EXCLUSIVE Revealed: How 'pregnant people' ended up in Martine Croxall's autocue - as BBC bosses back newsreader for correcting wording to 'women' live on air
The BBC today backed a star presenter forced to correct the phrase 'pregnant people' to 'women' on her autocue while broadcasting live - and ruled out the need for any investigation, MailOnline can reveal.
There were concerns amongst colleagues that Martine Croxall could be disciplined after Justin Webb was told he partially breached BBC guidelines for describing trans women as 'males' during a Radio 4 debate.
But Martine's bosses are said to have been 'intensely relaxed' after her intervention and have also decided there is no need for a probe into how the phrase 'pregnant people' ended up in her script.
They have already concluded it was an innocent mistake - rather than act of defiance on behalf of the trans community following the Supreme Court's ruling in April.
MailOnline can reveal that Ms Croxall couldn't hide her 'shock and frustration' when she was forced to change an autocue line from 'pregnant people' to 'women' live on air.
'Most people didn't need a Supreme Court ruling to tell them what a woman is – but based on what happened to Martine Croxall, it seems someone at the BBC might', a senior figure at the corporation has claimed.
Martine Croxall's message for supporters after after she was praised for rejecting woke gender-neutral language live on air
The BBC is blaming a press release on heat waves from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine for the blunder.
It quoted an academic who used the phrase 'pregnant people' instead of women and this was pasted into Martine's autocue script by another BBC journalist - but Ms Croxall spotted it mid-broadcast.
The presenter has the full support of her bosses for her on-air heroics.
'Martine is not in any trouble. She has the full backing of the BBC because she got it right', MailOnline's insider said.
'She was stating a fact and correcting a mistake'.
The source said that Ms Croxall, 56, and other presenters will often change words on the autocue without viewers noticing.
'But this time I think she couldn't hide she was shocked and frustrated by the mistake'.
Martine has won a legion of new fans, including JK Rowling. The broadcaster's Twitter followers have jumped from 56,000 to 127,000 – and doubled in the first 24 hours after she changed her BBC script.
JK Rowling had been in direct contact with Martine to ask is she was 'in trouble' over the incident.
'She has not had a single negative comment from her colleagues and the overwhelming response from the public has been positive', the BBC source said.
In February last year Today programme presenter Justin Webb was found to have broken BBC impartiality rules after he said 'trans women, in other words males' on air.
Mr Webb's comment was found to have fallen foul of guidelines because he 'gave the impression of endorsing one viewpoint in a highly controversial area', the corporation said.
He made the remark during a discussion about new International Chess Federation (FIDE) guidelines, which had looked at whether being biologically male held an advantage in the game.
But a listener complained that during the interview in August 2023, with Dominic Lawson, the Today presenter had given 'his personal view' on a 'controversial matter'.
But following the Supreme Court's ruling this year - it appears that the BBC has shifted its position.
Martine has supported women on TV before - and behind the scenes also stood up with female colleagues in their fight for equal pay at the corporation.
Famously she also got tough with a transgender wannabe politician who said she felt attacked when Ms Croxall questioned her claim that the Supreme Court's April ruling that trans women are legally male and trans men are legally female might need further 'clarification'.
There have also been lighter moments, including when she winked and joked that she was a 'beautiful creature' and also the times she was wasn't in her seat as cameras began rolling.
She also appeared tearful when she announced the death of Prince Philip in 2021.
Heather Herbert, a trans campaigner and former Labour MSP candidate, provoked a furious response from Croxall after declaring: 'I feel like I'm under attack' when they discussed the Supreme Court's ruling on gender
In April the broadcaster was praised when she challenged a transgender activist who claimed the Supreme Court 's ruling that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex may still need 'clarification'.
The BBC veteran firmly told ex-Labour MSP candidate Heather Herbert that the landmark ruling made it clear 'sex is binary and immutable'.
Leicestershire-born Ms Croxall repeatedly challenged Herbert after she called for further 'clarification' on single sex spaces, at one point reminding her: 'The ruling is that woman means biological sex.'
She spearheaded a legal case against the BBC over pay, with the corporation settling the case in March.
Martine, Karin Giannone, Kasia Madera and Annita McVeigh launched an employment tribunal against the BBC in a bombshell case, which included the claim they had not been paid equally compared with their male counterparts.
All four claimed they lost their roles on the BBC News Channel following a 'rigged' recruitment exercise when it was merged with BBC World. The case was settled by the BBC in the spring of this year.
The row meant the women were all off for 12 months, which Martine chronicled on social media. Instead of being in the studio she enjoyed trips to Mexico, Bulgaria and Thailand.
During her time off, she went swimming with whale sharks and sea lions in the Gulf of California, zipwired over a canyon in Mexico and fed elephants at a sanctuary in Phuket.
That's on top of taking a hot balloon over the pyramids in Mexico and venturing on two ski trips, including one where she was seen relaxing in a massive hot tub after spending a day on the slopes.
Croxall joined the corporation in 1991 following work experience with her local station, BBC Radio Leicester.
She grew up in the countryside, attending an independent school before graduating from the University of Leeds.
In 2022, she was briefly taken off air after breaking the corporation's impartiality rules.
She also winked on an occasion and joked she was a 'beautiful creature' on a feature about sealife
The blunder happened on October 23 after Boris Johnson ran out of the leadership contest that Rishi Sunak went on to win.
During the Sunday night edition of The Papers, where press members discuss the main stories of the day, she said in the wake of Johnson's departure: 'Well this is all very exciting, isn't it? Am I allowed to be this gleeful? Well I am.'
Later in the show she also admitted that she was 'probably breaking' some of the BBC's impartiality rules when she laughed at Tony Grew's mocking of Johnson.
The corporation later ruled that Croxall had made 'several remarks and reactions' that caused 'significant risk' that the audience could believe 'opinions were being expressed' on the Conservative leadership race. She returned to air after 11 days off.
Following the death of Prince Philip, Ms Croxall was close to tears as she interrupted the broadcast to break the news to the country.
Now she is in the headlines again after standing up for women.
The clip from a recent BBC News episode saw Ms Croxall introduce new research on the number of heat-related deaths expected amid Britain's current heatwave.
But as the autocue prompted her to warn 'pregnant people' to take care in the heat, she first read the term out before overriding it, with a smirk and eyebrow raise.
She said: 'Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, said the aged, pregnant people - women! - and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.'
Ms Rowling reposted the clip on X, captioning it: 'I have a new favourite BBC presenter.'
It is understood the phrase 'pregnant people' was the term used in the research the presenter was reporting on, rather than the BBC having written it.
Ms Croxall herself soon responded to a commenter who had praised her move as 'brilliant' by saying: 'I hope you don't get hauled before the BBC News beak.'
The broadcaster simply replied: 'Braced x.'
The original clip was first reposted to X by campaign group SEEN In Journalism, which says it 'seeks to restore accuracy and impartiality to media coverage of sex and gender'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
MPs to discuss slavery reparations
MPs are set to discuss slavery reparations with a delegation from the Caribbean. A group of activists and academics will travel to Westminster to make their case, which could include demands for Britain to pay trillions of pounds. Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, have been invited, the Telegraph has been informed. Insiders said there had been plans for Mr Lammy to host a 'Caricom forum' which would hear submissions about reparations. However, sources said this was pushed back. Caricom refers to the Caribbean Community, a supranational body representing nations in the region. It is understood the events are intended to make the case for reparative justice. There had been hopes among campaigners that Mr Lammy, of Guyanese descent, and Labour generally might be sympathetic to their cause. The Tories refused repeatedly to countenance discussing it. Pressure was brought to bear on Sir Keir at the 2024 Commonwealth summit in Samoa where the issue was forced onto the official agenda but No 10 publicly ruled out payments. Mr Lammy, who was there, had suggested that reparations need not be a 'cash transfer' but could include 'other forms of non-financial reparatory justice too'. The UK signed off on the Commonwealth summit statement which set out the need for 'inclusive conversations' about reparations for slavery, and the need to address 'chattel enslavement… dispossession of indigenous people, indentureship, colonialism' in order to move to a 'future based on equity'. The delegation will be hosted in Parliament on July 2 by Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, who heads the all-party parliament group on Afrikan reparations and is a staunch supporter of the cause. Events have been organised and supported by the Repair Campaign, a group which supports Caribbean efforts to secure reparations. The group was founded by Denis O'Brien, the Irish billionaire owner of telecoms giant Digicel. He has overseen the creation of development packages tailored to the needs of Caribbean nations and funded by former colonial powers. Voters of Caribbean descent Baroness Chapman, Minister of State for Development, has also been invited to meet the Caribbean delegation, along with members of the foreign affairs committee. It is understood that invitations have been extended to MPs representing constituencies with a high proportion of voters of Caribbean descent. Events will be held at Portcullis House on the parliamentary estate. Before coming to London, the delegation will travel to Brussels to argue that former slave-trading powers including France and the Netherlands should support paying compensation for the exploitation of enslaved Africans. It includes members of the Reparations Commission for Caricom. The commission has spent more than a decade pushing for Britain to agree to a 10-point plan for reparations, which has been repeatedly rebuffed. Uriel Sabajo will represent the Suriname committee, and Carla Astaphan will be in London to represent St Kitts & Nevis, a former British colony. While they are connected to Caricom, the delegation is not an official group sent by the commission itself. Other delegates expected in London include leading professors from the University of the West Indies, along with Mr O'Brien and his colleagues. British supporters of the movement, including Dr Michael Banner, author and Dean and Fellow of Trinity College, University of Cambridge, will also attend.
The Sun
19 minutes ago
- The Sun
Blatant law-breaking of illegal migrant delivery riders is scam Del Boy would be proud of… I have five ways to stop it
I CONFESS my initial reaction to yesterday's report on The Sun's investigation into asylum seekers working illegally as food delivery drivers was a combination of frustration, disbelief and anger. Frustration because it seems the Government is no nearer to achieving its goal of tackling English Channel crossings than it was on July 5 last year. 4 Since coming into power, more than 41,500 small boat migrants have arrived — and that is just those we know about. Take a look at Migration Watch's Channel Tracker ( which monitors the number of illegal arrivals. I find it very difficult to believe that ministers do not see the connection between the ease with which traffickers can get migrants here, with a helping hand from Border Force and the RNLI. Migrants are even seen on their way with a cheery wave by the French authorities assembled on the beach. Having arrived on our shores and after a cursory check they are on their way to free accommodation, £40-plus pocket money a week and, now it seems, a job in one of the fastest-growing sectors in the economy. It beggars belief They earn money delivering food, to pay off their traffickers and to send cash home to their family so that they can eventually join them in the UK. What makes me and most ordinary, hard-working, taxpaying and fair-minded citizens angry is that the Government seems to think this is acceptable. After a year in office and abandoning the only possible deterrent, the Rwanda scheme — I make no apology for mentioning it again — and doing away with the legal requirement for the Home Secretary to remove illegal arrivals, the Government has done nothing to discourage migrants and traffickers. On the contrary, its actions, or rather inaction, has simply encouraged crossings. That's why, by the end of the year, I expect there to have been more than 50,000 illegal arrivals. Channel migrants queue for cash in hand jobs as secrets of UK's £260bn illegal economy revealed In fact, the total for the year so far stands at 18,400, which is almost 50 per cent higher than the number of small boat migrants who had crossed at this point in 2024. At this rate, could we see more than 60,000 arriving? I wouldn't rule it out. It seems the gig economy — Deliveroo, Just Eat and UberEats included — need not worry about a shortage of deliverers. I confess, The Sun's report yesterday almost made me smile. How could you not laugh at the description of the scene outside a hotel in Peckham where 'the entire courtyard was filled with bikes and bags surrounding a replica of the Only Fools And Horses [Reliant] three-wheeler'? 4 4 This scam, for that is what it is, would have made Del Boy proud. As for the reaction of ministers. It beggars belief. Policing Minister Dame Diana Johnson, who, in fairness to her, commended The Sun's report, said: 'The Sun investigation is right to highlight this illegal working racket, which undermines honest business and undercuts local wages.' No kidding, minister. While Dame Angela Eagle, the Border Security and Asylum Minister, 'is meeting delivery companies next week, to help tackle illegal working in this sector.' I find that exasperating. This is the minister who sought to cast me a racist when I gave evidence to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, to explain that repealing the Safety of Rwanda Act would 'encourage illegal immigration'. I was right, it has. She brushed this aside by asking what Migration Watch meant by the word 'indigenous' on its website. She now, it seems, is committing to talking to gig economy companies about what they intend to do to stop the illegal migrant workers, who are helping them make huge profits. The real question is, what are you going to do about it Minister? May I suggest that, if you are serious about stopping blatant law-breaking and removing one of the major incentives for migrants to make their way to the UK, you should: Ban the likes of Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat from permitting their drivers to rent out their accounts. Impose punitive fines on the companies that turn a blind eye to this dangerous practice. Make clear that migrants found to be working illegally while awaiting a decision on their asylum application will not be granted asylum. Require the companies to control and monitor the issue of licences. Applicants for these accounts must be properly vetted to ensure they have the right to work, but also ensure they do not pose a danger to those they deliver to — especially women and the elderly. The business model for these companies thrives on easy-to-hire deliverers. While that may serve their interests and those of migrants and trafficking gangs, it does nothing for the taxpayer. Hard-working Brits are effectively subsidising the practice, by providing free accommodation and benefits to the migrants, who are, after all, people who have broken into our country and then been housed and looked after. They have to be stopped.
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump administration accuses judge of defying Supreme Court in deportation fight
June 24 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration accused a federal judge on Tuesday of defying the U.S. Supreme Court's authority, escalating a fight over a group of eight migrants who it had sought to rapidly deport to politically unstable South Sudan. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy showed "unprecedented defiance" by ignoring Monday's decision by the justices that let the administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. Monday's decision lifted the Boston-based judge's April 18 injunction requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination. It was the latest legal victory for Trump at the Supreme Court in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. After the Supreme Court's decision, Murphy issued an order clarifying that its action did not apply to the judge's separate May 21 decision that the administration violated his injunction in attempting to send the migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." Murphy's May 21 order prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to clarify that its order lifting Murphy's injunction also applies to the May 21 decision concerning South Sudan. "The district court's ruling of (Monday) night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals," the Justice Department wrote in its filing. The Justice Department said its agents are being "forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict." The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The escalating dispute comes as the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders, including in the third-country deportation litigation. Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent on Monday that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on to El Salvador, the administration "openly flouted two court orders" issued by Murphy. Sotomayor also pointed to separate litigation over Trump's invocation of an 18th century law historically used only in wartime to justify deportations - a legal dispute in which questions have been raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case. "This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law." Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates the U.S. Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. Lawyers representing the migrants in a class action lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to reject the administration's latest request. The administration wants to "deport these men to South Sudan with no process at all," the lawyers said. "The lives and safety of eight members of the nationally certified class in this case are at imminent risk," they added.
