Youngstu

If this is the case why do you give the impression of having an issue with diversity in this country, or at least it's representation? It comes across as being ok with it, as long as it's not here! Exaggeration of levels of diversity (compared to what is seen where we live) is not necessarily an exaggeration for everyone, so why is this political correctness? And if political correctness is what is said or done to try and avoid insulting and upsetting those who may have experienced poor treatment due to their differences what's the problem with that?

Just one of those who wakes up at stupid o'clock and thought it'd be a (debatably) productive use of my time challenging some of your insults and accusations. Your repeated belittling of any opinion that's different to yours involving an assortment of insults would easily be construed as bullying as it's clearly done to shut down the conversation and appeal to the others that share your point of view.

Wasn't having a dig at all, just explaining why I'm here.

I don't think I've been unfair at all. He's had every opportunity to say what he thinks as opposed to just making derogatory statements about my thoughts. He likes that word too! Point proven!

I fully agree, every group does seem to be ticked in cases like this to the point of it being ridiculous. However part of me feels that this is also is being done because of how things have been for so long where the vast majority of people in any positive position have been white, male and straight. With anyone who doesn't fit those criteria being sidelined to minor roles, or in many cases joke figures (or worse). You don't have to go back very long to find this across the tv and simply changing the current "quotas" to the current national statistics wouldn't solve the problems.

So the general scenario again is: 1.Someone makes a statement or shares another post that displays views that I (or someone else who can be arsed to bother) would consider to be intolerant/outdated/offensive etc. 2. I (or someone else who can be arsed) challenge that statement/opinion etc in a polite way, often putting forward the ideas of tolerance or fairness and consideration for others in society 3. You respond with a variety of belittling statements, invariably including the word drivel and accusing whoever it is that responded with being PC, Woke, Marxist, stupid, ignorant, mentally deranged etc 4. The person who bothered to respond tries to get you to explain your position or views on the subject, as it is quite clear that they don't agree, (asking questions is a good way to get someone to clarify their position). 5. Repeat of point 3. The only assumption that I can make from this scenario repeating itself (and not just you!) is that you are aware that if you were to fully clarify your feelings and give a clear explanation of your views on the matter that they would be considered to be offensive and know that you shouldn't share them on a public forum such as this. I may be completely wrong on this but this is the impression that you give by the responses that you make (or don't make). I come on Arbtalk because I work in woodland, carrying out a variety of tree related jobs and value the resource that is available here from people with a massive amount of experience, in the field that I work in who offer some brilliant advice and opinions in loads of different areas. Unfortunately (in my opinion) there are some on here who seem to think it's a good place to spout off (what are considered by many ) offensive opinions unchallenged and then shout down the challenger in the manner of a playground bully. Unfortunately I am of a generation who has seen offensive opinions in our parents and grandparents just being the accepted way that things are and know that challenging those viewpoints is necessary for things to change in the wider society. Just because many of us live in rural locations with little or no diversity, that doesn't mean it's representative of society as a whole and maybe those who live in such places need to accept how it is for others.

Just in case you missed them in your urgency to tell me I was talking drivel again, I'll post the same questions again: Just out of curiosity... Why a "beige utopia"? it just seems a strange turn of phrase. What is the society that you " yearn for" ?

I think I asked you the same yesterday when you said that what was on TV didn't represent what you see on a daily basis. I live in a South West village so the diversity on TV isn't what I see every day, but I don't have an issue with that and think it's good to see the diversity seen in other areas represented on our screens.

When you say the "likes of yourself" that appears to mean someone who disagrees with your point of view and challenges what comes across as your intolerance to alternative viewpoints. Just out of curiosity... Why a "beige utopia"? it just seems a strange turn of phrase. What is the society that you " yearn for" ? Personally I don't have an issue with the current make up of British society and think that diversity spreading out from the urban areas will be good for the country as a whole, and I hope for my children to be able to live in a tolerant and diverse society wherever they choose to be.

If you look at the urban/rural stats it quite possibly is (in your favour). Who is really classed as a minority though? or who would you like to see classed as a minority? There seem to be quite a lot of tv programmes about rural life, are those representative in terms of time given when compared to the national population and should they be?

Thanks for contributing such a well thought out defense of one side of the argument or the other. I guess it makes a change from telling me that I'm spouting drivel! I'm suggesting that maybe our TV content should represent the more diverse parts of our country. Looking at government data, 83% of the population live in an "urban" situation, with 35% living in an "urban major conurbation" and 43% in an "urban city and town". Only 17% live in a "rural " situation. These figures are for England as that's the first ones I could find. Urban areas are generally more diverse than rural areas, so whose normality do you think should be represented on TV?

Quite simple really, where do you not see the diversity in everyday life? and should what you see and are comfortable with be what is represented on TV?

Where?

You shared the article/ report and appear (from what you've said) feel that it is a problem that needs sorting out. Why does it matter to you if minorities are over represented on our screens compared to national figures?

Thought I might lose you on that one! To put it more simply the original article states that there is an overrepresentation of minorities on TV ( in comparison to national stats) and you stated that it was completely unrepresentative of your own daily experience. I was asking what should be represented? Considering that the national picture is completely different to what I, you and ( through the calculation of an average) probably the vast majority of the population experiences in their day to day lives. So what do you think should be represented in terms of minorities ( race, sexuality etc)? Should it be the demographic of the country or where the programme is being made/set or ...?

I had a feeling that you wouldn't agree with my points of view on this! Some people feel that their own "group" should be represented the most or the best no matter what, others feel that everyone who is a member of a society should be represented. Unfortunately representation won't always be able to fit with the local or national figures. If BAME people make up 15% of the national population and that was represented in a given tv programme, that equates to 3 people in a cast of 20. Given that there are people from several different (visually identifiable?!) ethnic groups in that 15% so who do we choose to include? If the programme is based in a large city are the producers allowed to have an ethnic make up that is similar to the place it is based (maybe 50%)? Or if it's based in a rural part of the country can they choose to not include any people from other ethnic groups if that's typical of the population make up there? Should the TV channel have to tot up all of the people of different ethnic groups across all of there schedule to check that it is representative of the whole population? or should it be representative of the populations that most of the country live in, or representative of the populations of the greater area of the country? Each would have a very different figure. With regards to "subscribing to racial/ethnic stereotypes", there are massive issues associated with social problems in particular sections of our society (not just related to race) in terms of qualifications, employment, crime without real, positive intervention in terms of education, training, mentors, role models etc those issues continue and if anything get worse which has an effect on all of those in the surrounding society No I don't work for the LA, just keener than some to live in a diverse country where everyone can feel represented no matter where their family are considered to originate from.

It does make interesting reading, but is there really an issue with overrepresentation of minorities (is it a problem if there is overrepresentation) ? If minorities aren't overrepresented then it would (as in the past) seem like the token individuals being included. Where we live in the country will also determine how we view this in terms of representing what we know. Living in the South West there are relatively small numbers of BAME individuals so many programmes are unrepresentative of what I see around me, but even with overrepresentation on a national level there would be people around the country who would feel that the levels quoted in the article were underrepresenting groups that they see around them. I would argue that in all likelihood over the last half a century minorities have generally been underrepresented on screen in particular and many minorities were probably underrepresented behind the scenes too. Considering this overrepresentation at this time could be a good thing for the general population, raising the profile and importance of BAME people in the country as a whole. Its also considered to be very important for minorities to be visible in all areas of society so that children and adults from those minorities see "people like them" in different roles. This is considered by many to be very helpful in improving ambitions and motivations where others from their communities are not seen to be good role models and help towards breaking cycles of crime, antisocial behaviour etc.

Hi Lauren I'll send you a message

Some shopping could be viewed as essential activities, as such those that need to go to the shops (admittedly not all shops, but blanket guidance probably makes it easier all around). Many also need to go to the petrol station. As such everyone can go there feeling safe. You could see restaurants, pubs etc as more of a choice of those using them. Wearing masks in "essential" places allows them to be open and functioning, and employing staff. It's not perfect, there probably is no perfect solution. I can't stand the Tories, Boris, Gove etc in particular and think they've made a right mess of this whole situation, but this mask solution does seem like the right solution for the time being. It'd be interesting to know how many of the anti-mask brigade voted for the current government! you can just imagine the vitriol that'd be coming out if Labour had imposed similar measures!

I see your points about the possibilities of going for promotion etc to increase your pay after reaching the top of the scales, but I think the key issue is about effective pay cuts due to austerity. I'm not saying that the public sector needs the sympathy of those in the private sector but more that they have a valid point. In public sector areas such as education, nursing, police, military? etc do you really want the most experienced staff members to be leaving the "front line" whether that's the classroom, wards, day to day policing or military work where they may do a really good job (better than many younger, less experienced staff)? Will they be able to use their strengths at a desk/office/admin job that comes with promotion and will they necessarily make good leaders? If they choose to stay in that standard role they shouldn't expect to receive a real pay rise but surely they shouldn't accept an effective pay cut which is what has happened with below inflation pay rises year after year.

From what I understand, there is usually a top band which is reached after a certain number of years, for example teachers can reach the top of their pay scales in about 12 years. So a more experienced staff member who chose to stay in the classroom rather than chasing promotion would have had their pay stagnated for a decade. I'd imagine it's a similar scenario across other industries where pay increases with experience, that only goes so far. So in terms of majority of people in those industries their pay did increase but only as they gained experience, those who were already experienced and chose to stay in more hands on roles rather than going for more desk based jobs had pay stagnation or cuts when annual rises were below inflation.

How much of a real inconvenience is wearing a mask in a shop? Even doing a big supermarket shop you'd probably be wearing one for less than an hour in one go. When shopping you can come into brief close contact with lots of different people to the point that track and trace (if it even works) is useless and one inconsiderate and infected person going around a busy shop without a mask could potentially spread the virus to lots of different people. It may well be unlikely but wearing masks could prevent this. Like vaccines, masks have an important function of going some way towards helping to protect the most vulnerable. The majority of people (below a certain age) being vaccinated against measles for example means that those who could be vulnerable to it don't have a high risk of being infected so they don't have to shield themselves. Likewise, the majority of people in shops wearing masks and reducing the chance of transmission means that the most vulnerable don't have to stay locked away for any longer than they have done already, possibly going some way to helping their mental health too. If you have a genuine reason why you don't have to wear a mask fair enough, but if you don't why make a fuss about it?

This is why this is being classed as a conspiracy theory: And there seem to be plenty of people out there who think it is a cunning ploy to make us submissive to the government so that we will all accept mandatory vaccines for this and other diseases. Then you add on all of the additional theories about Soros, Bill Gates, Amazon, Big Pharma etc and there are multiple conspiracy theories all rolled into one. All because we are being advised to wear some kind of face covering because there is a chance that it might help (even a little bit!) reduce the transmission of a virus that's caused 45000+ deaths in this country so far.

So... you're worried about this all being a step towards a cashless society and the small businesses will have to close and the market will become dominated by the big corporations that operate online. But you're not going to go to shops that require you to wear a mask unless absolutely essential. I get it that people don't like wearing masks, it's not very pleasant and I'd much rather see everyone else's faces too, but is your brief discomfort more important than supporting your local businesses through this difficult time?

Funny that, as it seems that you're more paranoid about whoever it is trying to control our every move and needing to fight against it, but from what you've said it sounds like you've been following most of the rules or guidance that we've been set to live by even though you don't agree with them.