captainarchive
Distinguished Member
I'm not sure what you mean.Ooh, don't mention that, it goes against the Great Replacement!
I'm not sure what you mean.Ooh, don't mention that, it goes against the Great Replacement!
one of the driving tinfoil theories of the far right - about whites being replaced; surveys and promotion of the countryside to BAME persons is currently one of their biggest paranoias - so mention of white working class being included is at odds with their narrativeI'm not sure what you mean.
No, it's the whole bunch of them in Europe (including UK) and US. I presume you didn't scroll down that Wikipedia page. Regardless, I knew the various movements here and abroad long before seeing a Wikipedia description. Also known as identitarianism, which sounds cute and cuddly compared to supremacy.That is about French far right.
I worked for a County Council and during the 1990's. I was asked to do some work for The Countryside Commission who wanted to know why so few BAME people visit The Countryside. So I got in touch with 200+ BAME community groups and asked them to get their members to each complete a survey, we got back more than 2000 questionnaires. The biggest reason given for why BAME people didn't visit the Countryside was feeling unsafe because they thought they might be racially attacked. The second reason was BAME people said they didn't know 'how to use The Countryside'. Not knowing where to go, what to do was also the main reason given by lower income white people for not visiting, a group The Countryside Commission wanted information about, so we did a separate survey for that group as well.
The general idea is that no one really knows were they are going. It's meant to be an adventure.
Yes there is a countryside code of conduct, read up on it, plan a route etc. If you go in the wrong field, you'll be pointed in the right direction. If people bring the city swagger they'll be told off.
Racially attacked by whom, a white rabbit, a pheasant. It's not Lord of the Rings is it.
Would that make them subject to complaints to the ASA for miseading advertiing? I see they have Mrs Brown's Boys listed as "comedy"...Can they not put on 7 minutes of third party commercials instead
Interested by the recent news about a ‘Question of Sport’.
On the face of it, it looks like Sue Barker, Matt Dawson and Phil Tufnell have been sacked - in that they haven’t naturally chosen to move on and have been replaced, in fact they have all stated that they wanted to stay on.
And it sounds like the ‘new direction‘ is to replace them with more diversity which means younger, female, BAME.
Be interesting to know whether kicking Sue, Matt and Phil out requires big compensation payouts for breach of contract - because as far as I can tell the roles are remaining apart from illegal discrimination requirements like “must be BAME”, ”must be younger”, “must be female”. Possibly they are on rolling annual contracts that don‘t have to be renewed - in which case that is a employment law issue.
But on another side. I was watching it yesterday, it is not a programme I often watch but I do dip in now and then.
One thing that always strikes me is the breadth of the sporting knowledge that Matt and Phil have. I’m not that into sport myself so I am quite amazed by how much they know - often the guests are just into their specialist sport leaving Matt and Phil to handle everything else.
I can’t imagine they are going to be very easy to replace.
It will be interesting to see how the experiment works. One of the stated primary aims is that the QoS audience is old and they want to encourage young BAME females to watch - will that happen, doubt it, suspect it is another case of trying to pamper to an audience sector that isn’t interested and never will be interested in the programme and disenchanting the loyal following that they already have.
I am already hearing a lot of displeasure about how Sue Barker (arguably one of the licence payers‘ biggest treasures) is being treated.
Cheers,
Nigel
Interested by the recent news about a ‘Question of Sport’.
On the face of it, it looks like Sue Barker, Matt Dawson and Phil Tufnell have been sacked - in that they haven’t naturally chosen to move on and have been replaced, in fact they have all stated that they wanted to stay on.
And it sounds like the ‘new direction‘ is to replace them with more diversity which means younger, female, BAME.
Be interesting to know whether kicking Sue, Matt and Phil out requires big compensation payouts for breach of contract - because as far as I can tell the roles are remaining apart from illegal discrimination requirements like “must be BAME”, ”must be younger”, “must be female”. Possibly they are on rolling annual contracts that don‘t have to be renewed - in which case that is a employment law issue.
But on another side. I was watching it yesterday, it is not a programme I often watch but I do dip in now and then.
One thing that always strikes me is the breadth of the sporting knowledge that Matt and Phil have. I’m not that into sport myself so I am quite amazed by how much they know - often the guests are just into their specialist sport leaving Matt and Phil to handle everything else.
I can’t imagine they are going to be very easy to replace.
It will be interesting to see how the experiment works. One of the stated primary aims is that the QoS audience is old and they want to encourage young BAME females to watch - will that happen, doubt it, suspect it is another case of trying to pamper to an audience sector that isn’t interested and never will be interested in the programme and disenchanting the loyal following that they already have.
I am already hearing a lot of displeasure about how Sue Barker (arguably one of the licence payers‘ biggest treasures) is being treated.
Cheers,
Nigel
Indeed, its almost like the BBC are trying to disenfranchise as many of their core audience as possible in the hope to attract a new younger more inclusive one. In this case its a shot in the foot imo. The lunatics have taken over the asylum and the result is an increase of frustration, annoyance and disbelief by the massive majority of licence fee payers. The UK as a percentage has around 3.8% of its population made up of BAME people (as of 2018) but the BBC at present has a larger percentage of BAME presenters than is the national average. I believe they are looking to increase this to over 30%? I have no issues with this but I wonder what percentage behind the scenes are BAME. I would hazard to guess its much lower than the national percentage in higher/executive positions within the BBC. I firmly believe that the BBC are doing a very good job on their own in turning public opinion against them irrespective of the #defundthebbc lobby.
Let them get on with it.
As for the current QoS presenters I think their contracts were up for renewal as I believe they were contracted as self employed negating the BBC from falling foul regarding the ageism at work employment laws?
I have no idea why you're angered at my post. I don't watch sky etc so I don't subscribe because its shite.The change from established presenters to new ones is always a bit anguish inducing but it's entirely understandable and there's probably the same feeling now as when Sue Barker came on-board.
They have another series to produce then it's a move to a new team. The BBC will have monitored viewing figures and demographics and have probably decided to make a change now to make the programme viable long-term before a decline sets in.
You have to be getting on a bit to know who Sue Barker & Co. are. She may well be given other projects to work on and you still see her on tennis coverage. She may well have said she didn't want to continue.
You are referring to programme trails so people are aware of new programming and what's coming up on the channel. Even commercial TV does it and then they add the real commercials on top.This just about sums it up for me.
Just watched the news on BBC1 and after it they've spent 7 minutes advertising BBC shows. Can they not put on 7 minutes of third party commercials instead and I won't have to pay their tax! The BBC is most def not commercial free. It's just free of everyone else's commercials.
I have no idea why you're angered at my post. I don't watch sky etc so I don't subscribe because its sh*te.
Unfortunately if I think the BBC is sh*te I have to take drastic steps to stop funding it.
Sorry, not something I want to pay for or care about.The BBC is a resource for the country and is not about individual viewing preferences - it's far more than a few TV stations. The TV licence funds a huge amount more than the BBC TV channels and that is largely forgotten or misunderstood by many.