The Problem with Dr Who has been the quality and ludicrousness of the storylines.. ever since Russell T Davies left.
I hated Tennants Dr (it was the way he Gurns whilst running!), but the Storylines were excellent. Conversely, Loved Matt Smiths Dr, but they had confusing, overly woke sensationalist crappy plots, each episode trying to usurp the last big doctor revelation.

Thats continued to this day with Capaldi and Whittaker. One can only hope that Davies' return brings with it a return to watchable TV.

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

TBTP:

I encountered similar problems:

1. When Interviewing candidates we had to have a diverse panel
2. When compiling a shortlist from applicants we needed at least one female applicant to be selected for interview.
3. We were subject to scrutiny if nobody with a disability or 'BAME' was interviewed or even employed within a set number of appointments.
5 We had a quota to meet for female employees appointed.
3. If you ticked a 'diversity' box on applications, you were immediately put through to interview without any meritocracy, or at least the very minimum being applied. This was literally a 'box' to be ticked by the applicant.

Often organisations will develop their own 'diversity' policies, usually to meet either legal or self imposed 'quotas'. Apologies as I am unable to provide any factual information for help but I actually work in a smaller team now and am unaware of how this might of changed. Just thought I'd let you know you're not alone but my strong suspicion would be that your company will be scrutinised by certain public bodies if they do not meet any 'diversity' targets and therefore have self imposed certain practices. At the very least, god forbid, somebody may stir up the weakest in society by 'leaking' on social media and cause uproar.

It is nice to see that rather then tackling any problems however the world is still committed to going to the other extreme as a counter-action.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

true, i do recall some presumably-straight white British men on one of their Crime documentaries. Locked up and banging on the door of their cell.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

a straight white british man ? on the bbc ? is he a joke Right-winger ? a shoe-in to lampoon the ridiculousness of Tory voters.

alan partridge, alf Garnet , Rab Nesbitt ?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

The Equality Act 2010 (Public Authorities and Consequential and Supplementary Amendments) Order 2011.

It widened the definition of "public authority" to include the BBC and Ch4 (both publicly owned).

From that enactment, the BBC was subject to the same legislative woke directive as your workplace.

I fully accept that it is in the interpretation where the issue may lie. Thus, even without the fear of losing Charter and the endless flow of complaints which will be determined by the complaints body in line with the Act, the BBC is staffed with sufficient media lovelies to still knock out largely woke crud.

However, we will also get humour that rubs against it and engage e.g., people who are funny rather than just diverse. And it will also permit documentaries that scrutinize and critique policies, supposedly made in the name of the Act that, in their true effect, actively discriminate against 87% of the population. That is, after all, one of the supposed purposes of the Fourth Estate which the BBC still proudly believes it is an important part of.

Thus, on your issue, I am no employment law expert. I would imagine (without looking it up) that the Act applies in full force to all public authorities and to any private body employing over a certain number of staff (50?).

But does the Act REQUIRE all those things you have highlighted? As in all things of this nature, whether it be health and safety or insurance conditions, certainly not. It it is all about risk aversion. The Act sets a minimum standard not some micro-managed dogma.

Nevertheless, employment lawyers and other HR experts have seen the Act, trawled through the case law interpreting it, and come up with a policy in place that is at the far end of the risk spectrum. They must create THE IMAGE of a "safe space" working environment with the thought only of avoiding expensive claims and reputational damage.

Thus, even if the staff are all males and a complainant woman gets turned down for a role, if they can demonstrate to the Tribunal that she is unsuitable AND can show a track record of preferentially interviewing women, they may have a successful defence. They are even more likely to win if they can show a high % of women properly employed and appearing on interview panels.

It is partly about compliance and partly about presentation via computer readable box-tick. It is the world in which we live.

There are plenty of straight white men on the BBC, trouble is they are generally poor role models, flawed, stupid, physically weak, cowardly, feminine stereotypes etc

It is basically saying that we will force the population to accept mass immigration and the integration of immigrants into society, institutions and the work place, and criminalize or vilify any attempt to subvert it.

There is our democracy.

The elites control our lives, and useful idiots and ambitious fools help them do it.

While we are on the subject of legislation here are a few gems that have either been proposed, passed or are in the works as it stands:

1. Covert Human Intelligence (Criminal Conduct) Act - these will legalise government agencies to commit crime with no limitations on what type of crime and is not restricted even to security services

2. Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - effectively removing the right to protest

3. Online Safety bill - will criminalise "misinformation"

4. Counter State Threats Bill - will criminalise whistleblowers

5. Human Rights Act Reform Bill - will remove individual rights in favour of the "common good"

6. Living with COVID plan - some COVID laws made permanent

7. WHO pandemic treaty - will allow the WHO to set criteria and control of declaration of any new pandemic and centrally control he response to it in terms of mandates, laws etc

All the above include deliberately vague language that is entirely at the discretion of government agencies to interpret.

There is no democracy.

I agree with you on much of this. Much of whatever 'culture war' is going is build around this really, as they pit left against right when bringing in restrictions to make one artificially sculpted clan think that they've got one other on their imagined opposites. The end game of course is just to strip away more and more rights from all people, so that they never bothersome to the power structures and those with 'actual' say and influence.

I supported the Iraq war and voted for Blair in 1997 to my eternal shame. I was clearly wrong on both and can offer no excuse for that.

Edited by W12 (11 May 2022 4.42pm)