Home

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42623068 - The BBC confirmed it had replaced Robinson due to impartiality issues

See how fast they react when it's critcism of their own organisation yet when you make complaints to them regarding their impartial reporting of cycling incidents - mostly when people on bikes are mown down but when they are the alleged instigators or the accused with regards to incidents or  the whole helmet/hi-vis bollocks they report/show impartiality in swathes!

They shrug their shoulders and give you you the middle finger when you complain and carry on as before not being impartial and having a massively negative influence on people riding bikes and their ultimate safety and freedoms.

Wankers

Rant over.

7 comments

Avatar
alansmurphy [1824 posts] 6 months ago
4 likes

Puts popcorn in microwave and awaits Valbrona...

I do have issues with equality though, it's not equal. Equal pay at Wimbledon with women playing less sets (it's probably sexism that leads to them playing less sets). Same with Tour de Yorkshire. And don't get me started on equal rights when it comes to child care...

Tangent...

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2014 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes

presumptions made discrimination based on gender with respect to parenting abilities is a personal experience I found common. Even in court (though 20+years ago) despite evidence to prove the female was mentally unstable they automatically sided with the female because she was precisely that and came with all the tools and the male didn't.
There's nothing like agenda based bias and factless discrimination to fuck things up.

Avatar
peted76 [1105 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

There's nothing like agenda based bias and factless discrimination to fuck things up.

This^^ 

Equality in this world just winds me up.  (warning rant ahead)

It's all very good paying people the 'same wage for the same job' but this means that 'everyone's pay should go up right?' take the BBC, should 'all forgiegn correspondents get paid £250k when some are on £100k? The answer is no. 

There's NO discussion on the one bloke on £250k getting his pay cut (cause that's illegal right).. but I'd be mightly pissed if they 'all went up' becuase of this.

It's morally bankrupt that public money should fund everyone's pay rises. What should 'morally happen' is that the one bloke getting paid £250k should probably get paid a lot less, if he doesn't like it he can leave.

Everyone for a given job should be paid the same or given the same opportunity to be paid the same, in the case of the correspondents, there should be slight allowances for regional living allowances and probably a mirryad of other things I care not to think about, end of BBC rant. 

In the British Army we're not bad on equality, but eh?! to this:

Minimum Standards For Women: Press-ups - 21 • Sit-ups - 50 • 1.5 mile run - 13 min

Minimum Standards For Men: Press-ups - 44 • Sit-ups - 50 • 1.5 mile run - 10 min 30 secs

So women can't do press up or run a 7min mile, but they can do 50 sit ups, I just don't get it. Surely if we should account for phsyical disparity, then it could have been more like 35 press ups, 40 sit ups, and maybe 12mins (8min mile)..  who comes up with this stuff? 

On a more cycling note, how rubbish is it that the womens CX get lower barriers next year? That's surely a backwards step for equality. Many riders didn't/don't understand that desicion. But I want to know who would push this rule change through and why? A feminist or a chauvinist?

I'm absolutley loving the womens CX racing this year, it's great as you don't know who's going to win each week..and depends a lot on the conditions/course, however why are the races shorter than the mens if it's equal? ....OR, is equality in force there simply becuase womens hearts aren't as large as mens and it's 'as fair' as we can expect taking into account that physiological hurdle. 

Does or Should equality account for the physical differences between the sexes? 

How can we be more equal in sport and phyical capability? Is it possible to do this without being patronising and belittling to females at the same time?

I think I'm a confused feminist. 

Avatar
alansmurphy [1824 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes
peted76 wrote:

It's morally bankrupt that public money should fund everyone's pay rises. What should 'morally happen' is that the one bloke getting paid £250k should probably get paid a lot less, if he doesn't like it he can leave.

Everyone for a given job should be paid the same or given the same opportunity to be paid the same,

I think I'm a confused feminist. 

This is the problem though, there might be a male that's done the job, climbed the payscales et al then when a reporter takes the average they decide that the females are less well paid... There's many factors to a pay scale, though I agree sexism may be one  1

And don't worry, most feminists are confused. It's cos most of them are birds innit!

Avatar
Dropped [125 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes

Just a few FACTS lads: -

Jon Sopel (North American editor) earned between £200,000 and £249,999.

Jeremy Bowen (Middle Eastern editor) earned between £150,000 and £199,999.

Carrie Gracie (China editor) earned circa £135,000.

Avatar
PRSboy [279 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes

Yes but Sopel has a much higher profile, as a US editor and author.  Bowen too is much more experienced as a war correspondent, author and so on.

Carrie Gracie's CV looks relatively thin in comparison.

In any case, £135k for a media job looks generous, compared to say an A&E nurse.  They could employ 6 nurses for one Carrie Gracie... 

Just a thought.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds [2014 posts] 6 months ago
0 likes

I don't give a toss about over inflated salary comparisons, just the BBC actions in that when it suits them they do something regarding bias/discrimination, otherwise they don't give a shit/follow their agenda/ what their real paymasters tell them to do/say.