by Gareth Roberts
Friday, 15
October 2021
Spotted
13:30

Stephen Nolan’s Stonewall documentary is unmissable

The charity was never impartial
by Gareth Roberts
The Stonewall contingent at a Pride Parade. Credit: NIKLAS HALLE’N/AFP via Getty Images

Stephen Nolan’s new ten-part BBC podcast documentary on the influence of Stonewall ploughs rich journalistic soil, its length justified by its findings.

It is frequently jaw dropping — you will hear how the Scottish government paid Stonewall to lobby itself, how the BBC’s supposedly impartial LGBT correspondent was moonlighting for Stonewall, and how whistleblowing medical professionals with serious concerns were frozen out by campaigns of intimidation. You could write a brick of a book about what Nolan has turned up but here are some immediate observations.

  • From 2015, when Stonewall decided to add advocacy for transgender people to its remit, it instantly took on board the ideology of ‘gender identity’ rather than biological sex as the determining factor in the difference between men and women. This is a fringe ideology from American academic ‘queer theory’. It obviously has enormous implications for both gay people and wider society, particularly regarding women’s rights, but there appears to have been no thought paid to it at all by Stonewall. They even redefined ‘gay’ to mean attraction to a person of either sex with the same ‘identity’. This bizarre set of ideas, not recognised in law, were simply adopted without question, propagated into institutions such as the NHS, and given credence by Stonewall’s previous good reputation.
  • The behaviour of Ofcom, who used their reporting decisions on viewer complaints (I think probably the right ones but nonetheless) to get higher up on Stonewall’s equality index, and tried to cover up having done so, is reprehensible. This is the place where heads really should roll.
  • The BBC and Stonewall refused to be interviewed by Nolan, or even to answer specific questions from him, and rejected his FOI requests on spurious grounds. This high-handed attitude is very concerning. It’s to the credit of the BBC that it has broadcast Nolan’s investigation, but the lack of transparency from a publicly funded body is deeply shady. What don’t they want the public to know? Why the secrecy?
  • The intimidation of people who dispute gender identity ideology from extremist activists has frozen debate, as people are afraid to speak out against Stonewall for fear of losing their livelihoods. The equation of people acknowledging the facts of biological sex (ie the entirety of the human race for all recorded time until 2015) with anti-Semites (as made by Stonewall CEO Nancy Kelley) is a prime example of Stonewall’s ridiculous bullying hyperbole, which has no place in public life.
  • Stonewall’s only public response to Nolan since it appeared has been a profoundly unserious tweet with a hand-clapping emoji stating ‘We make 👏 no 👏 apology 👏 for working towards a better world for LGBTQ+ people.’ In other words, ‘We make no apology for something nobody is accusing us of doing.’ This is like being charged with murder and replying ‘How dare you accuse me of stealing that loaf of bread!’ It’s a transparent attempt to dodge the actual meat of Nolan, responding to criticism of itself as an attack on gay and trans people — this, despite the fact that its loudest, most concerned critics are gay and trans people.

There now surely has to be a full public inquiry with the power to compel the whole truth in detail from government, Stonewall and the BBC, and to protect democracy from unaccountable lobby groups.

Meanwhile, listen to the podcast — there’s so much more in it.

Join the discussion


  • The headline should be a variation of the subheading:
    “The BBC was never impartial….”
    As an occasional commentator on the BBC (perhaps cancelled), I would encourage those who can to NOT pay the license fee. British citizens should be in open revolt against this institutionalized progadanda: Joseph Goebbels would be proud. BBC is simply the media arm of the woke religion, exactly akin to NPR in the USA. It is completely biased and not worthy of public support.
    With respect, I disagree with the commenters who believe that the tide (against wokeness) seems to be turning. It is also important to realize that many of the people cancelled by the mob (often “terfs”) are bad people (in my view), who seek to impose only a slightly milder version of woke ideology on everyone, but seem to have crossed a line with the trans community. Regrettably, the UnHerd crowd must, for a time, join forces with these people temporarily, until the woke are defeated. Then we can do battle against a slightly less crazy enemy, and they are the enemy–no room for respectful disagreements and Enlightenment thought.

  • Are you referring to STONEWALL or the BBC? Both seem to meet your definition of “evil organization.”

  • The question that I am totally unable answer is how such a small minority gained so much fearsome power – who gave it to them? 
    My hypothesis is that they didn’t – well nor directly. My explanation is that this has been slow cooking in the educational institutions for years such that it has slowly been turning out humanities graduates that are very predisposed to this line of thought (critical q***r theory) and who have subsequently gravitated to administrative positions within very influential institutions such as education, police, media and entertainment, museums and libraries etc etc. or, have occupied quango organisations that provide ideological direction. They may also be predisposed perhaps, if they hold a political position that is amenable to this ideology.

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up