Ofcom tells BBC to show more UK-made programmes

I'd understand the point if there was somehow a lack of well-educated or suitably-qualified women to hire for these roles - but there isn't. Quality of work won't (and doesn't, with their current attempts) decrease because of a quota - it helps to tackle any unconscious or conscious hiring practises.

That regional figure is not as impressive as it seems.

12 regions in England each do an hour of opt outs every weekday, plus inside out and the Sunday Politics, so call it 6 hours per week for the 12 main regions. Plus two sub regions doing half an hour per day.

((6x12)+(2x2.5))x52 weeks = 4004

Then add the nations news operations - basically the same without inside out

5.5x3x52= 858

So you're already approaching 5000 hours before you add in all the additional stuff the nations do, and one off documentaries in the English regions.

I'd say they are already exceeding that target quite comfortably.

10 min bulletin at 06:00hrs then, that should comfortably get them over the line, and considering the drivel that's R2 between 05:00 and 06:30, probably boost ratings ( If I'm driving at 06:00 it's normally R4 for me)

Please no! We deliberately don't have R2 on in the office during that show.

I like how people are claiming how there need to be balance and etc etc yet failed to deal with the underlying problems ie the education system, that to blame if its claimed men do better.

I have to say I agree with Jon on this one.

As a male university librarian working in a very female dominated environment, I still am against any type of quota. I would be uncomfortable with the idea of being employed on the basis of my gender and I am sure there are many women who feel the same. A person should be employed on the basis of the skills and competencies they have to perform the job for which they are applying. Gender should not play a part in that decision. If a woman happens to be the best candidate, then employ the woman. If it's a man, then employ the man.

The point about women's education being worse than men's is completely inaccurate. We're not living in Victorian times - girls and boys are entitled to the same basic free education - anything else is up to the individuals and their family circumstances. Statistically, it is a well known fact that girls out-perform boys in all the national tests. And I can say that at the university I work at, there are far more female students than male - they outnumber boys by something like 6 to 1. So the argument that women receive an inferior education is completely without foundation.

In a perfect world I'd agree with you - but the world isn't perfect. People, generally, prefer employing people like themselves (c.f. public school, Oxbridge, white, male etc.). Without some form of intervention, I believe, it becomes very difficult to change this behaviour. Quotas are a way of addressing this bias - until the pool of people appointing becomes more uniform, and then, hopefully, they aren't needed.

I agree they shouldn't be needed - but when you are applying for a job with one arm tied behind your back I can see why they are. (You only need look at what happens when identical job applications are made in male vs female, 'European' vs 'Asian' names etc. to see it's still a massive issue)

How would you feel if you missed out on a job due to your gender, despite being the person who in the eyes of the employer who will do the best job?

I think you put together a good but ultimately flawed argument. Gender in itself simply isn’t an attribute and attributes are what should be looked at when giving someone a job role.

And your argument also falls short because if the corporation had to give a particular job role to a female, simply because they are female. It may mean a candidate losing out who could give better representation to women, therefor female licencse payers lose out.

You talk about people who have a good education, as if it in itself isn't an attribute, if it has resulted in a more intelligent person, it is an attribute. You can't get away from that. It's a bit like (admittedly a public school boy) Michael Gove's “the British public have had enough of experts” statement.

Also this mandatory target would put a white woman who grew up in privilege in a better position in terms of getting a job, than a black man who grew up on a council estate with more to give to the role. How do you justify that?

Isn't that an argument for ensuring that women who have missed out on jobs, simply because they were women, can get these jobs? I.e. the better person for the role has often been skipped over for their gender.

In essence, all quotas do is redress discrimination, both current and past - and they do so quickly. It can discriminate against the individual, but is far less of an issue for the most competent men, who wouldn't suffer in a situation where there are multiple roles for the quota to be balanced across.

I don't even know where to begin.

Wow...



If you've ever been involved in appointing people to positions - it's very rarely that straightforward. It's relatively rare for one person to be an obvious 'best person for the job'. It does happen, but more often you are in a situation where you have a number of people who are all potentially able to fulfil the role, but with different strengths and weaknesses.

Ensuring you have a representative workforce isn't about penalising individuals, it's about not penalising groups who have been heavily discriminated against in the past. When you are in the situation of having a clear winner - that person will almost certainly continue to be appointed. When you have multiple candidates suited to the role, then at that point you are likely to look at how representative your workforce is, and take that into account when making appointments.



I beg to differ. Gender is still very much used as a discriminating factor in some areas - particularly in relation to maternity issues.



And it may not. That's a hypothetical, dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument. Similarly you could say that appointing a woman who doesn't like other women could be a bad move. That's not how life works...



No - I talked about people who went to Oxbridge. Not specifically about people who had a good education. Please don't put words into my mouth. It's entirely possible to get a good education away from Oxbridge, or a good education at Oxbridge. (I went to Cambridge - so I'm a Turkey voting for Christmas..). However the 'establishment' (not just the BBC) has historically had huge bias towards appointing people like themselves. Imagine you went to Reading or Aston University, were well qualified for a job, but went to an interview up against someone who had gone to the same Cambridge college as one of the interviewers. In times gone by that would have put you at a disadvantage. It shouldn't have, and companies should ensure it doesn't.

Replace 'went to Cambridge' with 'went to public school' (again no guarantee of a good education) or 'grew up on a council estate' or 'is black'... Same rules apply. Without some form of training or management - people will often appoint people more similar to themselves. It's psychology.



Only if you have mandatory targets (you usually don't) and only based on one 'attribute' (which you usually don't).

The reality is that companies monitor their workforce make-up, and have guidance for interviews and appointments aimed to redress weaknesses in their workforce representation of groups of people that are under represented. It's not a case of 'we have to appoint a woman' or 'we have to appoint someone from a BAME group', it's far more nuanced than that. To suggest otherwise is to over simplify to the point of caricature.

Come on, the BBC has masses more money than most privately owned TV channels which broadcast in Britain and an almost guaranteed source of income.

The question which hangs over the BBC is what material really should qualify for public service broadcasting.