I fear that this ruling sets a dangerous precedent that could backfire quite badly. Not only is it likely to make producers less likely to hire a more mature person in the first place, but I do take issue with the idea that producers should not have the freedom to revamp programs to make them appeal to different - presumably larger - audiences. In this case, the producers of Countryfile decided to revamp the program, modernize it and make it appeal to a larger, younger audience. Part of that, like it or not, usually involves having presenters with which a younger audience can identify.
What a ridiculous ruling, the TV and film industry employs people based on looks because people want to see young attractive people on the screen, once again this shows the human rights act is an absolute joke.
What a ridiculous ruling, the TV and film industry employs people based on looks because people want to see young attractive people on the screen, once again this shows the human rights act is an absolute joke.
This was discussed on Newsnight last night. Briefly, they hauled in a coven of "older" women who are influential in TV policy (at least, in their own minds) such as the controller of some part of BBC1, Ester Rantzen and someone else. The discussion was hosted by Emily Maitliss - you can look up her age yourself, if it's that important to you.
The thing is, while they all agreed that if the decision had been made based on the skin colour of the person in question, that would be despicable. However Maitliss pointed out that the main reason "front of camera" people get paid so much more than all the other workers on a programme is because they have a shorter "shelf life".
The other thing that struck me while watching the piece was that although all the women were in the 40-70 bracket, there wasn't a single grey hair among them and the sort of silky smooth skin that you associate with cosmetic procedures and trowelled on makeup.
So while they were all saying how shocking it was that women should be passed over for reasons of looking old, none of them displayed the courage of their own convictions and they were all trying to look as young as they possibly could.
The difference between older men on TV and older women is that fewer old men try to conceal their age. Maybe one reason why they are less criticised for the crime of growing old is because they don't display such a double standard of saying that age doesn't matter, yet all the time showing that they don't really believe that by trying to look younger?
Or perhaps men don't have to hide their age because nobody minds a wrinkly man, and perhaps the reason why these women spend so much time looking younger is because they wouldn't be in the position to talk on Newsnight if they weren't.
It's a total nonsense, it's TV so of course people are employed based on looks, so are bar staff, waitresses, clothes shop staff,and receptionists, are those employers breaking the law as well? If so, stupid law.
It's a total nonsense, it's TV so of course people are employed based on looks, so are bar staff, waitresses, clothes shop staff,and receptionists, are those employers breaking the law as well? If so, stupid law.
This case was about age, not about looks.
Why is it that ageing (& ugly for that matter) men get regular presenting gigs on TV, yet it is rare to see a woman over 50 presenting anything on TV in the UK?
I am slightly puzzled as to the basis of her claim at an employment tribunal.
As I understand it she was a self-employed freelance not a BBC employee, so the BBC was not her employer but a client and she was an independent contractor. If the BBC didn't renew a contract with her then that's the fate of many freelancers, if they terminated a contract partway through then surely that would be a breach of contract which would be dealt with in a civil court, Can someone explain why it was dealt with at an employment tribunal.
I am slightly puzzled as to the basis of her claim at an employment tribunal.
As I understand it she was a self-employed freelance not a BBC employee, so the BBC was not her employer but a client and she was an independent contractor. If the BBC didn't renew a contract with her then that's the fate of many a freelancers, if they terminated a contract partway through then surely that would be a breach of contract which would be dealt with in a civil court, Can someone explain why it was dealt with at an employment tribunal.
I think they may have been considered as being into the realms of "custom and practice." There obviously must have been some sort of contract either written or implied.
I am slightly puzzled as to the basis of her claim at an employment tribunal.
As I understand it she was a self-employed freelance not a BBC employee, so the BBC was not her employer but a client and she was an independent contractor. If the BBC didn't renew a contract with her then that's the fate of many freelancers, if they terminated a contract partway through then surely that would be a breach of contract which would be dealt with in a civil court, Can someone explain why it was dealt with at an employment tribunal.
Contract workers
9.—(1) It is unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against a contract worker—
(a)in the terms on which he allows him to do that work;.
(b)by not allowing him to do it or continue to do it;.
(c)in the way he affords him access to any benefits or by refusing or deliberately not affording him access to them; or.
(d)by subjecting him to any other detriment..
(2) It is unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work at an establishment in Great Britain, to subject a contract worker to harassment.
(3) A principal does not contravene paragraph (1)(b) by doing any act in relation to a contract worker where, if the work were to be done by a person taken into the principal’s employment, that act would be lawful by virtue of regulation 8 (exception for genuine occupational requirement etc).
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to benefits of any description if the principal is concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of benefits of that description to the public, or to a section of the public to which the contract worker in question belongs, unless that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits by the principal to his contract workers.
(5) In this regulation—
“principal” means a person (“A”) who makes work available for doing by individuals who are employed by another person who supplies them under a contract made with A;
“contract work” means work so made available; and
“contract worker” means any individual who is supplied to the principal under such a contract.
Thanks 'Harrowing' for that explanation.
I'm a freelancer myself (though not for the BBC) and never knew that I had any 'employment rights'. I'll go back now and look at all the contracts I've had where clients have never been back to book me again.
Thanks 'Harrowing' for that explanation.
I'm a freelancer myself (though not for the BBC) and never knew that I had any 'employment rights'. I'll go back now and look at all the contracts I've had where clients have never been back to book me again.
Out of all the 'isms' its ageism that surprises me most, its the only main one that will come to everyone in the end (i.e we will age), So the fact people do it in daily life surprises me and will hopefully come back to haunt them later in life.
Although axing someone from TV is different from daily life and was done for different reasons it should not have happened if she is fully capable of presenting, and the decision to fire her was made purely on her age, but that we will never know.
Not sure if the whole looks thing came into it, but I have always found it sickening that people are given television jobs/ bar jobs/restaurant jobs etc based on their looks, i find it the same level of discrimination as racism, which of course the slightest suggestion of racism and you are done for. Yet attractive people are employed over less attractive in many things often blatently and nothing happens to them. But its the way of the world and human nature and all forms of discrimination will unfortunately always happen, despite how sickening I and many others find it.
This was discussed on Newsnight last night. Briefly, they hauled in a coven of "older" women who are influential in TV policy (at least, in their own minds) such as the controller of some part of BBC1, Ester Rantzen and someone else. The discussion was hosted by Emily Maitliss - you can look up her age yourself, if it's that important to you.
The thing is, while they all agreed that if the decision had been made based on the skin colour of the person in question, that would be despicable. However Maitliss pointed out that the main reason "front of camera" people get paid so much more than all the other workers on a programme is because they have a shorter "shelf life".
The other thing that struck me while watching the piece was that although all the women were in the 40-70 bracket, there wasn't a single grey hair among them and the sort of silky smooth skin that you associate with cosmetic procedures and trowelled on makeup.
So while they were all saying how shocking it was that women should be passed over for reasons of looking old, none of them displayed the courage of their own convictions and they were all trying to look as young as they possibly could.
The difference between older men on TV and older women is that fewer old men try to conceal their age. Maybe one reason why they are less criticised for the crime of growing old is because they don't display such a double standard of saying that age doesn't matter, yet all the time showing that they don't really believe that by trying to look younger?
Bit in bold: with that one word you have given yourself away, have a big problem with older women do you? They're automatically classed as 'witches'? I have a feeling you would never have dismissed a group of similarly aged men in such derogatory terms.
And don't you see what's going on there with their dyed hair, suspected botox and lots of make up? That maybe, just maybe it's the BBC's own ageist attitude which is behind their 'vanity'? They feel that they have to make the effort if they want to continue working? Maybe the very fact that they're sitting there looking like that is backing up the other woman's story! And by the way, we've all seen Esther Rantzen. No way is that a botoxed face, she looks a well preserved older woman who isn't letting herself go but still has plenty of lines on her face (if she has been botoxed she should ask for a refund).
And what's the matter with people trying to look their best anyway? Why is that a double standard? They're never going to look young again but what's the wrong with them trying to preserve what they've got and not look 'old' (as long as they don't end up looking like Joan Rivers! :eek:) Hell, even men are getting in on the act now with products aimed towards them dyeing their hair, using moisturiser etc. How long until there's make up aimed at men?
And as for the men not bothering themselves with trying to look younger? Well, maybe they know that due to the alleged institutionalised sexist and ageist attitudes at the BBC towards older women, they can sit pretty knowing that even men of Bruce Forsythe's age can still get prime time work. They KNOW they're OK, getting old isn't necessarily going to end their careers. I mean, John Craven's still on Countryfile isn't he?
And I'll know that the ageism and sexism at the BBC is finally over when I see June Whitfield presenting Strictly Come Dancing with Gethin Jones (or similars)
Bit in bold: B]coven[/Bwith that one word you have given yourself away, have a big problem with older women do you?
No. I have a problem with those particular people and their self-righteous air of entitlement, their hypocrisy and utter failure to realise that being women in positions of power and influence they could, if they chose, help to improve the situation. But instead they pander to it and appease those who choose the superficial over the intelligent or worthwhile.
I think Miriam O’Reilly was a bit silly as she will have killed any career she may
have had with any broadcaster. So her £150K payout will be it
the BBC may make a token job then thats her lot I think
this is like a sexual harrasment case if you instigate one and win I think you will find any
new employer would think very carefully about employing you
dont shoot me down in flames I'm just pointing out the real world
The BBC had already killed her career - they'd frozen her other work and she'd earned just £500 last year. I think the opposite to you. I think they can't afford to be seen NOT to employ her now.
It's a total nonsense, it's TV so of course people are employed based on looks, so are bar staff, waitresses, clothes shop staff,and receptionists, are those employers breaking the law as well? If so, stupid law.
That's such a strange attitude. We're talking about a professional journalist who's supposed to be informing and entertaining us. It's Countryfile, not Stringfellows.
The BBC will wait until the fuss has died down and continue their policy of preferring younger women presenters.
They'll give older women a few jobs and make a big fuss about it, but across the huge range of programmes they produce, the policy will continue.
"Ratings chasing" is like an addiction with them and they're entrenched in the opinion that viewers prefer younger women presenters.
It's like the situation with over-loud background music in some programmes. They've said on several occasions over decades they'll stop it happening, but nothing changes.
You are no longer allowed to advertise for "young attractive bar staff."
You have to make notes on every person you interview and your reasons for rejecting any and be ready to produce them if someone claims you've discriminated against them.
The law is quite clear on this now and it includes the BBC.
I must be a bit of a sexist, though I try not to be. The reason I say that is that if I watch a TV program with a young attractive woman presenter, I find the program contents almost irrelevant. I just find myself watching the woman and thinking about .... well not the program contents.
I have not seen the program concerned, but in things I do watch, I would far rather, if there is a woman presenter, that she were not a distraction in this way. It is obvious that the BBC are aware of this, because in programs where content is what matters, they don't have women with whom we want sex. For example in what used to be called Newsnight Review, the presenter is never fanciable and the program is all the better for it.
In fact a woman who is beautiful but whom men do not actually fancy that way is extremely valuable in the film industry but they are rare birds.
Comments
Who, like Bruce Forsyth?
people will go thru the motions but in reality they wont consider them
that way they cant sued
I think Miriam O’Reilly was a bit silly as she will have killed any career she may
have had with any broadcaster. So her £150K payout will be it
the BBC may make a token job then thats her lot I think
this is like a sexual harrasment case if you instigate one and win I think you will find any
new employer would think very carefully about employing you
dont shoot me down in flames I'm just pointing out the real world
Sigh... think I'm losing the will to live...
Or perhaps men don't have to hide their age because nobody minds a wrinkly man, and perhaps the reason why these women spend so much time looking younger is because they wouldn't be in the position to talk on Newsnight if they weren't.
Exactly, if Adrian Chiles was a woman, would he still be on the tv?
This case was about age, not about looks.
Why is it that ageing (& ugly for that matter) men get regular presenting gigs on TV, yet it is rare to see a woman over 50 presenting anything on TV in the UK?
As I understand it she was a self-employed freelance not a BBC employee, so the BBC was not her employer but a client and she was an independent contractor. If the BBC didn't renew a contract with her then that's the fate of many freelancers, if they terminated a contract partway through then surely that would be a breach of contract which would be dealt with in a civil court, Can someone explain why it was dealt with at an employment tribunal.
I think they may have been considered as being into the realms of "custom and practice." There obviously must have been some sort of contract either written or implied.
From: The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/1031/regulation/9/made
Contract workers
9.—(1) It is unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate against a contract worker—
(a)in the terms on which he allows him to do that work;.
(b)by not allowing him to do it or continue to do it;.
(c)in the way he affords him access to any benefits or by refusing or deliberately not affording him access to them; or.
(d)by subjecting him to any other detriment..
(2) It is unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work at an establishment in Great Britain, to subject a contract worker to harassment.
(3) A principal does not contravene paragraph (1)(b) by doing any act in relation to a contract worker where, if the work were to be done by a person taken into the principal’s employment, that act would be lawful by virtue of regulation 8 (exception for genuine occupational requirement etc).
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to benefits of any description if the principal is concerned with the provision (for payment or not) of benefits of that description to the public, or to a section of the public to which the contract worker in question belongs, unless that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits by the principal to his contract workers.
(5) In this regulation—
“principal” means a person (“A”) who makes work available for doing by individuals who are employed by another person who supplies them under a contract made with A;
“contract work” means work so made available; and
“contract worker” means any individual who is supplied to the principal under such a contract.
I'm a freelancer myself (though not for the BBC) and never knew that I had any 'employment rights'. I'll go back now and look at all the contracts I've had where clients have never been back to book me again.
np...£500 please:D
Although axing someone from TV is different from daily life and was done for different reasons it should not have happened if she is fully capable of presenting, and the decision to fire her was made purely on her age, but that we will never know.
Not sure if the whole looks thing came into it, but I have always found it sickening that people are given television jobs/ bar jobs/restaurant jobs etc based on their looks, i find it the same level of discrimination as racism, which of course the slightest suggestion of racism and you are done for. Yet attractive people are employed over less attractive in many things often blatently and nothing happens to them. But its the way of the world and human nature and all forms of discrimination will unfortunately always happen, despite how sickening I and many others find it.
Bit in bold: with that one word you have given yourself away, have a big problem with older women do you? They're automatically classed as 'witches'? I have a feeling you would never have dismissed a group of similarly aged men in such derogatory terms.
And don't you see what's going on there with their dyed hair, suspected botox and lots of make up? That maybe, just maybe it's the BBC's own ageist attitude which is behind their 'vanity'? They feel that they have to make the effort if they want to continue working? Maybe the very fact that they're sitting there looking like that is backing up the other woman's story! And by the way, we've all seen Esther Rantzen. No way is that a botoxed face, she looks a well preserved older woman who isn't letting herself go but still has plenty of lines on her face (if she has been botoxed she should ask for a refund).
And what's the matter with people trying to look their best anyway? Why is that a double standard? They're never going to look young again but what's the wrong with them trying to preserve what they've got and not look 'old' (as long as they don't end up looking like Joan Rivers! :eek:) Hell, even men are getting in on the act now with products aimed towards them dyeing their hair, using moisturiser etc. How long until there's make up aimed at men?
And as for the men not bothering themselves with trying to look younger? Well, maybe they know that due to the alleged institutionalised sexist and ageist attitudes at the BBC towards older women, they can sit pretty knowing that even men of Bruce Forsythe's age can still get prime time work. They KNOW they're OK, getting old isn't necessarily going to end their careers. I mean, John Craven's still on Countryfile isn't he?
And I'll know that the ageism and sexism at the BBC is finally over when I see June Whitfield presenting Strictly Come Dancing with Gethin Jones (or similars)
The BBC had already killed her career - they'd frozen her other work and she'd earned just £500 last year. I think the opposite to you. I think they can't afford to be seen NOT to employ her now.
That's such a strange attitude. We're talking about a professional journalist who's supposed to be informing and entertaining us. It's Countryfile, not Stringfellows.
They'll give older women a few jobs and make a big fuss about it, but across the huge range of programmes they produce, the policy will continue.
"Ratings chasing" is like an addiction with them and they're entrenched in the opinion that viewers prefer younger women presenters.
It's like the situation with over-loud background music in some programmes. They've said on several occasions over decades they'll stop it happening, but nothing changes.
You are no longer allowed to advertise for "young attractive bar staff."
You have to make notes on every person you interview and your reasons for rejecting any and be ready to produce them if someone claims you've discriminated against them.
The law is quite clear on this now and it includes the BBC.
How do you work that out?
Without discrimination laws in place, it would be very difficult for some sections of the community to get jobs.
I have not seen the program concerned, but in things I do watch, I would far rather, if there is a woman presenter, that she were not a distraction in this way. It is obvious that the BBC are aware of this, because in programs where content is what matters, they don't have women with whom we want sex. For example in what used to be called Newsnight Review, the presenter is never fanciable and the program is all the better for it.
In fact a woman who is beautiful but whom men do not actually fancy that way is extremely valuable in the film industry but they are rare birds.