibly quite young producer(s) who may well have made a catastrophically bad editorial decision under pressure. I sincerely hope they didn’t think that because they had a couple of people on who claim to be women, that meant they didn’t need any actual women to take part.
My work for this blog is funded by donation. If you would like to make a one-off or regular monthly contribution and receive the Gender Blog newsletter and blog posts in your email inbox you can sign up here. Your email address will be stored securely and confidentially, never given to a third party and will only be used to inform you about things I think are interesting. If you have a story, please use the contact form. All messages go directly and securely to my email inbox and will be dealt with in the utmost confidence.
Leave a Reply