BBC Announces £100m Institutional Racial Discrimination Measures in Bold Move Against Institutional Racial Discrimination

[Aexodus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/enter...-arts-53135022

There will also be three "tests" for diversity in the BBC's TV output, with programmes needing to meet two of them to qualify - diverse stories and portrayal on-screen, diverse production teams and talent and diverse-led production companies.

In October last year, TV presenter and campaigner June Sarpong was appointed as the BBC's director of creative diversity, as it pledged to ensure 50% of on-air roles will go to women by 2020, with targets of 15% for black, Asian and minority ethnic groups [BAME], 8% for disabled people and 8% for LGBT staff.

Off air, the BBC promised at the time to increase the proportion of leadership roles filled by women from 44% to 50% by next year, and raise the share of such senior roles held by BAME staff from 11.5% to 15%

From now on, the BBC will have quotas to meet for non whites, women, and the disabled. This includes both on screen and off screen employees.

I’d like to start by outlining how this will affect Northern Irish productions. Will this make our shows no longer marketable to a national audience? If so, it is an insulting slap in the face to not just our film industry but taxpayers too. Spending 100 million pounds on this is a waste in an apparently bloated budget.

This will require the corporation to know the ethnicities of each and every one of its staff, which throws a wrench into the idea of blind hiring. I thought the point of blind hiring was to prevent discrimination.

This policy hires workers based on inherent qualities and not on merit, this is unfair to those who are told they can’t hold a camera because they have the wrong coloured hands.

For historical shows, it will be a farce. For practical reasons, it is self evident why diversity quotas for pre-modern Britain is problematic.

And finally, the headline image from the article is from a show that isn’t even BBC produced. The only reason it seems to be there is because the cast of ‘I May Destroy You’ is mostly black. Not very representative.

I for one, disagree with this for the reasons outlined above. If you disagree please leave your thoughts below.

This thread is about racial quotas vs blind hiring, and not the definition of racism. Note that until now I have not employed that word. Please leave your academic treatises on the nature of racism at the door.

[Infidel144]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/enter...-arts-53135022

From now on, the BBC will have quotas to meet for non whites, women, and the disabled. This includes both on screen and off screen employees.

Are the percentages given representative of the population at large?

I’d like to start by outlining how this will affect Northern Irish productions. Will this make our shows no longer marketable to a national audience? If so, it is an insulting slap in the face to not just our film industry but taxpayers too.

You say that like it is a bad thing...

[Aexodus]

Are the percentages given representative of the population at large?

About 13% of the population is non white. About 81-82% of the UK is white British, but the percentage of let's say, 'europeans' is higher than that at 87%, meaning 5-6% is non British and white.

The amount of BAME required in a show seems to be somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. 20 is the figure given at the top of the article and by most headlines. That number would appear to be a minimum, and not a target.

You say that like it is a bad thing...

I'll let that slide...

[alhoon]

If BBC is private company, then while the whole effort is a waste of money, insulting, annoying and unfair to non-minorities... it's their business.

If BBC is publicly owned, then no, this should be reversed. Who gets the job should not be based on one's genitalia or sexual orientation.
As the source says 44% of leadership role is held by women. So... if in 2022 56% of leadership role is held by women would they spend cash to treat men fair and increase men from 44% to 50%?

Or is an English male simply disadvantaged in BBC because of his sex?
Is there a limit of 8% to LGBT people? Because I know a student of mine that lied he's bisexual when he's straight just to have a better chance to be accepted in an English college that had 2% of seats reserved for LGBT. If the limit is at least 8% LGBT, then it means that a black lesbian can apply for 100% of the positions while a white straight man can apply for less than 50% of the positions, probably around 45% of them.

And what's that with the 8% for disabled people? Does UK even have as many disabled people in the workforce? If not, you're simply disadvantaging non-disabled people.

Are the percentages given representative of the population at large?

Obviously not, the quotas are there to disadvantage white males.
At least BBC jobs cover things that women gravitate towards at more or less the same rate as men.
However, more women choose not to work than men. Which means, that there are 9 women and 10 men trying to fill 10 jobs. If you demand that 5 of the jobs go to women, then you end up with a slight advantage to women.

Not to mention: if out of your group of 9 women and 10 men, 6 women are qualified for 6 of the 10 jobs, you will have 6 women and 4 men. Congratulations to our powerful women.
If 6 men are qualified for 6 of the 10 jobs... tough luck qualified-guy-6. You were not born with a vagina. We will hire a less qualified woman based on her gender. Sucks to be you.

You say that like it is a bad thing...

because it is.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Which white executives at the BBC greenlighted this measure? Come on, call them out.

[Aexodus]

Which white executives at the BBC greenlighted this measure? Come on, call them out.

June Sarpong is the architect mainly behind this.

[Infidel144]

About 13% of the population is non white. About 81-82% of the UK is white British, but the percentage of let's say, 'europeans' is higher than that at 87%, meaning 5-6% is non British and white.

The amount of BAME required in a show seems to be somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. 20 is the figure given at the top of the article and by most headlines. That number would appear to be a minimum, and not a target.

And are 8% cripples and 8% LGBT?

[Cope]

This announcement should surprise no one. The BBC - which abandoned political impartiality some time ago - has been pursuing race-based affirmative action policies for years. Successive conservative governments have done nothing to stem the corps' open alignment with liberal philosophy and objectives, and I expect we'll get nothing from the Johnson gov't either.

[Cyclops]

Its very heard to break up patterns of prejudice in institutions. We've seen it in my country where the police forces needed a shake up an new brooms swept a lot of babies out with only so much bathwater. They mixed their metaphors shockingly as well.

The BBC has long had an image of being slightly clueless Fabian Oxbridge homosexual chaps from the Home Counties, and there was probably an over-representation of that demographic. Certainly it was a Boys' Club protecting shocking rapists like Rolf Harris and Saville (and no doubt many more who have been protected as Saville was while he was alive and able to testify).

I think we all agree the current cabal of police/BBC/MPs/Dukes etc who form the Great British paedophile faction need to go to gaol. Lets applaud a move to change that at least as the current culture in all those institutions stinks to high heaven.

There's no way to change a culture without insulting and harming individuals. Should the entire BBC staff be sacked and start again from scratch? I mean given the atrocious behaviour in the past, and clearly there are more worms in the wood there. I suppose you could make a case that as women are less likely to be paedos we should have a 100% women but that would just be the same shocking sexism that excluded them from public life for so long.

On the question of "race" its so fraught. The "white is right" brigade are so fragile and weepy, and seem to have caniptions when anyone else gets a look in (especially groups previously enslaved or genocided). Once again there's literally no way to do this without insulting and harming people. People who looked a bit African or Subcontinental were so rigorously excluded in the past, and the residue of that culture is so pervasive that breaking into it seems to require clumsy quotas that by definition put less qualified candidates ahead of better qualified ones.

OP does make a good case that Northern Ireland is less and less like Great Britain and more and more like the Republic. I guess Unification is the answer there.

[Cope]

Its very heard to break up patterns of prejudice in institutions. We've seen it in my country where the police forces needed a shake up an new brooms swept a lot of babies out with only so much bathwater. They mixed their metaphors shockingly as well.

The BBC has long had an image of being slightly clueless Fabian Oxbridge homosexual chaps from the Home Counties, and there was probably an over-representation of that demographic. Certainly it was a Boys' Club protecting shocking rapists like Rolf Harris and Saville (and no doubt many more who have been protected as Saville was while he was alive and able to testify).

I think we all agree the current cabal of police/BBC/MPs/Dukes etc who form the Great British paedophile faction need to go to gaol. Lets applaud a move to change that at least as the current culture in all those institutions stinks to high heaven.

There's no way to change a culture without insulting and harming individuals. Should the entire BBC staff be sacked and start again from scratch? I mean given the atrocious behaviour in the past, and clearly there are more worms in the wood there. I suppose you could make a case that as women are less likely to be paedos we should have a 100% women but that would just be the same shocking sexism that excluded them from public life for so long.

This has nothing to do with the BBC's affirmative action policies.

On the question of "race" its so fraught. The "white is right" brigade are so fragile and weepy, and seem to have caniptions when anyone else gets a look in (especially groups previously enslaved or genocided). Once again there's literally no way to do this without insulting and harming people. People who looked a bit African or Subcontinental were so rigorously excluded in the past, and the residue of that culture is so pervasive that breaking into it seems to require clumsy quotas that by definition put less qualified candidates ahead of better qualified ones.

The exact opposite is true: it is the grievance activists who are so desperately fragile that they howl at the moon when they are subjected to even mild scrutiny. And their cry bullying now has serious legal and institutional support. Filling up quotas will change nothing - just like filling up the ranks of the police with African Americans changed nothing in the States. A decade from now, the same people will be making the same complaints, confident that their embedded victim narrative will be met with the same sort of appeasement.

[alhoon]

- BBC is still one of the most impartial news sources.

- They are being turned to progressive lunatics, but so far this doesn't seem to affect their articles or publications. They still try to remain impartial in their depictions. Compare how neutral BBC sounds compared to actual propaganda machines like CNN or Fox.

The BBC has long had an image of being slightly clueless Fabian Oxbridge homosexual chaps from the Home Counties, and there was probably an over-representation of that demographic.

And that was accidental, not endemic, and nobody cared about it as BBC was truly equal opportunity employer while now it strongly advantages minorities and women while strongly disadvantaging straight white men.

Certainly it was a Boys' Club protecting shocking rapists like Rolf Harris and Saville (and no doubt many more who have been protected as Saville was while he was alive and able to testify).

I think we all agree the current cabal of police/BBC/MPs/Dukes etc who form the Great British paedophile faction need to go to gaol. Lets applaud a move to change that at least as the current culture in all those institutions stinks to high heaven.

And here starts the fiction... BBC never protected shocking rapists as they didn't have the power to do so. Also, obviously, they were never part of a cabal of paedophiles and nor is the police. Some MPs and a duke are suspected to be paedophiles and had their contacts in the police to cover them.
No need to disadvantage and marginalize white men that are neither dukes nor MPs nor Paedos in a random institution (BBC has no ties to such things) over it.

So, no. We don't all agree that BBC/police non-existing cabal should go to "gaol" (what is gaol?) nor that it stinks to high heaven.

There's no way to change a culture without insulting and harming individuals. Should the entire BBC staff be sacked and start again from scratch? I mean given the atrocious behaviour in the past, and clearly there are more worms in the wood there. I suppose you could make a case that as women are less likely to be paedos we should have a 100% women but that would just be the same shocking sexism that excluded them from public life for so long.

There is no need to change a culture that doesn't need changing. What we need to change is the current culture of ultra-progressives that promote crap like removing "ladies and gentlemen" to not offend the 0.1% of people not identifying as male or female. That is a goal I would support.
Of course, BBC's behavior was never atrocious although I agree there are worms in wood - of course they are, BBC is a big institution and influential broadcaster. But a few worms in a couple of the wooden furniture in the warehouse doesn't make BBC's behavior's atrocious.

I also disagree that women are less likely to be paedophiles. I just think it is more "socially acceptable" and many parents simply don't turn such women in.
A 41-years old married man that seduces a 16 years old is rightfully considered a disgusting human being and in many places is considered a criminal. A 41-years old married woman that seduces a 16 years old boy becomes the wife of the president of France when that 16-years old grows up.


So... we're left with the shocking sexism that punishes men for not being born with a vagina, exactly like how women were punished for being women 100 years ago.

[Cyclops]

- BBC is still one of the most impartial news sources.

- They are being turned to progressive lunatics, but so far this doesn't seem to affect their articles or publications. They still try to remain impartial in their depictions. Compare how neutral BBC sounds compared to actual propaganda machines like CNN or Fox.

I mostly agree, although they covered for Saville for decades. I mean investigations were quashed and reports suppressed. This is a matter of public record.

And that was accidental, not endemic, and nobody cared about it as BBC was truly equal opportunity employer while now it strongly advantages minorities and women while strongly disadvantaging straight white men.

So if you shoot someone accidentally they are still dead. The BBC was not an equal opportunity employer at it still has mostly men at the top and mostly "white" staff.

And here starts the fiction... BBC never protected shocking rapists as they didn't have the power to do so. Also, obviously, they were never part of a cabal of paedophiles and nor is the police. Some MPs and a duke are suspected to be paedophiles and had their contacts in the police to cover them.
No need to disadvantage and marginalize white men that are neither dukes nor MPs nor Paedos in a random institution (BBC has no ties to such things) over it.

You don't seem to realise how British society works. State institutions like Parliament, the police forces and the media work in harmony to protect high profile paedophiles. The Westminster dossier is an example, and at the risk of repeating myself the Saville case is another where the BBC actively suppressed information about a known offender..

As for there being "no need" to punish the BBC, I'll repeat THEY COVERED UP FOR A RAPIST.

So, no. We don't all agree that BBC/police non-existing cabal should go to "gaol" (what is gaol?) nor that it stinks to high heaven.

Well maybe further reading is needed on your part. Gaol is the correct spelling of jail (our US friends love their simplified language).

There is no need to change a culture that doesn't need changing. What we need to change is the current culture of ultra-progressives that promote crap like removing "ladies and gentlemen" to not offend the 0.1% of people not identifying as male or female. That is a goal I would support.
Of course, BBC's behavior was never atrocious although I agree there are worms in wood - of course they are, BBC is a big institution and influential broadcaster. But a few worms in a couple of the wooden furniture in the warehouse doesn't make BBC's behavior's atrocious.

Saville was only shamed after he was dead. Who needs to die for the next paedo to be outed? For all we know there's multiple Epstein at the BBC and so long as enough of them remain they protect one another.

I also disagree that women are less likely to be paedophiles. I just think it is more "socially acceptable" and many parents simply don't turn such women in.
A 41-years old married man that seduces a 16 years old is rightfully considered a disgusting human being and in many places is considered a criminal. A 41-years old married woman that seduces a 16 years old boy becomes the wife of the president of France when that 16-years old grows up.

According the courts 935 of convicted paedos are men, but as society stigmatises penetration with a penis more than fingers etc the number is possible as low as 75%. Once again, a bit of reading on your part could help here.

First hit on Google: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-...logist/6428710

So... we're left with the shocking sexism that punishes men for not being born with a vagina, exactly like how women were punished for being women 100 years ago.

If thats your takeaway fair enough, but I feel like you want to leave an organisation with a legacy of protecting paedos as well as continuing to exclude women etc alone because someone might be treated unfairly when it changes. That and similar arguments can be run to defeat almost any change.

[Mithradates]

[URL]This will require the corporation to know the ethnicities of each and every one of its staff, which throws a wrench into the idea of blind hiring. I thought the point of blind hiring was to prevent discrimination.

Blind hiring does prevent discrimination but thats just not enough here because it provides "just" the equality of opportunity, and the desired result here is the equality of outcome, right now, and without the necessary extra steps. The whole idea is counterproductive, hiring someone who is less capable, but has the right skin color, will just enhance the stereotypes.

Also, who is LGBT? Everybody can (and will) claim that they are bisexual.
Who is a "minority"? Who will decide who is white/black/etc? People will just claim that they are lighter skinned middle-easterns or whatever.

[Cope]

BAME onscreen representation is 23% in the UK, despite only 14% of the British population coming from BAME backgrounds. At the BBC specifically, the number is even higher at 26%.

[Genava]

Anyway, it was the logical conclusion after this:

[Exarch]

I was watching Robb Stark in 'The bodyguard' on Netflix and it was good until i saw the female sniper, the female swat trooper, the female terrorist mastermind...and it just got so ridiculous that it really affected the immersive ness of an otherwise great series. The point i'm making is that this sort of "equity feminist" bull is getting ridiculous and the fact that the UKG has time to waste resources on such pointless and inane in the middle of a pandemic and Brexit shows the sheer mess the UK is in right now.

[Aexodus]

The thing I wonder is, if a producer wanted to make a Band of Brothers-esque show for the British Army, would they be told, “No, that idea has diversity issues”.

[Cyclops]

BAME onscreen representation is 23% in the UK, despite only 14% of the British population coming from BAME backgrounds. At the BBC specifically, the number is even higher at 26%.

...yes there are plenty of BAME and women weather presenters. Meanwhile on the board its four women, eight men, and one Ashley. Tom looks a little less than chalky, the rest are snowy..

They need a clean out of management. Older white guys have been looking after older white guys who like to rape kiddies.

[Aexodus]

Excuse me but how will ethnic diversity reduce rape, and how does that justify racial quotas.

[Cope]

Excuse me but how will ethnic diversity reduce rape, and how does that justify racial quotas.

It won't and doesn't. The Saville and Harris scandals have nothing to do with the the BBC's affirmative action schemes.

Notwithstanding, at the same time as the corp is preparing to shell out an exorbitant £100m on enforcing racial quotas, they're cutting jobs in NI, Scotland and Wales to fund it.