The BBC: are claims of political bias justified? Part 2.

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Posted elsewhere and not the BBC per se, but a clear combat indicator for the direction of travel broadcast media wise.

On the subject of "diversity".

I sit on the council of a national charity. In order to publicise the work of the charity we have attracted a TV production company who are pitching a series on our work to Ch4. Who are very keen.

So far so good.

The Council met on Tuesday for a regular board meeting and were briefed, by the producer and presenter (a reasonably well known person)

Long story short the production company have now been appraised of the Ch4 diversity requirement. Part of which, and this apparently was in writing, was that no new programme or production would be comissioned or broadcast unless either the main presenter, or co-presenter, was BAME.

Full stop. No ifs or buts. Not implicit, not quietly spoken about , but there, specific and written policy. And by BAME what they really mean is B.
So C4 is discriminating, then.
 

TamH70

MIA
No question.

I even wondered if it was legal.

Oh, if it was a case of only white people allowed, it would most definitely be illegal.

Since it's to benefit IC3's and IC3's only, it's not only legal, it's Halal. Or that's what the Commie twats at Channel 4 and their lawyers would argue in court.
 

Truxx

LE
Oh, if it was a case of only white people allowed, it would most definitely be illegal.

Since it's to benefit IC3's and IC3's only, it's not only legal, it's Halal. Or that's what the Commie twats at Channel 4 and their lawyers would argue in court.
They must be very confident of their position in law, for them to comit such a po licy to paper
 
They must be very confident of their position in law, for them to comit such a po licy to paper
I suspect it's more a case of arrogance and a belief that no one would dare challenge them in court.

Were anybody to do so I suspect C4 would find that racial discrimination law applies accross all groups and not just some.

Sadly, at present I think they're on safe ground because I see no evidence of someone who is sufficiently pissed off and at the same time having the necessary deep pockets to pursue them in court.
 

Awol

LE
I suspect it's more a case of arrogance and a belief that no one would dare challenge them in court.

Were anybody to do so I suspect C4 would find that racial discrimination law applies accross all groups and not just some.

Sadly, at present I think they're on safe ground because I see no evidence of someone who is sufficiently pissed off and at the same time having the necessary deep pockets to pursue them in court.
It’s almost worth us all having a whip round to do just that.
 
Doubt it'll change much. They'll make a slight change to the wording and the written requirement will sink out of sight while maintaining the intent.

You may win but you'll be hounded and put under a microscope until they find something they can twist to destroy you. No one hates like the left.
 
Apparently "global" means France and China.
Beat me to it. What a ridiculous headline. It should read 'Woke Londoners are upset that China may be annoyed, and why didn't we include the EU?'

We need to see bylines on these pieces so we can tell who is pushing thus stuff.

If the current version of the BBC had been around in 1944, the D-Day headlines would have been

'Landings in France criticised by Germany and Japan. Hitler 'disappointed' by 'Allied aggression''

Later we'll be talking to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown about why the Normandy landings are another example of colonialism'
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Beat me to it. What a ridiculous headline. It should read 'Woke Londoners are upset that China may be annoyed, and why didn't we include the EU?'

We need to see bylines on these pieces so we can tell who is pushing thus stuff.

If the current version of the BBC had been around in 1944, the D-Day headlines would have been

'Landings in France criticised by Germany and Japan. Hitler 'disappointed' by 'Allied aggression''

Later we'll be talking to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown about why the Normandy landings are another example of colonialism'
But the unreported bit is Chinese expansionism - turning small island after small island into concrete aircraft carriers. Of course China’s Foreign Minister is going to act aggrieved - it’s politicking.

This isn’t being done to provoke China. It’s being done to check.
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
So Barnardo’s is yet another institution that has meekly submitted to the yoke of woke? How many white children have suffered FGM in this country? Or in any other, for that matter? How cowardly. How humiliating.

To get some idea of Barnardo's concept try looking at their video of men killing (it was actually men with guns hunting children) children in UK.
 

Truxx

LE
Or they see some form of social pressure trumping legal reality.

I suspect it's more a case of arrogance and a belief that no one would dare challenge them in court.

Were anybody to do so I suspect C4 would find that racial discrimination law applies accross all groups and not just some.

Sadly, at present I think they're on safe ground because I see no evidence of someone who is sufficiently pissed off and at the same time having the necessary deep pockets to pursue them in court.
Anecdotally I agree.

The proclamation caused not a ripple amongst the board. A couple expressed disquiet after the meeting, but collectively the response was to nod sagely and then start discussing who of colour might be suitable.

At which point all is lost. This nation is no longer colourblind.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Anecdotally I agree.

The proclamation caused not a ripple amongst the board. A couple expressed disquiet after the meeting, but collectively the response was to nod sagely and then start discussing who of colour might be suitable.

At which point all is lost. This nation is no longer colourblind.
And this is the point. There's no rational discussion.
 

Latest Threads

Top