OT GB News

[ramAnag]

We've had two 'debates' recently, and with both I just decided to let you have the last word. Both centred on statistics and/or data provenance to prove/reinforce a point and I know who was right and who was wrong, but you seemed determined to have the last word. That habit (in many of us) has been the cause of a lot of the 'techiness' MA talks of, and I just decided to 'let it go', that's all.

Tbf we haven’t really had two debates recently that you’ve patronisingly ‘decided to let me have the last word’ in.
What’s actually happened is, imo, that you’ve been wrong three times and unable to accept it.
It’s colossally boring but the first one centred about the local government/DDDC claim about the shortage of HGV drivers being the result of Brexit. You said they hadn’t said that and I provided you with written evidence that they had.
If I’m wrong and you’re right about that then tell me how.

Then when Tricky started banging on about the BBC providing no programmes for pensioners, the white middle class and heteros exuals - or some such nonsense - you jumped in to suggest that two of the programmes I’d cited contained an over-representative number of non white people.
I again provide evidence specifically about the main characters in ‘Line of Duty’ and the presenters on ‘Countryfile’ but again you wouldn’t have it and then chose to withdraw.
Again please tell me how those two programmes contain an over representative number of black/minority participants. Just think about the characters/presenters.
If I’m wrong and you can show me how I’ll accept it, apologise even, but to just say...you ‘decided to let me have the last word’ and ‘I know who was right and who was wrong’ isn’t an argument...it’s just an untypically childish avoidance strategy.

[Trickytreesreds]

Tbf we haven’t really had two debates recently that you’ve patronisingly ‘decided to let me have the last word’ in.
What’s actually happened is, imo, that you’ve been wrong three times and unable to accept it.
It’s colossally boring but the first one centred about the local government/DDDC claim about the shortage of HGV drivers being the result of Brexit. You said they hadn’t said that and I provided you with written evidence that they had.
If I’m wrong and you’re right about that then tell me how.

Then when Tricky started banging on about the BBC providing no programmes for pensioners, the white middle class and heteros exuals - or some such nonsense - you jumped in to suggest that two of the programmes I’d cited contained an over-representative number of non white people.
I again provide evidence specifically about the main characters in ‘Line of Duty’ and the presenters on ‘Countryfile’ but again you wouldn’t have it and then chose to withdraw.
Again please tell me how those two programmes contain an over representative number of black/minority participants. Just think about the characters/presenters.
If I’m wrong and you can show me how I’ll accept it, apologise even, but to just say...you ‘decided to let me have the last word’ and ‘I know who was right and who was wrong’ isn’t an argument...it’s just an untypically childish avoidance strategy.

Seeing as you used me in your strop, I'm pulling you up.
My nonsense you harp on about sums up your rant perfectly.
Just because you don't or want to believe it, it isn't true so must be rebuffed.
That in essense is what AF is saying. He can't be arsed trying to argue with you, because you won't budge nor will you accept anything that goes against what you don't want,

I didn't make it up about the BBC, I read these things and lots of folks are disgruntled with them, as license withdrawals show,
A disgruntled 55 year old BBC licence fee payer wrote to the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, bemoaning the lack of programmes being made for older people who, in their opinion, were a substantial audience base that the BBC should be better serving. According to reports in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, the response from the BBC’s Audience Services Department said it was not feasible to target older viewers whose tastes were so varied. This response, it has also been reported, comes at a time when the BBC is looking to invest in a strategy to entice younger viewers back from online streaming services, like Netflix.

But you are obviously wounded, so carry on.

[ramAnag]

Seeing as you used me in your strop, I'm pulling you up.
My nonsense you harp on about sums up your rant perfectly.
Just because you don't or want to believe it, it isn't true so must be rebuffed.
That in essense is what AF is saying. He can't be arsed trying to argue with you, because you won't budge nor will you accept anything that goes against what you don't want,

I didn't make it up about the BBC, I read these things and lots of folks are disgruntled with them, as license withdrawals show,
A disgruntled 55 year old BBC licence fee payer wrote to the BBC’s Director General, Tim Davie, bemoaning the lack of programmes being made for older people who, in their opinion, were a substantial audience base that the BBC should be better serving. According to reports in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, the response from the BBC’s Audience Services Department said it was not feasible to target older viewers whose tastes were so varied. This response, it has also been reported, comes at a time when the BBC is looking to invest in a strategy to entice younger viewers back from online streaming services, like Netflix.

But you are obviously wounded, so carry on.

Okay Tricky, out of deference to MA’s well made point yesterday let’s try and keep it objective.

You and AF share a ‘thing’ about the BBC. AF referred (post #92) to them ‘failing to forge a connection with white middle class Britons due to its focus on the BAME community’, and you joined in (#95) by suggesting that the BBC was ‘hounding pensioners again’ by not making programmes for them.

I responded by saying that, as both a pensioner and a licence fee payer (neither of which you are) I don’t agree, and asking you to clarify what you mean by TV aimed at ‘pensioners’ and what you imagine suddenly happens to people at 60, 65 or whenever that suddenly makes them change their viewing habits?

You haven’t done that, or even tried, but Andy returned to say that two of the programmes I’d cited as appealing equally to ‘pensioners’ as younger people (‘Line of Duty’ and ‘Countryfile’) were over represented by BAME/non hetero***ual characters.

I asked him to explain and he mentioned some unsubstantiated statistics including a reference to IMDb and ‘wiki’ figures.

So let’s resort to some common sense facts here.
Nine of the top ten (most significant) characters in ‘LoD’ are white as are the majority of the cast.
Moving to ‘Countryfile’ let’s consider the main presenters...John Craven, Ellie Harrison, Matt Baker, Adam Henson, Sean Fletcher, Steve Brown (disabled), Helen Skelton, Tom Heap and Anita Rani.

Of those the latter is a British (Bradford) born Asian and Sean Fletcher is mixed race...born in NYC and brought up in Zimbabwe and Es***.

Where then is the ‘over representation’? What are you and Andy making such a fuss about, and can we please stop putting folk in boxes according to age and skin colour and just treat them as...people?

[Trickytreesreds]

Okay Tricky, out of deference to MA’s well made point yesterday let’s try and keep it objective.

You and AF share a ‘thing’ about the BBC. AF referred (post #92) to them ‘failing to forge a connection with white middle class Britons due to its focus on the BAME community’, and you joined in (#95) by suggesting that the BBC was ‘hounding pensioners again’ by not making programmes for them.

I responded by saying that, as both a pensioner and a licence fee payer (neither of which you are) I don’t agree, and asking you to clarify what you mean by TV aimed at ‘pensioners’ and what you imagine suddenly happens to people at 60, 65 or whenever that suddenly makes them change their viewing habits?

You haven’t done that, or even tried, but Andy returned to say that two of the programmes I’d cited as appealing equally to ‘pensioners’ as younger people (‘Line of Duty’ and ‘Countryfile’) were over represented by BAME/non hetero***ual characters.

I asked him to explain and he mentioned some unsubstantiated statistics including a reference to IMDb and ‘wiki’ figures.

So let’s resort to some common sense facts here.
Nine of the top ten (most significant) characters in ‘LoD’ are white as are the majority of the cast.
Moving to ‘Countryfile’ let’s consider the main presenters...John Craven, Ellie Harrison, Matt Baker, Adam Henson, Sean Fletcher, Steve Brown (disabled), Helen Skelton, Tom Heap and Anita Rani.

Of those the latter is a British (Bradford) born Asian and Sean Fletcher is mixed race...born in NYC and brought up in Zimbabwe and Es***.

Where then is the ‘over representation’? What are you and Andy making such a fuss about, and can we please stop putting folk in boxes according to age and skin colour and just treat them as...people?

Christ where do I satrt with this? It's all about "your" bubble.

Yes I don't have a license. MY choice, because terrestrial tv offers nothing of interest to me, to justify paying for it.
Ok that limits my exposure, but was more than enough pre license to know.

The BBC is over represented by BAME, in proportion to UK population statistics. That is a fact.

It insists on over flooding this- FACT https://slippedisc.com/2020/12/bbc-d...ew-programmes/

This then encorages positive discrimination in job applications. That is racism, FACT https://www.rt.com/uk/527158-bbc-rec...alling-racism/

A pensioner, is aged 65 till death. The older the pensioner, the more housebound they are.
This limits their scope of interest and my grand parents yearned for the nostalgic programmes they loved.
The BBC, with its new guidelines has its hands tied down now, as the WOKE brigade find their tastes demeaning.
It is also the the reason why the BBC can never make a decent comedy again (allo allo/blackadder/little britain/monty python/red dwarf etc) to racist/***ist/violent/transphobic/imperialistic and on and on and on. WOKE wins.

So the BBC(openly admits) it is targetting the young generation with all the wacky issues it promotes in an attempt to hook them into buying a license. It will fail.
They don't care about tv on at 7/8/9 o'clock. They want it now/when they want/on the move. They will pay for that.

Where then is the ‘over representation’? What are you and Andy making such a fuss about, and can we please stop putting folk in boxes according to age and skin colour and just treat them as...people?
This last line confuses me a little.
What do you want the news for an example? Total up how many BAME appear on it.
Here's another gem for you. My dear old mum loves her Coro.
Yet I ask you to total up on that street, then get back to me.
1. The number of BAME on it in the regular slots
2. The number of gays/lesbians on it
3. The number of mixed relationships on it- always white against- middle asian(including muslim)/black/mixed. Never a mix of black/asian though.

This is supposed to be a terraced street in Manchester? Can you find me a street in real life that will reflect those percentages?
I can't comment on your other programmes, as I don't watch them.

What AF and I agree on. Is that the BBC (and the others) are force feeding their interpretation down folks throats, that in no way reflects real life.

The BBC in particular is supposed to reflect impartiality and fairness. It doesn't. We've just had a black woman play Anne Boelyn FFS.
Can you imagine the up roar if a white man was to play Nelson Mandela/ Martin Luther King?

The last line is perfect. Can we not just treat hem as people? Yes brilliant, fantastic.
Go have a word then with the media pushing this against normality.

[Andy_Faber]

Tbf we haven’t really had two debates recently that you’ve patronisingly ‘decided to let me have the last word’ in.
What’s actually happened is, imo, that you’ve been wrong three times and unable to accept it.
It’s colossally boring but the first one centred about the local government/DDDC claim about the shortage of HGV drivers being the result of Brexit. You said they hadn’t said that and I provided you with written evidence that they had.
If I’m wrong and you’re right about that then tell me how.

Then when Tricky started banging on about the BBC providing no programmes for pensioners, the white middle class and heteros exuals - or some such nonsense - you jumped in to suggest that two of the programmes I’d cited contained an over-representative number of non white people.
I again provide evidence specifically about the main characters in ‘Line of Duty’ and the presenters on ‘Countryfile’ but again you wouldn’t have it and then chose to withdraw.
Again please tell me how those two programmes contain an over representative number of black/minority participants. Just think about the characters/presenters.
If I’m wrong and you can show me how I’ll accept it, apologise even, but to just say...you ‘decided to let me have the last word’ and ‘I know who was right and who was wrong’ isn’t an argument...it’s just an untypically childish avoidance strategy.

Its a weird and wonderful character trait not only to not give up on a position of conflict with someone, but to then to not give up on that someone's giving up. If this was a business issue where the right and wrong actually mattered I could and would get very forensic about it the issues discussed, but its supposed to be a discussion amongst friends, so I considered withdrawing to be the classy thing to do.

Edit: In fairness to you, I did return to the source of our first disagreement, the Derbyshire Dales statement. Although you were incorrrectin claiming you reported it word for word, without embellishment, I was also incorrect in claiming that Brexit wasn't mentioned 'at all'. The communication you received and the one I received weren't the same, I'm guessing because you clicked a different 'how we contact you box' to me many years ago, and mine had different wording to yours, referring to Brexit only in passing. So on that basis we were BOTH wrong, and I'm self-assured enough to admit to and apologise for my error and (again) for any distress caused. Question is, are you?

2nd Edit: I've just read Tricky's last post and his observations after the part in bold nails it to be honest. The media in general, TV in particular and The BBC especially as the public pay for it, is producing output that in no way reflects real life. That's my issue, NOT with individuals, in fact ironically I part-sponsored the education of a young black actor who has now to some extent 'cracked it' on UK TV and good for him

[MadAmster]

Are things ever fully representative?

Before we hab Unions, the bosses had the upper hand. Kids and adults worked God knows how many hours a day on starvation wages and had to be grateful for it. Health and safety of workers was nowhere to be seen. Holidays? You'd get a Bank Holiday Off of you were lucky.

Then came the Unions and wages rose to decent levels, bit by bit. Annual holiday entitlement grew and grew. Conditions improved. Both worker and shareholder were getting a fair shake.

Then the pendulum continued to swing and the owners were almost subserviant to the workers.

Then came Maggie who saw it as her task to break the Unions and put the "peasants" back where they belonged. Unintentionally, aided and abetted by King Arthur, he thought he's win hands down, he didn't, Maggie got her wish and today the Unions are weak and the "1%" are once more ruling the roost.

Why this piece in this particular exchange on ethinicity and TV representation? It portrays the pendulum that is present in all things. Moving first one way in the extreme, then back to the middle before swinging to the other extreme prior to swinging back again.

Anybody who is surprised that ethnics and LGBTI are currently "in the ascendecy" aren't thinking properly. It was bound to happen. Just as certainly as it will swing back to the middle and probably further at some point in the future.

That's how things work.

[Andy_Faber]

Are things ever fully representative?

Before we hab Unions, the bosses had the upper hand. Kids and adults worked God knows how many hours a day on starvation wages and had to be grateful for it. Health and safety of workers was nowhere to be seen. Holidays? You'd get a Bank Holiday Off of you were lucky.

Then came the Unions and wages rose to decent levels, bit by bit. Annual holiday entitlement grew and grew. Conditions improved. Both worker and shareholder were getting a fair shake.

Then the pendulum continued to swing and the owners were almost subserviant to the workers.

Then came Maggie who saw it as her task to break the Unions and put the "peasants" back where they belonged. Unintentionally, aided and abetted by King Arthur, he thought he's win hands down, he didn't, Maggie got her wish and today the Unions are weak and the "1%" are once more ruling the roost.

Why this piece in this particular exchange on ethinicity and TV representation? It portrays the pendulum that is present in all things. Moving first one way in the extreme, then back to the middle before swinging to the other extreme prior to swinging back again.

Anybody who is surprised that ethnics and LGBTI are currently "in the ascendecy" aren't thinking properly. It was bound to happen. Just as certainly as it will swing back to the middle and probably further at some point in the future.

That's how things work.

You may be right, it may prove to be no more sinister or long lasting than silver cars, grey window frames or plastic roof finishings

[ramAnag]

Its a weird and wonderful character trait not only to not give up on a position of conflict with someone, but to then to not give up on that someone's giving up. If this was a business issue where the right and wrong actually mattered I could and would get very forensic about it the issues discussed, but its supposed to be a discussion amongst friends, so I considered withdrawing to be the classy thing to do.

Edit: In fairness to you, I did return to the source of our first disagreement, the Derbyshire Dales statement. Although you were incorrrectin claiming you reported it word for word, without embellishment, I was also incorrect in claiming that Brexit wasn't mentioned 'at all'. The communication you received and the one I received weren't the same, I'm guessing because you clicked a different 'how we contact you box' to me many years ago, and mine had different wording to yours, referring to Brexit only in passing. So on that basis we were BOTH wrong, and I'm self-assured enough to admit to and apologise for my error and (again) for any distress caused. Question is, are you?

2nd Edit: I've just read Tricky's last post and his observations after the part in bold nails it to be honest. The media in general, TV in particular and The BBC especially as the public pay for it, is producing output that in no way reflects real life. That's my issue, NOT with individuals, in fact ironically I part-sponsored the education of a young black actor who has now to some extent 'cracked it' on UK TV and good for him

Ah...I see, so you now accept that your ‘forensic examination’ of the Derbyshire Dales statement was actually an examination of the wrong statement. Unsurprising then that we reached different conclusions but then I was quoting, as I’ve made clear numerous times, from a document which, as a resident I was forwarded via email.
Absolutely no ‘distress’ caused, just frustration, and I too am sufficiently self confident to accept when I’m wrong...but if your ‘forensic’ skills involve looking at the ‘wrong’ (aka different) document then I honestly can’t see how that’s my fault.

As regards the BBC, you obviously agree with Tricky...I don’t. That’s just how it is, but I note that neither of you have come back regarding the assertions made regarding the BBC programmes I mentioned and have shifted the argument to Coronation Street which is made by ITV.
As it happens I grew up in an environment not far removed from fictional Wetherfield. I haven’t watched it for years so can’t comment on the characters...it is however what it is...a soap opera, based amongst the mean streets of Manchester and Salford and, as ever, doubtless prone to caricature and exaggeration...that’s why folk choose to watch them.

[Andy_Faber]

As regards the BBC, you obviously agree with Tricky...I don’t. That’s just how it is, but I note that neither of you have come back regarding the assertions made regarding the BBC programmes

I'll say again, there's no point, as the phrase goes theres none so blind as those who will not see, and my assessment is that you won't. My guess judging by MA's last post is that he sees it, and then offers a pretty irrefutable and fairly innocent reason for it, that its part of the ebb and flow of life - but (sorry to speak on your behalf MA and correct me if I'm wrong) he DOES see it. So does everyone I've ever heard discuss it. I even heard a comedian (on BBC Radio!) make a joke of it recently

[Trickytreesreds]

I'll say again, there's no point, as the phrase goes theres none so blind as those who will not see, and my assessment is that you won't. My guess judging by MA's last post is that he sees it, and then offers a pretty irrefutable and fairly innocent reason for it, that its part of the ebb and flow of life - but (sorry to speak on your behalf MA and correct me if I'm wrong) he DOES see it. So does everyone I've ever heard discuss it. I even heard a comedian (on BBC Radio!) make a joke of it recently

Everyone that takes notice, does see it.
RA I told you I cannot comment on your shows, as I haven't seen them.
As far as Coronation street goes-
Quoted by a former cast- Jean Alexander, the actress who played Hilda Ogden until 1987, said in a recent interview: “Every community has people who are gay and they are very nice people. I’m not running the Street down – and let’s not forget its creator Tony Warren is gay – but three couples seems excessive.”

Nick Cochrane, who played Andy McDonald, said: “How many streets in Britain would have schoolgirl lesbians, gay married couples, a trans***ual and children to gay couples? It is a little bit far-fetched.”

BAME characters, well you have to watch it to see.

I'm not against any of the above, but why does it have to be so heavy one sided?
It's not normal, folks know it isn't and it becomes off putting.
It's box ticking, whilst discriminating against others. The old for example, feature very little in it now.

The mixed race relationships/gay relationships/bi relationships? It becomes laughable.

I thank MA for his point, and yes he may be correct. They are over compensating and the pendulum may swing.
But it seems that every flavour of the month minority issue, has to be played out for all its worth in tv shows now.

Gay love/ racism/ police brutality/ BLM/ People trafficking and so on.

Only thing that's not been rammed down throats yet through it, is global warming and Rubber boaters.
But the year isn't over yet.