DS Forums

 
 

Harriet Harman queries Arlene sacking


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-07-2009, 08:40
Gill P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15,736

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!
Gill P is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-07-2009, 09:19
jjackson42
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London - Gerbilophobe!
Posts: 9,091
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
jjackson42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 10:21
Oakwood
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 374
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.
Oakwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 10:37
VikkiKaplinsky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: BBC Newsroom - Breakfast End
Posts: 1,146
Don't the government have slightly more important issues to deal with right now rather that Arlene's replacement on Strictly?
VikkiKaplinsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 10:44
GaryDawson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Little cottage in Henley
Posts: 604
If it was ageism then why the frog is Bruce still there?

Answer? because it was never about ageism.
GaryDawson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 11:04
IvanIV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 25,199
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.
IvanIV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 11:28
Wiz Net
 
Posts: n/a
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!
  Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 11:30
yenston
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,359
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!
yenston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 11:53
Rotationbl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,237
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.
Rotationbl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 11:58
Ignazio
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,110
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.
Ignazio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:18
Gill P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15,736
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!
Gill P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:19
Rotationbl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,237
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.
Rotationbl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:28
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
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:

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.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:30
jlighthi
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,344
You're playing a game of semantics - she was sacked.
Yes - alright then her contract was not renewed - but it is the same thing!
jlighthi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:33
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
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?
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:34
Ignazio
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,110
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.
Ignazio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:53
fraggle_bean
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 677
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.
fraggle_bean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 12:55
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
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 ).
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 13:06
Ignazio
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 17,110
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.
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
Ignazio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 13:16
fraggle_bean
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 677
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.
fraggle_bean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 13:35
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
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.
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 14:01
Servalan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,472
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?
Servalan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 14:27
footygirl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: sportyland
Posts: 30,070
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
footygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 15:08
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
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).
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2009, 15:39
BuddyBontheNet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Away with the faries
Posts: 27,378
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.
BuddyBontheNet is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:40.