Miriam O'Reilly wins age discrimination case against BBC

[jbi]

That BBC representative looked a little flustered on news24

The reporter could hardly contain her mirth

[Prof Prolapse]

Saddle bum said:

Prof Prolapse said:

[snip]

The countryfile team just walk around fields and interview bumpkins. It's not like there's any specific skills required other than the ability to read a card.

I personally would rather have someone asthetically pleasing doing so.

Are you implying Ms O'Reilly is not "asthetically pleasing", if so, methinks you complain to much.

I'll be honest she's a bit old for me but it's more the principle. I don't want to pay over a tenner a month to look at ugly people. That's why I don't have a bus pass either.

If they're exceptional at something else then it is fair enough but I don't believe that to be the case in this instance.

[singlecoil]

Prof Prolapse said:

Saddle bum said:

Prof Prolapse said:

[snip]

The countryfile team just walk around fields and interview bumpkins. It's not like there's any specific skills required other than the ability to read a card.

I personally would rather have someone asthetically pleasing doing so.

Are you implying Ms O'Reilly is not "asthetically pleasing", if so, methinks you complain to much.

I'll be honest she's a bit old for me but it's more the principle. I don't want to pay over a tenner a month to look at ugly people. That's why I don't have a bus pass either.

If they're exceptional at something else then it is fair enough but I don't believe that to be the case in this instance.

Sorry to hear she's too old for you, but at least she's not actually offensive to look at, which is exactly what her replacement is (unless one has a thing about unpleasantly thin women)

[Prof Prolapse]

Eric Mc said:

Prof Prolapse said:

Eric Mc said:

Prof Prolapse said:

I actually think the BBC should be allowed to descriminate based on looks.

I don't pay £145 a year to look at a some muzzled old trout.

Are you a fan of Shallow Hal?

I'd hate it if institutions like Patrick Moore were ditched just because they weren't pretty enough or young enough.

To be fair though Patrick Moore is a very charistmastic, intelligent and highly specialised chap who also happens to have the ability to present. I would think that combination is an essential prerequisite for his job so he is pretty irreplacable.

The countryfile team just walk around fields and interview bumpkins. It's not like there's any specific skills required other than the ability to read a card.

I personally would rather have someone asthetically pleasing doing so.

Doesn't matter a jot to me. Skill at presenting, knowledge of the subject and enthusiasm will do it for me. If the presenter possesses those atributes, then that will add up to "charisma".

By and large, the public prefer those types of atributes as well. Look at how popular odd looking presenters have been over the years -

Patrick Moore
Magnus Pyke
David Bellamy
Murray Walker
Peter Snow
John Sargeant

Addimitedly all male. Are we saying that there are two differnt sets of rules for how TV presenters should look - one rule for males and another set for females?

I agree Eric. If someone is talented then they should be kept on irrespective of their asthetics. I just don't consider the vast majority of presenters, including the lady in question, to possess sufficient talent to justify keeping them on if those in charge of the programme don't believe their appearance will appeal to the majority of viewers. I.e. shallow, spiteful and horrible people like me.

No, I fail to see why the logic shouldn't apply to both males and females but it's inevitable that I would have less interest in the former because of my sexual orientation.

[Eric Mc]

Prof Prolapse said:

Saddle bum said:

Prof Prolapse said:

[snip]

The countryfile team just walk around fields and interview bumpkins. It's not like there's any specific skills required other than the ability to read a card.

I personally would rather have someone asthetically pleasing doing so.

Are you implying Ms O'Reilly is not "asthetically pleasing", if so, methinks you complain to much.

I'll be honest she's a bit old for me but it's more the principle. I don't want to pay over a tenner a month to look at ugly people. That's why I don't have a bus pass either.

If they're exceptional at something else then it is fair enough but I don't believe that to be the case in this instance.

What an awful approach to life!

[Prof Prolapse]

singlecoil said:

Sorry to hear she's too old for you, but at least she's not actually offensive to look at, which is exactly what her replacement is (unless one has a thing about unpleasantly thin women)

Don't actually recall which one is her replacement actually.

As I said before, it's the principle.

[Eric Mc]

Prof Prolapse said:

singlecoil said:

Sorry to hear she's too old for you, but at least she's not actually offensive to look at, which is exactly what her replacement is (unless one has a thing about unpleasantly thin women)

Don't actually recall which one is her replacement actually.

As I said before, it's the principle.

Julia Bradbury replaced her. She's OK but far too thin for me.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 12th January 14:42

[off_again]

Prof Prolapse said:

I actually think the BBC should be allowed to descriminate based on looks.

I don't pay £145 a year to look at a some muzzled old trout.

Content is king.

If the 'muzzled old trout' has something valid, reasonable, sensible and its interesting to me, I dont give a hoot what she looks like. Give me quality programming that is well produced and delivered any day. You can keep your vacuous moronic bimbos as much as you like.

[Prof Prolapse]

Eric Mc said:

Prof Prolapse said:

Saddle bum said:

Prof Prolapse said:

[snip]

The countryfile team just walk around fields and interview bumpkins. It's not like there's any specific skills required other than the ability to read a card.

I personally would rather have someone asthetically pleasing doing so.

Are you implying Ms O'Reilly is not "asthetically pleasing", if so, methinks you complain to much.

I'll be honest she's a bit old for me but it's more the principle. I don't want to pay over a tenner a month to look at ugly people. That's why I don't have a bus pass either.

If they're exceptional at something else then it is fair enough but I don't believe that to be the case in this instance.

What an awful approach to life!

Consider the leaf cutter ant. When it is youthful it's highly evolved cutter is sharper than the best razor blade, but when it gets on in life it significantly dulls with age.

If the ants who are "past their prime" continue to cut leaves it will result in almost a 50% decrease in efficiency. So rather than cutting, the ants step to sidelines and carry the leaves cut by the more youthful ants and the colony thrives.

I'm not quite sure whether ants are contractually obligated to do so, or are perhaps coerced by senior ants, but the same logic applies.

Shallow horrid people like me will always exist and will always be inclined to prefer the better looking of the two so long as they are otherwise equally matched. So it benefits viewers and the producers.

[JagLover]

off_again said:

Prof Prolapse said:

I actually think the BBC should be allowed to descriminate based on looks.

I don't pay £145 a year to look at a some muzzled old trout.

Content is king.

If the 'muzzled old trout' has something valid, reasonable, sensible and its interesting to me, I dont give a hoot what she looks like. Give me quality programming that is well produced and delivered any day. You can keep your vacuous moronic bimbos as much as you like.

I don't think anyone is arguing that TV companies should hire solely on the basis of looks, but TV is a visual medium and the appearance of the presenter is ONE of the factors they can legitamatly take into account when choosing a presenter, others being knowledge, articulacy etc.

[Pesty]

Ive never heard of Miriam O'Reilly

what has she done before? what are her qualifictions that mean she is more able to present country file better than a younger prettier thing? did she get her break on telly when she was young and pretty?

Just watching Sky news now and the news ready is a rather tatsy straberry blonde I'm all for this getting rid of old hags

Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 12th January 15:15

[Eric Mc]

JagLover said:

off_again said:

Prof Prolapse said:

I actually think the BBC should be allowed to descriminate based on looks.

I don't pay £145 a year to look at a some muzzled old trout.

Content is king.

If the 'muzzled old trout' has something valid, reasonable, sensible and its interesting to me, I dont give a hoot what she looks like. Give me quality programming that is well produced and delivered any day. You can keep your vacuous moronic bimbos as much as you like.

I don't think anyone is arguing that TV companies should hire solely on the basis of looks, but TV is a visual medium and the appearance of the presenter is ONE of the factors they can legitamatly take into account when choosing a presenter, others being knowledge, articulacy etc.

Exactly. Dismissing someone MAINLY because they are considered too old is obviously incorrect. I think they could safely have gopt rid of her for all sorts of genuine OTHER reasons. Telling her to her face that it was because she was old and wrinkly (she's 52 for goodness sake - an age when many of us are in our prime) was just lunacy and asking for trouble.

[Prof Prolapse]

Do you not think that, television being a visual media, that asthetics should carry weight then?

I mean two equal candidates Eric, one is more physically appealing to the majority of the audience than another, who do you pick?

[Johnnytheboy]

1A said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And replaced by Julia Bradbury, also a woman in her 40s.

It's quite ironic that these ladies must have played a large part in making Countryfile popular enough to go primetime, only to get the boot.

[Eric Mc]

Prof Prolapse said:

Do you not think that, television being a visual media, that asthetics should carry weight then?

I mean two equal candidates Eric, one is more physically appealing to the majority of the audience than another, who do you pick?

Answer to your first question - it depends.

Answer to your second - no two people are exactly equal in every aspect of their looks, character or personality.

If I was chosing someone to present a programme, I would weigh up ALL their atributes based on what the show was about and and who the target audience was.
Looks and age might be considerations but they might not be the PRIME consideration.

And I would certainly not tell someone they were being dropped BECAUSE they were considered too old and wrinkly. That was just crass and downright rude.

Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 12th January 16:42

[singlecoil]

Johnnytheboy said:

1A said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And replaced by Julia Bradbury, also a woman in her 40s.

It's quite ironic that these ladies must have played a large part in making Countryfile popular enough to go primetime, only to get the boot.

I wonder if it really was popular enough, or whether the plan was that it should become popular enough after it was moved, thus being a cheaper way of filling that particular programme slot.

If they wanted to keep it popular with me, they should have made Juliet--Morris the main presenter.

[Eric Mc]

She used to be all over the BBC once upon a time.

Probably got dropped because she was too old i.e. 30 plus.