Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

I think that sentance is the most disturbing.

Nope, 3 hours a week. If you calculate the minutage of the news currently aired, it's probably not far off 3 hours a week in peak time already (as Vine falls outside peak time, it seems).

Why? An organisation which represents the British public should reflect the British public. 51% of Britons are women.

It's disturbing in that it should be the best qualified people for the job - regardless of sex.

Also, in this 'modern age', we have a generation growing up believing a person's gender is now fluid and shouldn't be defined, so surely there should be no specifics about percentages of gender at all...

Yes it could be a 70, 30 percent split in favour of women, and I wouldn’t mind as long as those chosen were chosen because they were the best people for the job. It’s a disservice to both male and female license fee payers to inforce this rule and an insult and toany capable woman who get one of these jobs who will forever be wondering if they only got the job because of quoters to fill. This kind of policy should quite frankly be illegal.

Representation on air is a completely different issue and just because a woman is in charge doesn’t mean programming they commission is going to be any more representive to women. I’d argue it could lead to the opposite, as they don’t have the worry of having to equally appeal to both genders.

This policy gives a woman an unfair advantage in applying for a job than men.

The issue you're all forgetting is that those who have the best qualifications on paper are all men, because men on average have better education and career opportunities.

So both of you have rushed to say that having no quota is the best way to equality, and in doing so have just reinforced a patriarchal society.

Change doesn't happen without changing the framework or system which has reinforced the problem in the first place. A quota is quite effective in ensuring women get a significant amount of experience to then be able to compete with men in job applications in the private sector, and a lot of modern policy is encouraging the public sector to play a stepping stone for women looking for experience.

So no it's not dangerous. It's reasonable policy.

Men have better education? What are you talking about? The system I know was equal to all.

Anyway what’s wrong with giving those who have better education and career experience the best jobs, if that in the employers belief means they are going to do a better job?

Your views simply don’t treat everyone equally. And you’re suggesting a woman who can learn on the job should be chosen over a bloke who can do the job on day one.

You’re being sexist thinking that men and women should be treated differently.

It’s any employers job to employ the best person for the job in hand, and not see gender at all. In some jobs being a woman and the experiences that tend to go with it, in itself brings something so that could indeed be a contributing factor to getting the job. But arbitrary targets mean people could unfairly miss out on a opportunity and mean licence fee payers of both genders could get a worse product when both genders are paying for it.

Lets be hypothetical for a moment and say the BBC had a management job open tomorrow for a service aimed at women, there are 50 male candidates and 12 of them are female but the best female candidate in terms of giving the best service to a female audience, in a female interviewers eyes was the sixth best candidate. Under this rule they'd be forced to give the job to someone who wasn't going to best serve the female audience needs.

What I don't think you realise is your views are show a personal deep rooted patronisation to women.

How not to start a debate.

Some actual figures, if anyone cares:

"Currently, 48.8 per cent of its staff are women, and women make up 41.3 per cent of its senior management roles." (The Independent, 2016: "BBC pledges women will fill half of all roles as part of new diversity targets")

The BBC belongs to the country and should be leading the way in equality. The target of 50% is very ambitious, but luckily the decisions won't be taken on this forum.

The Beeb will already be under pressure over the pay gap between male and female presenters...

Your suggestion is gender in itself is an atribute in any job role. The question should be who is the best person for the job, and who's going to give licence fee payers the better service.
You are clearly not supporting equality though. Equality means having an open mind and choosing someone on what they can bring not their gender, race, sexuality etc. You think an arbitrary figure should be reached regardless of talents. You don't want the BBC to treat each applicant equally.

I don't see what this brings to the conversation at all.

You haven't added to the discussion in any way. You've posted a couple of links which are irrelvent to the points being made and not constructed an argument at all.

True. But if these quotas for increased news and current affairs on BBC radio have come from the commercial sector, then they should be forced to up their game by regulatory monitoring as well.

I’m all for gender equality.

Seeing the stats in the management roles significantly makes the 50% that much more attainable. How ever the 2020 time frame is quite ambitious. That being said I thought it would be much lower.

How will they go about meeting that goal is what puzzles me. Will they suddenly reconsider all current managers or make them redundant? Will they had more “senior management” positions - which correct me if I’m wrong the BBC was under fire for having too many managers.

Also important is the pay. Say a woman is hired from outside the BBC for position that became available. Will she automatically get the same pay the previous manager made (male or female) or will she be placed in the same grade but at a lower step* until she has some tenure?




The 95% figure seems astonishing to me. There’s a reason why shows a made in sound stages as it’s cost prohibitive to film on location. There may not be infrastructure or crews in place to film a show regionally. Plus I assume they’ll have to pay for lodging for the crews. I doubt there’s enough skilled talent for every production locally. Is it possible that the 95% quota to be filled for location shots to identify landmarks (establishing shots) or just scenes that take outside?

* I’m not sure what the U.K. term for grade and step would be or if it’s the same in the U.K.. A grade would correspond to the level or responsibility while a step usually increases with time or as general pay raise.