BBC Woman's Hour presenter Anita Rani accused of being 'biased and bigoted' by gender rights campaigner
Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters - a women's rights group - said her views were 'misrepresented' on the show by Rani.
She made a formal complaint to the BBC, claiming the presenter should never have been allowed to present interviews with individuals on both sides of the transgender debate, because she had in the past shown 'extreme and unacceptable bias' on the issue, The Telegraph first reported.
Woman's Hour had discussed the debate with figures on both sides after April's Supreme Court ruling that trans women are not legally women.
The ruling also decided the word 'sex' in the Equality Act refers to biological sex and not gender identity, sparking mass debate across the world.
Ms Joyce featured on Woman's Hour last week, before chief executive of Amnesty International UK, Sacha Deshmukh, appeared on the show two days later.
In her complaint, Ms Joyce condemned the 'choice to use a demonstrably biased and bigoted presenter, Anita Rani, for that interview, thereby giving her and the interviewee the chance to misrepresent me'.
She added that the presenter had 'previously publicly demonstrated bias and prejudice towards the gender-critical viewpoint'.
'In particular, she shouldn't have been allowed to interview Sacha Deshmukh because it was obvious she would give him an easy ride for ideological reasons,' she said.
Gender rights campaigner Ms Joyce quoted a tweet Ms Rani had penned four years ago in the wake of criticism of Woman's Hour for featuring Paris Lees, a trans author, to discuss the book What It Feels Like For A Girl.
Ms Rani posted: 'I'm disgusted by the levels of transphobia on here. Woman's Hour is a space to discuss everything about LGBTQ+ issues.
'Listening to people's stories helps us understand something and hopefully empathise. Ditch the hate.'
In response, Ms Joyce claimed the tweet exposed Ms Rani's 'extreme and unacceptable bias'.
Ms Joyce claimed the presenter misrepresented her point of view in a question to Mr Deshmuck, enabling him to make out she did not understand the Supreme Court ruling.
'Anita asked Sacha misleading questions which muddled up my explanation of the judgment,' she wrote.
A spokesman for the BBC said: 'The BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit will respond to this complaint directly, in accordance with our usual complaints procedure. Woman's Hour has given an on air clarification, stating that when Helen Joyce from the campaign group Sex Matters was quoted in the interview with Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, her comment referred to the Equality Act and not to the issue of sex and gender in wider society or any other legislation.
'Both interviews were part of a series broadcast by Woman's Hour over the past two weeks, which reflect a wide range of perspectives on the Supreme Court ruling.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ex-Labour whip admits ‘sleepless nights' over welfare cuts resignation
Labour MP Vicky Foxcroft has urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to listen more closely to his MPs, who she says reflect the worries of their constituents. Ms Foxcroft resigned as a government whip in June over concerns about proposed welfare cuts, specifically to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) for disabled people. She said she could not support or whip for the proposals, which were later abandoned after a significant rebellion within the party. Ms Foxcroft described her decision to resign as difficult, causing "sleepless nights", and occurring during a challenging personal period that included the death of her father. Sir Keir's support among the public reached new depths of minus 43 after the £5bn welfare U-turn, according to polling published in July.
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Wes Streeting said to be eyeing up No 10 – but how will doctors' strikes affect his chances?
From Jeremy Hunt and Alan Johnson to Andy Burnham and Ken Clarke, politics is littered with ambitious former health secretaries who did not make it into No 10. The aspirational current health secretary, Wes Streeting, is believed by colleagues to have his sights on bucking that trend, and one day replacing Keir Starmer in Downing Street. However, the resident doctors' strike represents a moment of danger for the health secretary, with the medics pitching themselves against the government by demanding a return to the real-terms pay levels of 2008. It would be 25% salary increase on top of a 29% rise over the past three years, with the government outright refusing to open pay discussions and restricting any talks to negotiating on other benefits such as pensions. Streeting has personally taken a robust approach to the doctors – telling them 'if you go to war with us, you'll lose' – which on some levels appears in tune with the public mood. Polling from More in Common shows that overall, people do not back the doctors' strikes, and feeling has turned further against increasing the pay of medics over the past two weeks. Support for them dropped from -10% to -15% while the industrial action was going on. Luke Tryl, the director of More In Common, said: 'The biggest shift between the two weeks is people are now more likely to say the government should not do whatever it takes to end the strikes. My previous view was that it didn't really matter if the public were on side with Streeting against the doctors because the doctors could just bring the NHS to a halt, people would just rather it worked. Even two weeks ago people thought that, but the fact that it has now flipped is interesting and people are more likely to say 'dig in'. 'I do think it's because Wes Streeting has been out there making the arguments. In focus groups, it seems like his message has landed. People are slightly, for the first time, more likely to say resident doctors are paid too much rather than too little.' However, there are two difficult caveats in the data for Streeting. The first is that most of the public blame the government for the strikes in the first place, with 39% saying it is ministers' fault, 31% pointing the figure at resident doctors and 11% at hospital management. The second is that Labour voters are now the only political grouping who back the striking doctors, with a net 3% in favour of the strikes, down from a net 12% in favour before they started. Labour members tend to be even more sympathetic to strike action than Labour voters, so this group of people who choose the next party leader are not on board with the government's arguments. And while there are no public rumblings of discontent about Streeting's approach, some Labour MPs question the wisdom of pitching the industrial dispute as a battle – rather than taking a more emollient tone. 'Jeremy Hunt never really recovered from his bruising encounter with the doctors,' says one Labour MP. 'It never looks good to be talking about 'war' with public servants in a caring profession.' However, Labour sources say there is a huge difference between now and the strikes that Hunt was opposing in 2016 – then the first industrial action taken in more than 40 years, which centred more around shift patterns and contract changes. 'The fact that public opinion has shifted so far against resident doctor strikes shows how different the landscape is,' the senior source said. 'The truth is that, slowly but surely, people are noticing some of their family and friends are being seen quicker by the NHS. They don't want to go backwards. 'The Tories drove the NHS into the ground. In a large part, the malaise felt by resident doctors is that they're just sick and tired of how poor working conditions have become over the 15 years of Tory government. 'But the BMA's leadership should recognise how they now have a government that is far different to deal with. Two above-inflation pay rises, the biggest hike in the public sector, work already under way on improving working conditions and so much more we can do if they chose to actually just work with government.' Ultimately, though, the wider mood about the strikes and Streeting's leadership through the turmoil is likely to depend on how the NHS manages to hold up operationally. NHS sources said the first five-day strike had led to some services being cancelled but many fewer than on previous occasions, with trust leaders suggesting appointments and operations were at about 90-95% of usual activity. Figures for how many doctors turned out on strike were not yet available but sources suggested it had been patchy, and that trusts were 'better at managing' the situation as they had practice now from prior strikes. The British Medical Association, the doctors' union behind the strikes, has said hospitals were opting for unsafe cover rather than cancellation of operations, in a 'reckless' approach to the strikes. But if Streeting can oversee minimal disruption in the NHS while doctors are on strike or reach a deal on other financial conditions, then the government could emerge strengthened. And while Labour voters support the doctors' aims, they also like to see a government demonstrating operational competence and avoiding crisis. Tryl says: 'If Labour fails on their mission of reducing waiting lists, that's what will cut through and would damage Wes. But equally, if he holds firm and wins, it could help the government. 'There is a sense that government isn't in control any more is such a big driver of the 'broken Britain' mood, it kind of goes beyond individual services. If Wes can show the government is in control on this, that could end up helping.'
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Nigel Farage dismisses health rumours - as the 61-year-old Reform leader says his political opponents are spreading untrue gossip
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has quashed Westminster rumours that his relentless schedule is taking a toll on his health. The 61-year-old has dubbed the whispers swirling between Labour and Tory MPs about his condition as 'untrue', and while long days come with his gruelling schedule, his now moderate lifestyle balances it out. Describing building a new political party and movement as 'an enormous task', and that he has never worked 'more intensity' than in the last year, he still manages to enjoy a pint or the odd afternoon lunch. 'They can't question us on immigration. They can't question us on crime. They have nothing to go on,' he told The Times. 'I wouldn't say the BMA would hold me up as a pin-up boy, but I'm feeling good. A bit of exercise, I walk the dogs. 'I'm not too bad at all really. I look at people I was at school with and think I'm doing well.' The party leader confessed he has, in fact, become more at peace, and is not phased by 'the little things' or online criticism any longer. And while Farage has rammed up his work schedule to another level, he hopes to take four days off in the summer to go fishing with his son. Discussion about the 61-year-old's health comes amid worrying polls for the Conservatives, as nearly half of participants believe Reform provide a more effective opposition to Labour. A YouGov poll found only nine percent of people surveyed found the Tories provided a more successful opposition to Starmer's party while 42 percent swayed towards giving Reform. And 62 percent of voters said it was clear what Farage's principles were, while only 30 percent said the same for Badenoch, and 26 percent for Sir Keir Starmer. It comes after a new-mega poll suggested Reform UK were within 'touching distance' of forming a majority government. The More In Common survey found, if a general election was held today, Reform would become the largest party in the House of Commons with 290 seats. Although this is below the number of MPs needed for an outright majority, meaning a hung parliament, it was more than twice as many as any other party. And the pollster said Reform is now 'close to the level where they could command an outright majority'. More In Common's new MRP (Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification) model, based on polling of more than 10,000 Britons, put Labour on 126 seats. This is a loss of 285 seats from Sir Keir Starmer's loveless landslide win in last year's general election, and leaves them with fewer than half as many seats as Reform. The research put the Tories on 81 seats, down 40 seats from last year, with the Liberal Democrats on 73 seats (up one seat) and the SNP on 42 seats (up 33 seats). Meanwhile, as Sir Keir marks one year in Downing Street this weekend, the poll found the Prime Minister's personal approval rating had slumped to an all-time low of -43. More In Common's projection showed a majority of Cabinet ministers would lose their seats in the face of a Reform surge. This includes Deputy PM Angela Rayner, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting. More recently, US President Donald Trump advised the UK Prime Minister to slash taxes and immigration if he wanted to beat Farage at the next election. In an hour-long broadcast encounter, with no awkwardness of playing one politican off against the other, Trump also urged Starmer to take a strong approach when it came to immigration. Full of praise for the Prime Minister and the way he was running the country, despite their ideological differences, Trump said Sir Keir was 'liberal ..but not too liberal' in his approach. Mr Trump added: 'I think the one that's toughest and most competent on immigration is going to win the election, but then you add… low taxes, and you add the economy. '(Sir Keir) did a great thing with the economy, because a lot of money is going to come in because of the deal that was made. But I think that, I think that immigration is now bigger than ever before.' The president had earlier told Sir Keir Britain and the rest of Europe it must stop illegal immigration to avoid 'ruin' as the two leaders met in Scotland. Farage was not present at Trump's visit.
