New Model 3
@newmodel3.bsky.social
I live in a big tent, on a secluded beach, with my dog, listening to the B52s mostly. If you don't find the courage to Bash Back soon, you will vanish forever. If you do plan to Bash, plan it properly. Don't waste yourself. Always recycle.
🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️⚧️🏳️🌈🏕️🎼🎶🦞
🏳️⚧️🏳️⚧️⚧️🏳️🌈🏕️🎼🎶🦞
An advocacy group was kicked off Bluesky so aggressively that even mentioning their name will get me banned too. But this legal claim now lodged against the BBC is interesting.
bsky.app/profile/newm...
bsky.app/profile/newm...
1/
A High Court claim quietly issued against the BBC last week takes a route the broadcaster didn’t expect. Instead of judicial review, the claimant is suing under the Equality Act, a move that will kybosh the BBC’s usual “editorial freedom” defence.
A High Court claim quietly issued against the BBC last week takes a route the broadcaster didn’t expect. Instead of judicial review, the claimant is suing under the Equality Act, a move that will kybosh the BBC’s usual “editorial freedom” defence.
January 22, 2026 at 8:53 AM
An advocacy group was kicked off Bluesky so aggressively that even mentioning their name will get me banned too. But this legal claim now lodged against the BBC is interesting.
bsky.app/profile/newm...
bsky.app/profile/newm...
6/
If this claim survives early stages, it could force disclosure of how the BBC actually applies its standards behind closed doors. That, rather than any single broadcast, may be the real issue now facing the corporation.
If this claim survives early stages, it could force disclosure of how the BBC actually applies its standards behind closed doors. That, rather than any single broadcast, may be the real issue now facing the corporation.
January 22, 2026 at 8:45 AM
6/
If this claim survives early stages, it could force disclosure of how the BBC actually applies its standards behind closed doors. That, rather than any single broadcast, may be the real issue now facing the corporation.
If this claim survives early stages, it could force disclosure of how the BBC actually applies its standards behind closed doors. That, rather than any single broadcast, may be the real issue now facing the corporation.
5/
The BBC has already dismissed the claim as ‘bound to fail’. But an Equality Act case doesn’t need the BBC to be acting as a public authority. It only needs proof of service provision, conduct, and discriminatory effect
The BBC has already dismissed the claim as ‘bound to fail’. But an Equality Act case doesn’t need the BBC to be acting as a public authority. It only needs proof of service provision, conduct, and discriminatory effect
January 22, 2026 at 8:45 AM
5/
The BBC has already dismissed the claim as ‘bound to fail’. But an Equality Act case doesn’t need the BBC to be acting as a public authority. It only needs proof of service provision, conduct, and discriminatory effect
The BBC has already dismissed the claim as ‘bound to fail’. But an Equality Act case doesn’t need the BBC to be acting as a public authority. It only needs proof of service provision, conduct, and discriminatory effect
4/
The advocacy group (aggressively and pro-actively banned by Bluesky) linked to the claim has spent years documenting what it calls “institutional harm” - not rogue reporters, but systems that quietly determine whose complaints are taken seriously and whose dignity is treated as ‘optional’
The advocacy group (aggressively and pro-actively banned by Bluesky) linked to the claim has spent years documenting what it calls “institutional harm” - not rogue reporters, but systems that quietly determine whose complaints are taken seriously and whose dignity is treated as ‘optional’
January 22, 2026 at 8:45 AM
4/
The advocacy group (aggressively and pro-actively banned by Bluesky) linked to the claim has spent years documenting what it calls “institutional harm” - not rogue reporters, but systems that quietly determine whose complaints are taken seriously and whose dignity is treated as ‘optional’
The advocacy group (aggressively and pro-actively banned by Bluesky) linked to the claim has spent years documenting what it calls “institutional harm” - not rogue reporters, but systems that quietly determine whose complaints are taken seriously and whose dignity is treated as ‘optional’
3/
That distinction really matters. Judicial review often fails because courts won’t police ‘editorial judgment’. Equality law asks a different question: can a service provider lawfully maintain standards that create a hostile or degrading environment for a protected group?
That distinction really matters. Judicial review often fails because courts won’t police ‘editorial judgment’. Equality law asks a different question: can a service provider lawfully maintain standards that create a hostile or degrading environment for a protected group?
January 22, 2026 at 8:45 AM
3/
That distinction really matters. Judicial review often fails because courts won’t police ‘editorial judgment’. Equality law asks a different question: can a service provider lawfully maintain standards that create a hostile or degrading environment for a protected group?
That distinction really matters. Judicial review often fails because courts won’t police ‘editorial judgment’. Equality law asks a different question: can a service provider lawfully maintain standards that create a hostile or degrading environment for a protected group?
2/
The case doesn’t target programmes or journalists. It targets governance head-on. Specifically, Board-approved materials on editorial standards and complaints handling that encourage and normalise misgendering and degradation of trans people as a class.
The case doesn’t target programmes or journalists. It targets governance head-on. Specifically, Board-approved materials on editorial standards and complaints handling that encourage and normalise misgendering and degradation of trans people as a class.
January 22, 2026 at 8:45 AM
2/
The case doesn’t target programmes or journalists. It targets governance head-on. Specifically, Board-approved materials on editorial standards and complaints handling that encourage and normalise misgendering and degradation of trans people as a class.
The case doesn’t target programmes or journalists. It targets governance head-on. Specifically, Board-approved materials on editorial standards and complaints handling that encourage and normalise misgendering and degradation of trans people as a class.
Being a racist paedophile is totally inexcusable. But the principle here is bigger. What cane first? The racial slurs or the intentional misgendering? Nobody seems willing to answer this.
January 21, 2026 at 2:02 PM
Being a racist paedophile is totally inexcusable. But the principle here is bigger. What cane first? The racial slurs or the intentional misgendering? Nobody seems willing to answer this.