According to the 2011 census, the white British population is about 82% of the UK total population. I would struggle to believe 18% of British TV characters are played by non-white actors.

And, frankly, it is just plain silly to suggest that national TV dramas should pander to white audiences living in all-white communities rather than reflecting the population as a whole.

What was the process when Freema was cast? Martha's ethnicity was referred to in The Shakespeare Code and Human Nature/Family of Blood. Has Russell addresses this issue when it came to the creation of the character? I genuinely don't know.

Good point. But surely Martha's ethnicity was mentioned in those stories for realism rather than to just highlight the fact she was black? After all, especially in Shakespearan times, there would have been no black people at all in the UK in comparison to modern times.

I think Martha's ethnicity was mentioned in a smart but fairly low-key manner, and that worked well for both the stories mentioned.

I actually think it is a bit sad and ironic that we're talking about the Doctor potentially being played by a black actor, but the way black people were treated in the past is being presented as a reason this shouldn't happen in 2016.

I don't understand your last point. Are you saying black actors should be given the role because they're black? I am saying that in 2016, it isn't necessary to highlight a person's ethnicity because by doing so you are bringing attention to the fact that they're ethnic rather than just a good actor.

Why can't it be "Adrian Lester is the thirteenth doctor because he's brilliant!" with no mention of his skin colour? Do you think Adrian Lester would prefer to be described as brilliant or black?

If black people want to emphasise their ethnicity as a barrier or bring people's attention to it or insist white people getting awards over black people is racist, surely it begs the question that maybe, is it actually black people who are more racist towards whites than the other way around?

Because of Moffat being asked a specific question and answering it honestly (Q: "It was notable that several of the bookies favourites were Black, Asian and minority ethnic actors. Were all of the auditionees?") all this has cropped up. Some have a problem with this concept. Some don't. I like the look of Bill as a character and don't really care, basically. And Pearl seems lovely. (her 'letter' in the latest DWM where she writes she burst into tears in her dressing room after a nice encounter with a fan just after the announcement was really sweet.)

How would you respond if you applied for a job and was told "Sorry, we know you're more than qualified, but we're looking for a black person?"

What?

In the instance I was talking about, they were looking for a non white female for the new companion. And that job is not advertised. Not personally interested in the wider debate, sorry.

Why can't it be "Adrian Lester is the thirteenth doctor because he's brilliant!"

I agree, any role should be given to the best actor available for the job or portraying the character in question. Who that actor/ actress is racially, sexually and looks wise does come into it, for obvious reasons. But Doctor Who is a role where the lead character could be any race or either sex. Unlike some recent roles, such as the Human Torch, where black actors were given the role because of their colour against the established race of the character.

The same census shows that the Asian population is far greater than the black population, but it rarely seems that the edict comes that "we must have an Asian actor in there!".

OK. I'm not expecting a wider debate. This is neither the time or place. But is it right to decide that the companion should be "non-white" because it ticks a diversity box, or would it have been better to choose someone non-white over everybody else because she was the best person for the role?

In the UK, is it not better to write a character to have some kind of personality and to behave in a certain way and then to find the right person to be abl;e to fulfill that character's traits? I think it's wrong to choose a non-white person (or a white person for that matter) because of some kind of agenda, and then to devise the character around that person.

Well, fair enough. Your opinion. But they've gone for the second non white person as a companion in the show's long history and am personally cool with that!

"Race doesn't matter in 2016" says white person.

Being turned down for not having the physical traits someone is looking for isn't uncommon in acting.

This is only the second time we've had a black companion in the show's history (depending on if you count Mickey or not, I guess) even under "white guilt PC Moffat" man, and apparently the show panders to diversity and goes too far? Something doesn't seem right there.

Sometimes I get the impression Moffat could stutter when talking and people would start threads about how he clearly isn't literate.

People say that every year, funny though, it never happens. Not sure how adding more non-whites into Doctor Who is going to damage it beyond repair, myself.

You seem to be taking a lot from a few simple lines Moffat said (I haven't seen him going "on and on" much about diversity before, but people used to complain he was racist).

As I remember, there was quite a lot of public attention brought to the fact that Martha was the first black companion in the show's history.

Sounds like people think Moffat has a 'Black Agenda' which will damage the show.

It reminds me of people moaning about RTD's 'Gay Agenda', which damaged the show... precisely by nothing.

Yeah, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but the impression I'm getting from this thread is:

"I don't care if the actors are white, black, asian, whatever as long as they're good"
*Moffat says how nice it would be to have more diversity in a show that has almost always consisted of white people in the lead roles and rarely included other ethnicities*
"Oh no, they're giving minorities too many of our roles, the world hates white people!"

An interesting parallel with J.K. Rowling describing people who criticised the casting of a black actress as Hermione in the new Harry Potter play as "a bunch of racists".

I think "a bunch of racists" sums up the situation very eloquently.

Be careful what you wish for, Capaldi wont be around forever,and Lenny Henry is banging his more diversity at the BBC drum.
Imagine Lenny Henry in the Tardis

Having said I wasn't interested in the wider debate, I guess it comes down to whether you believe in 2016 that when it comes to casting in TV, film, etc there is a completely level playing field, everything is fine and dandy so none of this matters any more, hurray!...or you don't.

I veer towards the latter. Don't work in the industry, but that is my instinct. Moffat appears to believe that. From the interview that started all this: "You can only cast from talent..you've got to cast the best person every single time...but you've got to gauge *where* youre looking for the talent..."

Am cool with that.

RTD's writing was more tongue in cheek than Moffat's and as far as I remember, he never had a gay agenda. Moffat has had agenda after agenda. He has several gay characters including an associate to the US president in the Impossible Astronaut two parter. He has said several times how good it will be if a woman took on the role of the Doctor. He now talks about diversity as if there is no diversity at all.

It isn't the 'agendas' that could damage the show irreversibly. It is the the pretentious and self indulgent story telling. It has changed the show from being wholly accessible to one purely for fans.

How are those agendas? You're complaining Moffat had several gay characters? What exactly is wrong with that?

Is so much as daring to mention minorities an agenda now?


I thought this topic was about his "diversity agenda" rather than his writing. But, whether you like his writing or not, fact is fact and he's kept the show going strong since 2010 and it's far from dead. People used to say RTD's writing was killing the show too, and as much as I may not have liked his era of Who, the fact is it was a success. Don't let your personal opinions cloud your judgement.

You're twisting my words. I responded to a post who implied RTD had a gay agenda. There is nothing wrong with having gay characters and I didn't say there was. But I do question as to whether the inclusion of gay characters suits any particular purpose other than "box ticked, the gay population are represented". With the US President associate, that was actually a good storyline because it highlighted the prejudices of the time. But sometimes the characters are just thrust into storylines just for the sake of it. I'm not allowing my personal opinions cloud my judgement because I detest the show now. It is contrived, non-sensical and egotistic. Capaldi portrays the Doctor in the best way he can, but writing and diversity are linked. I couldn't care less if I missed an episode or four, whereas in the past, even during Matt Smith's run, I would watch religiously. I think Moffat should have gone when Smith went.

If you google RTD Gay Agenda you might get one or two hits! (Might include AMSND references....)

I'm more concerned about SM's Scottish Agenda, frankly. Blatant. Disgraceful seeing as the Scottish are a minority in the UK. Grrrr.

Still, maybe I'm bitter cos after all of BBC Wales efforts over the years, have we had a Welsh companion? Nooooooo. Gits.

eta just in case....Might not be entirely serious here.

You said you're not allowing your personal opinions to cloud your judgement, then immediately gave your personal opinions on the current show. :P