BBC Trust gender bias? Proven correct!

[dandarez]

first go here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/...


then go here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29001...

Rona Fairhead?

Pepsi all round.

[Asterix]

I live in Dubai - Last trip home I watched a bit of Childrens TV on the Beeb with my nephew. As I'm sure it's representative of the UK, why is everyone now gay and black?

[anonymous-user]

Hey Dandarez, have you been Head of the FT Group, and a non exec at HSBC and Pepsico? I haven't, but Rona Fairhead has. But, oh, she only got the BBC job because she's a woman. No doubt she only got those other gigs because she's a woman, too. After all, if someone says that something might happen, and it does happen, that's conclusive proof that it was always going to happen, isn't it?

[Pit Pony]

Breadvan72 said:

Hey Dandarez, have you been Head of the FT Group, and a non exec at HSBC and Pepsico? I haven't, but Rona Fairhead has. But, oh, she only got the BBC job because she's a woman. No doubt she only got those other gigs because she's a woman, too. After all, if someone says that something might happen, and it does happen, that's conclusive proof that it was always going to happen, isn't it?

I can't explain why my wife isn't a CEO of a major corporation, maybe it's because erm, she's also a woman. (and has no experience, qualifications, or interest in becoming one)

I'm not a CEO of a major corporation as I'm erm a bit medicore. Perhaps if I had a gender reassignment ?

[bitchstewie]

I'm sure she's qualified for the job so in that sense it's a non-story.

That said, I've never quite understood how if I were an employer I can't discriminate against someone on the grounds of their race or gender but I could discriminate in their favour of it because that would be diversity.

You'd think it would be as simple as choosing the person best qualified for the job.

[Randy Winkman]

bhstewie said:

I'm sure she's qualified for the job so in that sense it's a non-story.

But the Telegraph has made it into a PC gone mad story before it actually happened. So their readers are reassured in their views that the BBC has gone down the pan along with all the other new-fangled EU nonsense that panders towards trendy gay Muslims.

[anonymous-user]

Yep, as this thread nicely demonstrates. I am never sure whether to have the mindset of the typical Mail/Telegraph reader (or Typical NPE whyohwhyohwhyer) would be a comforting thing (constant reaffirmation of prejudices and reassurance that there is no need to think for yourself, check facts, or do any of that complicated stuff) or would be rather distressing, as they always seem so upset about everything.

[anonymous-user]

to steal from Yes Minister, it's one of those irregular verbs;

We practice positive action, you discriminate, he's sexist.

Significant numbers of large business will have internal groups for women, or women only management development/coaching plans etc, doesn't make them 'PC gone mad'. It does annoy an amount of employees though, in every firm that I have had contact with one of the schemes.

[anonymous-user]

Positive discrimination remains mostly unlawful, but there are special provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that allow proportionate measures to alleviate under representation by a particular group. I am summarising broadly - the relevant provisions are sections 158 and 159. There isn't a general or wide get-out for positive discrimination.

PS - Spelling/Grammar Nazi says: PractiSe, please!

[Randy Winkman]

wsurfa said:

Significant numbers of large business will have internal groups for women, or women only management development/coaching plans etc, doesn't make them 'PC gone mad'. It does annoy an amount of employees though, in every firm that I have had contact with one of the schemes.

In my experience they are usually the ones that were quite happy when things were all slanted in favour of white, heterosexual men.

[anonymous-user]

Strangely enough, we don't get all that many threads complaining about the persistent under representation of women in senior public and private sector jobs.

[Fittster]

Asterix said:

I live in Dubai - Last trip home I watched a bit of Childrens TV on the Beeb with my nephew. As I'm sure it's representative of the UK, why is everyone now gay and black?

How do you know the sexuality of the performs on children's TV? Maybe you're reading to much into the relationship between big and small.

The only black character I'm aware of is Rastamouse.

[anonymous-user]

I always thought that Dangermouse and Penfold were a bit camp. OMG they're poisoning our kidz with this gayist bum love filth OMG OMG OMG!!!!

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Positive discrimination remains mostly unlawful, but there are special provisions in the Equality Act 2010 that allow proportionate measures to alleviate under representation by a particular group. I am summarising broadly - the relevant provisions are sections 158 and 159. There isn't a general or wide get-out for positive discrimination.

PS - Spelling/Grammar Nazi says: PractiSe, please!

You try dealing with US firms for a while - it gets infectious.

Surely you mean positive action rather than positive [b]discrimination[b]? Positive discrimination is illegal, positive action is not as long as it's to take special measures aimed at alleviating disadvantage or under-representation experienced by those covered by protected characteristics.

You can hire the gay/BME/female/male etc in preference to the non-disadvantaged or non-under-rep group if they are as able. You can't 'hire the woman because you have none on the board', if she's not as good as the other male candidates. If she was as good, then you could.

PH - pointless pedantry matters

[anonymous-user]

Randy Winkman said:

wsurfa said:

Significant numbers of large business will have internal groups for women, or women only management development/coaching plans etc, doesn't make them 'PC gone mad'. It does annoy an amount of employees though, in every firm that I have had contact with one of the schemes.

In my experience they are usually the ones that were quite happy when things were all slanted in favour of white, heterosexual men.

The most common complainants are successful women and unsuccessful men, in the context of gender positive action.

[Martin4x4]

I agree the women should have equal opportunities, but how about having the same equal opportunities for the working class. The fact is the opportunities available for upper and middle class women still vastly eclipse those available to the working class of both genders.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/population-trends-rd...

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Strangely enough, we don't get all that many threads complaining about the persistent under representation of women in senior public and private sector jobs.

Tech world is probably the same/worse. Cisco have about 50 odd women's networks, and diversity programmes etc, yet have no female exec officers .

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

I agree the women should have equal opportunities, but how about having the same equal opportunities for the working class. The fact is the opportunities available for upper and middle class women still vastly eclipse those available to the working class of both genders.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/population-trends-rd...

Socio-economic inequality is the biggest thing going, but isn't something you can legislate away. Socio-economic factors also help to explain why relatively few ethnic minority people reach the upper echelons of the job market.

People bang on about Oxbridge and so on, but the problem is not elite universities (something we need more of, not fewer) but access at earlier stages of the educational process.

[anonymous-user]

wsurfa said:

Surely you mean positive action rather than positive [b]discrimination[b]? Positive discrimination is illegal, positive action is not as long as it's to take special measures aimed at alleviating disadvantage or under-representation experienced by those covered by protected characteristics.

...

Yes, but I was summarising.

[otolith]

There was a radio 4 interview recently with the CEO of a publishing group. She pointed out that 2/3 of their section heads are female, and then said (I paraphrase) that women were intrinsically better at the job. I did wonder what would happen if the head of a male dominated board justified it by saying the same thing.