Vocal Voices

It is making itself the news again with the announcement that it will commit £100m to increasing diversity on TV.

Why does it take any money at all?

It already bombards us relentlessly with its multi-culti programme adverts and audiences and commentators on very subject under the sun. It is now going down the quota route for everything.

The BBC has set itself a mandatory target - 20% of off-screen talent must come from under-represented groups. That includes those with a disability or from a BAME or disadvantaged socio-economic background.

In October last year, TV presenter and campaigner June Sarpong was appointed as the BBC's director of creative diversity, as it pledged to ensure 50% of on-air roles will go to women by 2020, with targets of 15% for black, Asian and minority ethnic groups [BAME], 8% for disabled people and 8% for LGBT staff.

Off air, the BBC promised at the time to increase the proportion of leadership roles filled by women from 44% to 50% by next year, and raise the share of such senior roles held by BAME staff from 11.5% to 15%.

And it is not only the BBC. It is other channels, entertainments, sports, and don't get me started on advertisers. I recognise that that there are problems, but what these people do not seem to understand is that their not-so-subtle propaganda is in danger of creating more and deeper divisions than already exist. If they keep hinting to people that they are racist just because of who they are then many might take the view that if they are being branded they might as well wear the T shirt.

I have paid my last yearly BBC licence tax. Once it runs out I can get Netflix, Prime and NowTV one day passes for about the same price. I win.

The BBC is a complete laughing stock.

The trouble is, as you say, it's not the only organisation preaching politically correct / diverse / racist messages. I'll continue to treat them all with the contempt that I feel they deserve.

But I'm older generation now, and a voice in the wilderness. Welcome to your brave new world, whippersnappers.

Given that BAME are 18% of the population.

Now if they want to do this properly, then 50% of the BAME have to be women and 4% each for LGBT (identifying as, or actually, women) and 4% of LGBT (identifying as, or actually, men). Then another 4% of those 18% must be disabled men and another 4% disabled women. If any of the LGBT are disabled then the man or woman count can be incremented by one outside of the sex/disabled category.

Then the remaining 82% has to be white ethnic split 50% men and 50% women. Again the LGBT and disabled % come out of the 82% and are split 50/50 men women.

BAME will not be able to rise above 18% unless the population demographics change, equally white ethnic will not be able to fall below 82%.

This puts a glass ceiling on BAME and other diversity staff and if there isn't a quota, tough.

Personally I think that it deserves an annual FOI request to get the numbers, then a complaint to be made If the quotas are breached.

To level set my opinion on how to do it, I think this is stupid and totally unfair. But if they want to be stupid, then they should at least take it to the conclusion of their stupidity.

It does my head in, the religion of "Diversity". The great unchallengable. If you worked in the public sector and asked "Why is diversity automatically better than uniformity?", that would be your career over; and the people ending your career wouldn't be able to answer the question, either.
The unthinking worship of diversity has also been responsible for some terrible things. When the grooming gangs scandal emerged the authorities could have dealt with it fairly, openly and honestly. But that would have acknowledged that there are downsides to diversity, given the ethnicity of the perpetrators.
So they went for the second option. Suppress, intimidate whistle blowers, call everybody racists, blame the victims (which was particularly despicable) and deny everything. With the result that lives of many more vulnerable girls were ruined.
Anyway, to get back on track the BBC are fanatical about diversity to the point where history is being altered and truth denied.
Classic novel are being "repurposed" in BBC adaptations, repopulating them with female, black and Asian characters and contemporary themes – in order to cater to a diverse, 21st-century British audience. This is the idea of Piers Wenger, BBC's head of drama. Good ol' Piers thinks that not to do so would be "a dereliction of the BBC's duty".
So basically the BBC is lying, re-writing history. It is very Soviet. If the truth about the past doesn't suit, change it.
It's not for me.