Seb Briggs
Distinguished Member
Have you given it back to here? You've needed it enough in the past.
Why don’t you just admit you made a reasonable mistake
Have you given it back to here? You've needed it enough in the past.
Are you sure you're not confusing the BBC with Sky Sports news. It's either that or we have a different take on aesthetic beauty.The BBC are past masters at employing people who they think can "look better playing the part," or satisfying targets, rather than being able to do the job as well as someone more qualified, regardless of race.
It also amazes me the number of attractive female auto-cuties they employ in a presenter role. That's all about chasiing ratings
Oh, is it just me that dreams of being rugby tackled in baby oil by Clare Balding then?Are you sure you're not confusing the BBC with sky sports news. It's either that or we have a different tale on aesthetic beauty.
I've always though the BBC was the opposite. I can't think of any eye candy.
Politically correct, yes, focused on beauty. Definitely not.
Do you want to ignore these too? ...I'll ignore the silly remarks from others who haven't a clue.
Moorhens are about 13 inches (33 cm) long with the sexes just about indistinguishable.
Sexing individuals in a population is important in many ecological and life‐history studies. Since many bird species are monomorphic, non‐invasive tools are necessary for sex determination. In this study we utilized flow cytometry to sex individuals in a moorhen population of northern Italy. By improving previous laboratory protocols, we were able to obtain clear and repeatable measures of DNA content from field blood samples. The per cent difference in nuclear content between male and female moorhens was among the highest values reported for birds. We also utilized a discriminant analysis of seven morphological measures to investigate whether birds can be sexed on the basis of biometry. Tarsus and foot lengths were the most influential variables in gender discrimination. However, only 13 females and 10 males (77%) were correctly sexed, while six females and two males were wrongly assigned. When juvenile moorhens were excluded the discriminant analysis correctly sexed 90% of the birds. Since morphometric comparisons with English moorhen populations showed that discriminant bio‐metrical values are geographically different, and thus not useful as universal sexing tools, we recommend the use of the cytometry technique for sex determination.
Do you want to ignore these too? ...
Here's some info from a research paper...
(PDF) Sex identification in the moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) by flow cytometry and morphometric analysis
PDF | Sexing individuals in a population is important in many ecological and life‐history studies. Since many bird species are monomorphic, non‐invasive... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGatewww.researchgate.net
You need to get in touch with this lot and let them know how easy it is
Are you're talking about Carrie Gracie?BBC were found guilty of some massive gender gap - and these were real ones, females with the same job role, doing the same job being paid significantly less.
Okay a lot of that was historic and rightly and wrongly things like that happened. But at the time it was uncovered was in modern day where it clearly wasn’t acceptable and at a time when the BBC were preaching inclusivity and diversity to the world. You would have thought then the BBC would have immediately said “we were wrong, this is what we are doing to put it right” but they didn’t. Wronged female employees have been forced to take legal action against the BBC, and some are still to be resolved, just to get what the BBC are telling us is the right and just thing.
If they really believe in inclusion and diversity then they should sort out their discriminatory renumeration schemes without have to force legal action.
Do what we say, not what we do. Total bunch of hypocrites.
Cheers,
Nigel
Cheers,
There's a lot ignorance on display by some people on here. Why don't you stop letting the right wing media do your thinking for you and do a little research instead of simply perpetuating the prejudices the press barons have towards the BBC.
I don't work for the BBC.Do you work for the BBC ? You certainly seem to exhibit the same editorial flexibility. Just call everyone who disagrees with you stupid and far right. That should do the trick.
I'll admit when I'm wrong. I wasn't aware of this case. I take back what I said.After all, it has always worked before....
Samira Ahmed verdict further damages BBC's reputation on equal pay
Decision means corporation is likely to face more cases and further public embarrassmentwww.theguardian.com
It's not Hypocrisy at allStill ongoing....
Edit: Hypocrisy much ?
BBC One - Panorama, Britain's Equal Pay Scandal
Jane Corbin travels the UK to meet the workers who are fighting for pay equality.www.bbc.co.uk
I don't work for the BBC.
I haven't called anyone stupid, ignorant maybe, but that's not the same thing because you can rectify being ignorant.
I also haven't called anyone far right, I've pointed out most of our press is right wing (fact) but that's not the same as 'far right'.
I’d have thought that The fact panorama included a report that also criticised the BBC would highlight the lack of bias in the organisation
I don't think the BBC is perfect. I don't think it's representative and said at other times, The BBC is a cosey club for middle class white men. Much of it's programming doesn't reflect the diversity we have in the UK. They've made some progress in recent years but it's mostly been tokenism. They should be commissioning people from different backgrounds, both in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic, to make programmes. To tell stories of the lives of people from all communities. Despite that there's still a lot to admire about The BBC.My apologies, I've just read my post back, and it comes across as a bit harsh on you, which is not how it was meant to come out.
Like yourself, I'm not much impressed with most of our media at the moment, neither the right wing press nor the far smaller left wing press. Which is why trust and impartiality in the BBC is more important than ever - and they are failing miserably in the eyes of many, including myself.
Take the Cliff Richard story - rather than give Sir Cliff an apology - which was all he wanted - the clowns who went to court cost the BBC £2m and then wanted to spend more money appealing the decision. All because they didn;t want to admit they were in the wrong. Those people are still there, careers unharmed.
Sir Cliff Richard: BBC pays £2m in final settlement after privacy case
But the star says he's still "substantially out of pocket" after his victory in a privacy case.www.bbc.co.uk
The journalists who outed Savile, however, were marginalised and forced out....
BBC forced out team behind Savile exposé, says ex-Newsnight journalist
Meirion Jones claims corporation bosses viewed as ‘traitors’ those who sought to expose the presenter’s crimes or criticised its mistakeswww.theguardian.com
Not impressed with BBC at all...
Alright @imightbekatehumble know it allThe smaller of the two will be the female
Is this what it’s like to be in the @Doghouse Riley ?
Perhaps it's time to eat some Kate Humble pie?
You're not, this is for a co-produced pay channel in Africa. It is actually paying money towards programming for people in the UK. Have a look at what BBC Studios (the commercial wing of the BBC) do before presuming you are paying for everything with a BBC logo on it.As an example, of the "too many fingers in too many pies," I mentioned earlier, here's a job opportunity I've singled out at random amongst many being advertised by the cash strapped BBC.
Editor, Gist Nigeria
Job Introduction
Gist Nigeria is BBC Africa’s pioneer co-production with a dynamic team that produces stories being talked about for the social media generation.
As someone who only wants to watch a few TV programmes on any channel, why should I be paying for this?
Yep, posted earlier and got no responseYou're not, this is for a co-produced pay channel in Africa. It is actually paying money towards programming for people in the UK. Have a look at what BBC Studios (the commercial wing of the BBC) do before presuming you are paying for everything with a BBC logo on it.
We're not paying them, the commercially run BBC World News is (100% funded by subscription and advertising revenues).
Yep, posted earlier and got no response