1-in-6 Stars "must be gay or lesbian or disabled by 2020" says BBC

[Deleted]

There's already a Cbeebies (young childrens' tv) presenter with an arm that finishes by the elbow. There were complaints about her scaring kids but I'm pretty sure they stood firm.

Jeremy Beadle used to creep me out when I was little, it was my problem not his. They should stand firm in my opinion, then maybe the kids wouldn't be scared of it anymore.

[Cricket22]

I'm also curious as to what disabilities they count.

I'm pretty sure they count massively huge, 9 months pregnant.

Only way to explain changing the character of Leonard Burr, to "so pregnant, ready to pop" Angela Burr in BBC recent miniseries, The Night Manager", an adaptation of the John LeCarr book by the same name.

[Deleted]

This is stupid, it goes against everything that equality are, the person who have the best skill for the work shall have it, not becuse he/she love the same gender as themself or are crippled.

[Mad_Murdock]

As a progressive, let me just say . . .

That's just fucking stupid.

Don't write in these characters for the sake of tokenism.

As a non-progressive, knuckle dragging ape. I believe it's a necessary evil. Much like affirmative action. Either way someone get shit on. So why not shit on the group that overall has it best?

I don't believe as a whole, companies hire\promote the best person for the job. They hire who they feel most comfortable with (and expect to be capable to do it). For a corporate job, I'll have twice the ease of getting a job over someone with a neck tattoo and\or covered in piercings. If we look at the Gay movement, it's far more accepted now than before and in if you keep filling the TV with gay couples, it will become more and more acceptabe. Just like filling the screen with black characters. In the 60s Captain Kirk kissing Uhura was a big deal, now interracial couples are common TV.

I personally have no doubt there is a endless list of capable LGBT actors and actors with disabilities, but unless there is some push to get them more common, they'll be fairly limited in the number of roles offered.

I don't know what British TV is like. At least American TV "seems" to have plenty of LGBTers on TV. Of course, being a knuckle dragging ape, having just 1 LGBT on would be considered plenty in my book

[Gheld]

let alone that lesbians are .... well... gay..
gay is the umbrella term applicable to men and women.

Gay originated from pre-modern English to mean happy, light hearted, care free, etc. But by 1650 had gained pejorative use to refer to lewdness and immorality. It wasn't until the 20th century (the 1940s) that it started to be used to refer to homosexuals. However if the Flinstones theme song is any indicator it was well into the second half of the 20th century that it became broadly used as a term to refer to refer to homosexuality.

And people still use it to this day from it's earlier pejorative use towards things that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Most often these days to describe an unfavorable outcome.

But for most of the words existence it has referred to drunkards, patron's of prostitution and those of otherwise loose morals (libertine's essentially).

[Deleted]

quotas are fucking stupid.

i'd make this kind of shit illegal in america if i could.

but they work. Sadly, if you want to remove discrimination, this is an excellent way to do it, to catalyze culture change, until it become unnecessary.

- - - Updated - - -

This is stupid, it goes against everything that equality are, the person who have the best skill for the work shall have it, not becuse he/she love the same gender as themself or are crippled.

incorrect. In an ideal world, yes. But we dont live in one.
This kind of policy is necessary until you've implemented culture change.

[Endus]

but they work. Sadly, if you want to remove discrimination, this is an excellent way to do it, to catalyze culture change, until it become unnecessary.

The other side is that this is being implemented because the BBC hiring has not been representative, which is what led to the outcry in the first place.

Doing nothing means you're allowing discrimination to continue. In an ideal world, they'd be hiring gay and disabled actors to begin with, and we wouldn't NEED quotas, but we don't live in that world.

That's probably the simplest argument against quotas. Yes, they're a brute-force method. But they're also a method that would be utterly toothless if there weren't clearly a problem to begin with.

[Deleted]

tbh i thought the BBC already had a tonne of gay actors!
it would be good if they didnt need to focus on an actor/actresses personal life to cast them though.

what if they hire disabled gay actors, does that count as hiring two people ?

[Powerogue]

I guess we need to start breaking people's legs! Come on, who's first?

[TITAN308]

50 years from now headlines will read 1 in 6 actors are pedophiles.

I still have money on the table this will be the next protected class.

[May90]

An interesting question I ask myself sometimes is this: if there is a discrimination of a certain group of people, then can introduction of "flipped discrimination" lead to equilibrium in the end? For example, suppose 10% people are gay (I don't know the exact number, don't quote me on this), but only 5% of middle class workers are gay, and, suppose, we've established that the difference is solely caused by discrimination. Government starts the anti-discrimination campaign by issuing tax benefits to companies that have more than 10% middle class workers as gays. Apparently, companies start favoring gays over others; you could say others become discriminated. As soon as 10% of middle class workers are gay, the government stops the program. Is the problem solved? Will the percentage hold? Will it drop? Will it keep increasing by inertia? And how moral is all this?

[Heladys]

Quotas are stupid. Focus on eliminating biases from the processes, rather than focusing upon the end results.

If the best people get hired and it just so happens 99% of them are polyamorous transgendered minorities with speech impediments, more power to them.

[Indigenously Abled]

Thing is, yes I also noticed this and thought "well that seems kind of insulting for LBGT people"

But then I realised... isn't me thinking that very thought kind of insulting to disabled people

PC thinking is just so confusing and unstable, it's no wonder politically correct people are so confused and unstable

I thought the reverse initially, then went through the same flip-floppery. I feel robbed of my brain cells.

[breadisfunny]

QFT

What the hell is wrong with people these days.

they are stupid since they often stress the fulfillment of a quota over actual quality and making sure the right people are selected or that you are doing your job properly. example passing over better qualified applicants for ones that meet the quota hence while they are qualified you have just passed over a better person for the job than one that may be less effective at the job. They only really make sense when you are in the business of filling orders.

[Deleted]

I thought the reverse initially, then went through the same flip-floppery. I feel robbed of my brain cells.

I think if you're the kind of person that performs that kind of idiotic and insane mental gymnastics and don't feel robbed of brain cells, you become a SJW

[Deleted]

So Robbie Savage and Claire Balding presenting everything forever then?

Sound fanstic.

More tokenism on the BBC, just like they ruined mock the week and QI.

It's insulting to see people as gay or straight. Whatever floats your boat and it shouldn't make any difference or be used to turn down or denigrate anyone.

[Revik]

Why can't this just work like restaurants. Place gets shamed and ridiculed for being anti LBGT and then people stop going there. Like with Whole Foods or Chick Fil A.

Why does this require specific legislation? Doing this is just making some people more equal than others through no fault of their own.

[breadisfunny]

Hahaha. I can imagine the job interviews.

"So we really like your resume, and we'd like to offer you the role. Just one question though; Are you gay?"

"Um... no?

"Oh. Well, you don't happen to be transgendered then? Maybe a lesbian trapped in a man's body?"

"I... I don't think so."

*sigh* (Pulls out revolver, checks cylinder, slaps it shut) "Ok then, which kneecap would you like it in?"

aren't guns banned in britian? so that joke really doesn't make sense.

[Deleted]

As a progressive, let me just say . . .

That's just fucking stupid.

Diversity isn't something force. And there's nothing worse than tokenism. "Oh we put in this wheelchair bound character just so we could get a pat in the back from the disabled (oh sorry, differently abled) community." What a load of tripe.

Don't write in these characters for the sake of tokenism.

Maybe you should check out what is actually being proposed before condemning it.

[Deleted]

Doing nothing means you're allowing discrimination to continue.

Now its a bit harder to do in the media, but do the employment procedure "blind" the applicants submitting their "curriculum vitae" and "work samples" but the person who chooses who to employed do not know there gender or sexuela orientation skin color etc on the applicants, yes its harder to do in the media becuse focus is on personal charisma, but atlest you can do it in the early stage.

Personally, I'm fed up with "positive" discrimination, applied for several goverment jobs that I was very qualified for, but they are also very heavy male dominated and normally did end up as number 2 or 3 on the list, and they even say unofficial, that they need to hire a women to fix the big gender imbalance, maybe the women who did get the jobb was more qualified then me, I will nerver know, becuse you can always say she did have a better personal chemistry, but it feel sour to have a suspicion that I did not get the jobb becuse I did have the wrong gender.