I have just read in the Telegraph that Harriet Harman asked a question in the House regarding Arlene being sacked from SCD. It is to do with equality!
Harriet Harman queries Arlene sacking
1 of 2
Originally Posted by Gill P:
“I have just read in the Telegraph that Harriet Harman asked a question in the House regarding Arlene being sacked from SCD. It is to do with equality!”
“I have just read in the Telegraph that Harriet Harman asked a question in the House regarding Arlene being sacked from SCD. It is to do with equality!”
No, its purely to do with Harriet Harman seeking publicity!!!!
Arlene wasn't sacked - she just wasn't contracted for this series. I've spent a lifetime working on this contract-to-contract basis.
JJ
I don"t agree with Arlene"s dismissal from the show at all, but I have not seen any proof that it is down to ageism.
I think it is down to a pure old fashioned desire to "freshen up" a format....or tinkering as I would call it.
Both Arlene and the loyal viewers at least deserve a little bit of honesty as to why she was pulled from the programme, and then we can move on. What price on the relatively new controller of BBC 1, Jay Hunt, just trying to flex her muscles around the schedule, with Arlene being the casualty??
I also think criticism of Alesha is unfair. Let"s see how she does before the knife is stuck in. It"s not her fault or decision.
I think it is down to a pure old fashioned desire to "freshen up" a format....or tinkering as I would call it.
Both Arlene and the loyal viewers at least deserve a little bit of honesty as to why she was pulled from the programme, and then we can move on. What price on the relatively new controller of BBC 1, Jay Hunt, just trying to flex her muscles around the schedule, with Arlene being the casualty??
I also think criticism of Alesha is unfair. Let"s see how she does before the knife is stuck in. It"s not her fault or decision.
Don't the government have slightly more important issues to deal with right now rather that Arlene's replacement on Strictly?
Originally Posted by GaryDawson:
“If it was ageism then why the frog is Bruce still there?
Answer? because it was never about ageism.”
“If it was ageism then why the frog is Bruce still there?
Answer? because it was never about ageism.”
It's easier to find someone to say "That was wonderful, it brought tears to my eyes" than a good host. Many think that Brucie is past it, but he's still a face of SCD. I think BBC thought that one queen of mean on the show is enough, no need to have two.
Originally Posted by VikkiKaplinsky:
“Don't the government have slightly more important issues to deal with right now rather that Arlene's replacement on Strictly?”
“Don't the government have slightly more important issues to deal with right now rather that Arlene's replacement on Strictly?”
Hear Hear!!!
We are in the middle of a pandemic and HH is worried about Arelene. Get a grip woman!
I can't understand why people don't realise this is ageism. By saying Bruce is still there and Len also, completely misses the point. Sorry for stating the obvious but they are men! It's ageism against women, therefore you would call it sexist ageism. Unless you can show me a woman of around Arlene's age who is working on Strictly then it's obvious this is all about getting women of over 50 off the screen.
I'm fed up of seeing older men working with younger women and this being accepted as ok and the norm. You only have to look at the appointment of Holly Willoughby for This Morning to see the direction this is going in. Quite frankly I think it's going to look ridiculous seeing Alesha sat in the middle of 3 middle aged men.
It's also extremely insulting to women that they are being hired for their looks and not their ability and experience. This is 2009 for Gods sake!
I'm fed up of seeing older men working with younger women and this being accepted as ok and the norm. You only have to look at the appointment of Holly Willoughby for This Morning to see the direction this is going in. Quite frankly I think it's going to look ridiculous seeing Alesha sat in the middle of 3 middle aged men.
It's also extremely insulting to women that they are being hired for their looks and not their ability and experience. This is 2009 for Gods sake!
Originally Posted by yenston:
“I can't understand why people don't realise this is ageism. By saying Bruce is still there and Len also, completely misses the point. Sorry for stating the obvious but they are men! It's ageism against women, therefore you would call it sexist ageism. Unless you can show me a woman of around Arlene's age who is working on Strictly then it's obvious this is all about getting women of over 50 off the screen.
I'm fed up of seeing older men working with younger women and this being accepted as ok and the norm. You only have to look at the appointment of Holly Willoughby for This Morning to see the direction this is going in. Quite frankly I think it's going to look ridiculous seeing Alesha sat in the middle of 3 middle aged men.
It's also extremely insulting to women that they are being hired for their looks and not their ability and experience. This is 2009 for Gods sake!”
“I can't understand why people don't realise this is ageism. By saying Bruce is still there and Len also, completely misses the point. Sorry for stating the obvious but they are men! It's ageism against women, therefore you would call it sexist ageism. Unless you can show me a woman of around Arlene's age who is working on Strictly then it's obvious this is all about getting women of over 50 off the screen.
I'm fed up of seeing older men working with younger women and this being accepted as ok and the norm. You only have to look at the appointment of Holly Willoughby for This Morning to see the direction this is going in. Quite frankly I think it's going to look ridiculous seeing Alesha sat in the middle of 3 middle aged men.
It's also extremely insulting to women that they are being hired for their looks and not their ability and experience. This is 2009 for Gods sake!”
Totally agree.
Originally Posted by yenston:
“I can't understand why people don't realise this is ageism. By saying Bruce is still there and Len also, completely misses the point. Sorry for stating the obvious but they are men! It's ageism against women, therefore you would call it sexist ageism. Unless you can show me a woman of around Arlene's age who is working on Strictly then it's obvious this is all about getting women of over 50 off the screen.
I'm fed up of seeing older men working with younger women and this being accepted as ok and the norm. You only have to look at the appointment of Holly Willoughby for This Morning to see the direction this is going in. Quite frankly I think it's going to look ridiculous seeing Alesha sat in the middle of 3 middle aged men.
It's also extremely insulting to women that they are being hired for their looks and not their ability and experience. This is 2009 for Gods sake!”
“I can't understand why people don't realise this is ageism. By saying Bruce is still there and Len also, completely misses the point. Sorry for stating the obvious but they are men! It's ageism against women, therefore you would call it sexist ageism. Unless you can show me a woman of around Arlene's age who is working on Strictly then it's obvious this is all about getting women of over 50 off the screen.
I'm fed up of seeing older men working with younger women and this being accepted as ok and the norm. You only have to look at the appointment of Holly Willoughby for This Morning to see the direction this is going in. Quite frankly I think it's going to look ridiculous seeing Alesha sat in the middle of 3 middle aged men.
It's also extremely insulting to women that they are being hired for their looks and not their ability and experience. This is 2009 for Gods sake!”
As jj said Arlene was not sacked - she was not offered a new contract, however considering her replacement, that does not mean that this wasn't an ageist decision. Had the BBC wanted to dispense with her services for any other reason there are many others with a fountain of knowledge who could have replaced her: just one problem, in order to gain that knowledge they need to clock up a few years - hence the accusation of ageist sexism.
Look at it this way - they could have 'freshened up the format' by replacing Len and Bruno with a past male winner; easy enough to find - we've had 3 of them. Ramps, Goughie and last year's Tom. They could have replaced Bruce with a younger presenter, plenty of them around; but no, they replace the only older woman with a young, glamorous specimen half her age.
Having said that - the decision was not worthy of a question in the House of Commons.
I agree that Arlene was actually "sacked" but I didn't have room to put about not being contracted! It amounts to the same thing surely. She is out of SCD!
Originally Posted by Ignazio:
“As jj said Arlene was not sacked - she was not offered a new contract, however considering her replacement, that does not mean that this wasn't an ageist decision. Had the BBC wanted to dispense with her services for any other reason there are many others with a fountain of knowledge who could have replaced her: just one problem, in order to gain that knowledge they need to clock up a few years - hence the accusation of ageist sexism.
Look at it this way - they could have 'freshened up the format' by replacing Len and Bruno with a past male winner; easy enough to find - we've had 3 of them. Ramps, Goughie and last year's Tom. They could have replaced Bruce with a younger presenter, plenty of them around; but no, they replace the only older woman with a young, glamorous specimen half her age.
Having said that - the decision was not worthy of a question in the House of Commons.”
“As jj said Arlene was not sacked - she was not offered a new contract, however considering her replacement, that does not mean that this wasn't an ageist decision. Had the BBC wanted to dispense with her services for any other reason there are many others with a fountain of knowledge who could have replaced her: just one problem, in order to gain that knowledge they need to clock up a few years - hence the accusation of ageist sexism.
Look at it this way - they could have 'freshened up the format' by replacing Len and Bruno with a past male winner; easy enough to find - we've had 3 of them. Ramps, Goughie and last year's Tom. They could have replaced Bruce with a younger presenter, plenty of them around; but no, they replace the only older woman with a young, glamorous specimen half her age.
Having said that - the decision was not worthy of a question in the House of Commons.”
You're playing a game of semantics - she was sacked.
Originally Posted by VikkiKaplinsky:
“Don't the government have slightly more important issues to deal with right now rather that Arlene's replacement on Strictly?”
“Don't the government have slightly more important issues to deal with right now rather that Arlene's replacement on Strictly?”
I would have thought so, especially as they are all about to go off on one very long holiday:
Quote:
“Summer recess 2009
The House will rise on Tuesday 21 July 2009 and will return on Monday 12 October 2009”
“Summer recess 2009
The House will rise on Tuesday 21 July 2009 and will return on Monday 12 October 2009”
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...wib/notifi.htm
But then again, Ms Harperson seems to have a bee in her bonnet about womens' rights, equality and the like.
Originally Posted by Rotationbl:
“You're playing a game of semantics - she was sacked.”
“You're playing a game of semantics - she was sacked.”
Yes - alright then her contract was not renewed - but it is the same thing!
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“ But then again, Ms Harperson seems to have a bee in her bonnet about womens' rights, equality and the like.”
“ But then again, Ms Harperson seems to have a bee in her bonnet about womens' rights, equality and the like.”
Maybe because she's the minister for women and equality?
Originally Posted by Rotationbl:
“You're playing a game of semantics - she was sacked.”
“You're playing a game of semantics - she was sacked.”
It is not semantics - there is a vast difference between being self employed and being an employee; i.e. being on the payroll with entitlements to holiday and redundancy, not to mention the employer being responsible for PAYE etc. and in the case of this argument the right to sue for wrongful dismissal.
A contract is is an agreement between 2 parties, subject to offer, acceptance and consideration and an agreement to create legal relations.
This season no offer was made to Arlene, hence none of the other conditions apply.
I too am outraged that she has been replaced by Alesha, who despite her popularity when she won, knows zilch about the finer points of dance, but that does not alter the fact that no contract has been breached - ergo no sacking has occurred.
Whilst I think there is an issue in terms of older women being scarce on screen I genuinely do not think that is anything to do with Arlene's lack of contract renewal. Arlene had the unfortunate problem last series of being unable to keep her mouth shut and constantly going to the press with her negative opinions on contestants. She's always done it a little bit but last time round it got to fever pitch. This damaged the integrity of the show and the supposed neutral bias that the judges are supposed to have. A lot of the voting backlash last series was specifically caused by Arlene going over board with her critisism both during the show and in the press and the BBC knows that. Her appointment to the One Show makes it quite clear what the instigating issue is - there she can give as strong as an opinion as she likes without it infecting the whole show. She's not off the screen like some people claim - she's in a forum far more suited to her behaviour. I know it sounds like I dislike Arlene but I will geniunely miss her opinion on the judging panel as I have a lot of respect for it. But after her behaviour last series it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that this move has happened. I will look forward to hearing her opinions on The One Show.
Originally Posted by Monkseal:
“Maybe because she's the minister for women and equality?”
“Maybe because she's the minister for women and equality?”
At times, she appears to take womens' rights to an extreme, to the exclusion of all others, she should remember that equality is a two-way thing (but that is a topic better discussed in the Politics forum rather than here
).
Originally Posted by fraggle_bean:
“Whilst I think there is an issue in terms of older women being scarce on screen I genuinely do not think that is anything to do with Arlene's lack of contract renewal. Arlene had the unfortunate problem last series of being unable to keep her mouth shut and constantly going to the press with her negative opinions on contestants. She's always done it a little bit but last time round it got to fever pitch. This damaged the integrity of the show and the supposed neutral bias that the judges are supposed to have. A lot of the voting backlash last series was specifically caused by Arlene going over board with her critisism both during the show and in the press and the BBC knows that. Her appointment to the One Show makes it quite clear what the instigating issue is - there she can give as strong as an opinion as she likes without it infecting the whole show. She's not off the screen like some people claim - she's in a forum far more suited to her behaviour. I know it sounds like I dislike Arlene but I will geniunely miss her opinion on the judging panel as I have a lot of respect for it. But after her behaviour last series it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that this move has happened. I will look forward to hearing her opinions on The One Show.”
“Whilst I think there is an issue in terms of older women being scarce on screen I genuinely do not think that is anything to do with Arlene's lack of contract renewal. Arlene had the unfortunate problem last series of being unable to keep her mouth shut and constantly going to the press with her negative opinions on contestants. She's always done it a little bit but last time round it got to fever pitch. This damaged the integrity of the show and the supposed neutral bias that the judges are supposed to have. A lot of the voting backlash last series was specifically caused by Arlene going over board with her critisism both during the show and in the press and the BBC knows that. Her appointment to the One Show makes it quite clear what the instigating issue is - there she can give as strong as an opinion as she likes without it infecting the whole show. She's not off the screen like some people claim - she's in a forum far more suited to her behaviour. I know it sounds like I dislike Arlene but I will geniunely miss her opinion on the judging panel as I have a lot of respect for it. But after her behaviour last series it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that this move has happened. I will look forward to hearing her opinions on The One Show.”
Arlene was not on her own re: the JS controversy.
This is what Craig RH had to say.
Quote:
“Judge Craig Revel Horwood even appeared on BBC Breakfast on Monday to voice his unhappiness.
'I think John should go,' he said. 'I still maintain that this is a dance competition. You need people that can dance.'”
“Judge Craig Revel Horwood even appeared on BBC Breakfast on Monday to voice his unhappiness.
'I think John should go,' he said. 'I still maintain that this is a dance competition. You need people that can dance.'”
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSvd6...Pig--else.html
Originally Posted by Ignazio:
“Arlene was not on her own re: the JS controversy.
This is what Craig RH had to say.
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSvd6...Pig--else.html”
“Arlene was not on her own re: the JS controversy.
This is what Craig RH had to say.
http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSvd6...Pig--else.html”
The Judges have always given their opinions to the press. Arlene took it way further than anyone else last year - she was practically on every program going. Craig has always narrowly crossed the line but he usually knows when to stop.
If Arlene was on every show going it'd be because the Strictly producers and show bookers pushed her onto them. It's not as though Arlene was ringing round GMTV herself demanding to be heard.
If Arlene was shunted off the panel because of the John Sergeant thing (and I think she was) I feel very sorry for her that she's partly been punished for being 100% willing to do her job and do the out-of-hours publicity rounds for a show she clearly loved doing, whilst Len and Bruno were Atlantic-hopping.
If Arlene was shunted off the panel because of the John Sergeant thing (and I think she was) I feel very sorry for her that she's partly been punished for being 100% willing to do her job and do the out-of-hours publicity rounds for a show she clearly loved doing, whilst Len and Bruno were Atlantic-hopping.
This isn't about ageism at all: it's about something much bigger.
This poorly conceived management decision has just become something else for politicians to kick the BBC over - and, let's face it, the BBC has absolutely no political allies now. The Tories have always been baying for their blood and Labour is now battling with them over plans to reduce the Licence Fee.
So something the Daily Mail can get itself in a lather about (:yawn is, of course, fuel to the Tories and the ridiculously short-sighted Harman. Well done, BBC - your own goal just keeps on scoring.
Monkseal is quite right: Arlene's presence on other television shows would be governed by the SCD team.
They are ultimately responsible for the mess last year descended into (after all, the judges report to them) - and they have elected to start SCD7 with a major PR disaster. I am personally fine with waiting to see how Alesha fares; I am less fine with watching one of my favourite programmes being run by a bunch of half-wits. Lessons should have been learned from last year ... you would think?
This poorly conceived management decision has just become something else for politicians to kick the BBC over - and, let's face it, the BBC has absolutely no political allies now. The Tories have always been baying for their blood and Labour is now battling with them over plans to reduce the Licence Fee.
So something the Daily Mail can get itself in a lather about (:yawn
is, of course, fuel to the Tories and the ridiculously short-sighted Harman. Well done, BBC - your own goal just keeps on scoring.Monkseal is quite right: Arlene's presence on other television shows would be governed by the SCD team.
They are ultimately responsible for the mess last year descended into (after all, the judges report to them) - and they have elected to start SCD7 with a major PR disaster. I am personally fine with waiting to see how Alesha fares; I am less fine with watching one of my favourite programmes being run by a bunch of half-wits. Lessons should have been learned from last year ... you would think?
What it means as well is that Jay Hunt is now in big trouble. When the Deputy Prime Minister said what she said it sounded more like a warning to reverse the decision
Harriet Harman I think has a legal background- so it would be extremely stupid for Jay Hunt to carry on thumbing her nose
Who knows- a few phone calls could well have taken place by now- and the government certainly has far more power than the idiot who masquerades as controller of BBC1
Someone will have to back down now
Harriet Harman I think has a legal background- so it would be extremely stupid for Jay Hunt to carry on thumbing her nose
Who knows- a few phone calls could well have taken place by now- and the government certainly has far more power than the idiot who masquerades as controller of BBC1
Someone will have to back down now
Originally Posted by footygirl:
“Harriet Harman I think has a legal background- so it would be extremely stupid for Jay Hunt to carry on thumbing her nose”
“Harriet Harman I think has a legal background- so it would be extremely stupid for Jay Hunt to carry on thumbing her nose”
Or that perceived stupidity might be a blessing in disguise if in one way or another it led to the removal of Jay Hunt from the post (with little or no collateral damage).
I don't have any problem with Harriet Harman speaking out about Arlene, quite the opposite in fact given her parliamentary responsibilities.
It should at least fire a warning shot across the bow of the BBC about doing this kind of thing. Given that so much tax payer's money is involved the BBC should be leading by example.
It should at least fire a warning shot across the bow of the BBC about doing this kind of thing. Given that so much tax payer's money is involved the BBC should be leading by example.
1 of 2
