You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)
May 26 2022 3.53pm

BBC (again)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 142 of 148 < 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 >

 

View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 10 May 22 11.16am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Come on Bluejay. This is nothing but token casting designed to look 'right on'. They have been building up to it for a few years now.
The show is drowning in purposefully targeted wokery. The media loves trying to please minorities, but forgets the majority who pay for them. 4% of the population are ridiculously overrepresented and for what?

I hope the shows ratings fall off the chart. The only positive is that Russell T Davies actually knows how to write good, albeit sexuality obsessed stories.

I'm with you on this one Hrolf. It was always an all the family drama, albeit with a mild undercurrent of progressive politics (the Daleks as the racially pure, master race etc.). Now it is just an exercise in inclusivity presented as drama. It is very bad indeed.

BTW, I am becoming a bore on this, but the BBC have to do this inclusivity thing as there is secondary legislation tied to the Equality Act that requires it. If you don't like it, stop moaning on message boards and write to your MP.

I am not sure what the BBC will do if freed from the legislative shackles, but it couldn't be as bad as the kak they are spitting out now to obey the law and keep the Charter.

On this, don't waste your breath with a tory MP. They hate this woke crud too. However, they are mostly ideologically bent against the BBC and I suspect are more than happy that the law forces them to alienate more viewers every day.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 10 May 22 11.18am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

OK, so you are using that as justification?

I'd say that complex issues do not belong in simplistic sci fi programs mainly for kids when presented in this way.

I accept that TV shows have been using social issues as the basis of fiction for a long time, but when, for example, Star Trek did their race episode back in the '60s, it felt far less political.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 May 2022 8.10pm)

Bang in the middle of the US race riots..?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View silvertop's Profile silvertop Flag Portishead 10 May 22 11.20am Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by Badger11

More on the BBC spending our money. I forgot the beeb has just blown 80m on relaunching BBC3 chasing the yuff audience who has responded with complete indifference.


Good point about low lighting and mumbling although this is true for most other broadcasters as well.

[Link]

Surely "yout"??

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View mezzer's Profile mezzer Flag Main Stand, Block F, Row 20 seat 1... 10 May 22 11.30am Send a Private Message to mezzer Add mezzer as a friend

Originally posted by YT

BBC News last night reported on the TV BAFTA awards earlier in the night. The report highlighted that "It's a Sin", although much-nominated, didn't win a single award. The voiceover then said (paraphrased) that if a drama series with such a subject matter (AIDS) can't win a award, then one has to wonder how the BAFTAs can remain relevant to young people.

Pick the bones out if that! My reaction was: "Eh?!!". In the olden days (love 'em or hate 'em) I'm sure TV awards were given on the basis of technical, artistic etc achievement. Now the relevant BBC correspondent thinks BAFTAs should be awarded simply because a programme was about the gays. Baffling.

I heard this too YT and thought much the same, but also that I was just getting old.

Awards to be given out on subject matter alone? But only on the "right" subject matter.

 


Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 10 May 22 11.49am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Gary Lineker's salary is 1.3 million a year.....he's contracted for three more years.

Can anyone seriously regard that as a good use of license fee money?

There are bound to be good pundits willing to do that job for what....100 or 200 grand a year.

But instead it's progressive jobs for the boys/girls/thems.....whereas we live in a country that mainly votes in Tory governments.

So much for their most vaulted 'representation'.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 10 May 22 11.56am Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Andrew Lawrence on Doctor Who's latest choice.

[Link]

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 10 May 22 12.03pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

Bang in the middle of the US race riots..?

Yep, but it didn't take sides.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 10 May 22 12.28pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

I'm with you on this one Hrolf. It was always an all the family drama, albeit with a mild undercurrent of progressive politics (the Daleks as the racially pure, master race etc.). Now it is just an exercise in inclusivity presented as drama. It is very bad indeed.

BTW, I am becoming a bore on this, but the BBC have to do this inclusivity thing as there is secondary legislation tied to the Equality Act that requires it. If you don't like it, stop moaning on message boards and write to your MP.

I am not sure what the BBC will do if freed from the legislative shackles, but it couldn't be as bad as the kak they are spitting out now to obey the law and keep the Charter.

On this, don't waste your breath with a tory MP. They hate this woke crud too. However, they are mostly ideologically bent against the BBC and I suspect are more than happy that the law forces them to alienate more viewers every day.

Silvertop, are you able to provide any more specific details (which section of which Act, any accompanying guidance etc?).

I have become increasingly concerned about this. My place of work is proudly compelling me to discriminate, very much against my will. Specifically:

1. When I interview candidates, I must form a panel which is diverse in terms of race and gender. I am so dull as to only occupy one of each, so I had to ask a female colleague of Asian heritage to join me on the panel regardless of her personal suitability for the task, and also explain that if she can't make it, I need to find another non-white female because in the eyes of this insane woke legislation, you lot are all the same.

2. They are introducing targets (quotas) regarding the racial composition of the workplace, which they want me to factor in when deciding who to employ. I researched this, and found that generally speaking positive discrimination is illegal under (then EU, perhaps now just UK?) law, because any form of discrimination is illegal. However, there is a clause allowing a place of employment to introduce race as a criterion for employment if that organisation feels that a particular racial group is disadvantaged at that time.

I looked into this further. From what I could gather, firstly, race could only be used as a kind of tie-breaker (i.e two candidates had to be equally appointable before race could be used to separate them). Secondly, the employing company doesn't need to demonstrate to anyone that a particular race is, as a matter of fact, disadvantaged in order to introduce positive discrimination - they just have to believe it is so. Thirdly, even if an employer feels a racial group is disadvantaged there is no compulsion to use positive discrimination, it is a choice an employer can make.

It seems to me that far from positive discrimination being forced upon my employer by the regulations, it is my employer who has actively chosen this path.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Online Flag 10 May 22 12.35pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

I'm with you on this one Hrolf. It was always an all the family drama, albeit with a mild undercurrent of progressive politics (the Daleks as the racially pure, master race etc.). Now it is just an exercise in inclusivity presented as drama. It is very bad indeed.

BTW, I am becoming a bore on this, but the BBC have to do this inclusivity thing as there is secondary legislation tied to the Equality Act that requires it. If you don't like it, stop moaning on message boards and write to your MP.

Yeah, that's gonna work.

Wouldn't not moaning about this on forums come across as manufactured consent?

Besides, we all know that all this is only the letting off of steam. Despite some thinking what's said on here as having dramatic consequences we are but a grain of opinion sand on a world's worth of beaches.

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View CrazyBadger's Profile CrazyBadger Online Flag Ware 10 May 22 12.51pm Send a Private Message to CrazyBadger Add CrazyBadger as a friend

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.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Online Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 10 May 22 1.13pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

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.

One suspects not.

 


I used to put the manager's name in front of Red and Blue but got fed up with changing it. If someone cool becomes our manager then maybe..

Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Nicholas91's Profile Nicholas91 Flag The Democratic Republic of Kent 10 May 22 1.23pm Send a Private Message to Nicholas91 Add Nicholas91 as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Silvertop, are you able to provide any more specific details (which section of which Act, any accompanying guidance etc?).

I have become increasingly concerned about this. My place of work is proudly compelling me to discriminate, very much against my will. Specifically:

1. When I interview candidates, I must form a panel which is diverse in terms of race and gender. I am so dull as to only occupy one of each, so I had to ask a female colleague of Asian heritage to join me on the panel regardless of her personal suitability for the task, and also explain that if she can't make it, I need to find another non-white female because in the eyes of this insane woke legislation, you lot are all the same.

2. They are introducing targets (quotas) regarding the racial composition of the workplace, which they want me to factor in when deciding who to employ. I researched this, and found that generally speaking positive discrimination is illegal under (then EU, perhaps now just UK?) law, because any form of discrimination is illegal. However, there is a clause allowing a place of employment to introduce race as a criterion for employment if that organisation feels that a particular racial group is disadvantaged at that time.

I looked into this further. From what I could gather, firstly, race could only be used as a kind of tie-breaker (i.e two candidates had to be equally appointable before race could be used to separate them). Secondly, the employing company doesn't need to demonstrate to anyone that a particular race is, as a matter of fact, disadvantaged in order to introduce positive discrimination - they just have to believe it is so. Thirdly, even if an employer feels a racial group is disadvantaged there is no compulsion to use positive discrimination, it is a choice an employer can make.

It seems to me that far from positive discrimination being forced upon my employer by the regulations, it is my employer who has actively chosen this path.

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.


 


Here's to you the famous red and blue.....

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 142 of 148 < 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > BBC (again)