There are three elements that I have a major issue with regarding their decision.
1) The choice of questions asked was non-inclusive. Very similar percentages of men and women vote, and even if they didn't, "a range of questions from the audience including, the hunt for the vital women's vote" should not be acceptable, given that both men and women have had the same right to vote in the UK since 1928.
There is absolutely no reason to limit any questions to "the women's vote". This is an example of the BBC being non-inclusive, since they are far more concerned with one half of the population than the other, for no good reason.
2) The decision to have a women-only audience is utterly abhorrent.
The BBC have tried this trick before, on other talk and debate shows, and it was as bigoted and apartheid then as it is now.
The difference is, this is a political hustings. The BBC always has a duty to act in an impartial and balanced way, but to transfer these sexist and divisive decisions to their political programming is something they should not even be dreaming of doing.
Again, the BBC demonstrates how little it cares about representing the issues and concerns of half of the population of this country, and what's worse, in this case it is actively denying half of the constituents of Ashford the right to be heard. By any measure, the BBC has deliberately failed in its duty of impartial and balanced coverage.
3) Finally, exacerbating all of the above, and the final confirmation I needed that the BBC is utterly incapable of unbiased political reporting, is the fact that they pulled this stunt in the constituency J4MB are running for.
For some perspective: there are only five candidates standing in Ashfield, including Mike.
Out of those candidates, the BBC has deliberately decided to try to hobble Mike's election coverage, and deliberately manoeuvred the range of questions asked, to Mike's disadvantage.
J4MB have two prospective candidates running in the election. They are the first Western pro-male-rights political party to even run for election - as far as they know. And out of all of the 650 constituencies in the UK that the BBC could have chosen to use this travesty of a format, they happen to have chosen Ashfield.
This is very telling to me. It tells me that the BBC has abandoned even any slight veneer of impartiality they might have exhibited. It tells me they are not afraid to use their influence to deliberately drive a political agenda - even down to sabotaging one of the candidate's campaigns.
The following is from the BBC Guidelines, section 4, on impartiality.
"Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. It applies to all our output and services - television, radio, online, and in our international services and commercial magazines. We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.
The Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter requires us to do all we can to ensure controversial subjects are treated with due impartiality in our news and other output dealing with matters of public policy or political or industrial controversy.
The BBC Agreement forbids our output from expressing the opinion of the BBC on current affairs or matters of public policy, other than broadcasting or the provision of online services."
My conclusion can only be that the BBC has failed spectacularly in fulfilling their agreement, responsibility, and duty.
They are not impartial.
They are not balanced.
They are not even imperfect humans who are striving towards true objectivity even though they know it can never be truly achieved, because bias is a part of the human condition.
No, none of those.
They're simply Bigoted, knowingly Biased, and Corrupt.
(The BBC has an open comments section on their East Midlands (which includes Ashfield) Hustings. Please feel free to stop by and let them know your thoughts.