What do you do when you have a female racial minority employee with a great employment record at the BBC? You sack her, because she sounds ‘posh’.
This highlights the folly of the left’s ardent desire to groupthink (whatever happened to ‘I have a dream‘?). Black people are OK so long as they are left wing, but if they are somehow not proles (or lefties) then the left hates them.
This is racism (what would happen if a black person was sacked for sounding too ‘black’?).
I hope Ms Ahmed sues (not under silly discrimination legislation which would not apply here, presumably because it is OK to discriminate against posh people, but for the breach of an implied term of fair treatment) and makes a packet.
There was a case last year or the year before where the BBC was found liable for discrimination when its Scottish division refused to hire an English person solely on grounds of that person’s Englishness.
The BBC should be abolished.
If her story is accurate and, to be honest, it sounds a little sensationalised (will she really be signing on? She must know it’ll take her ages to get any money from the process)then its sounds like she’s been hard done by. But how on earth is it racism? If she were sacked because of her voice, then I don’t believe the way one sounds is covered by the legislation. If you’re employed solely on the basis of your voice, and your voice doesn’t fit what’s required anymore, then you’re redundant. Market forces rule…
Also I think it’s much more likely that ‘the left’ as you put it don’t like non left wing black people because they’re not left wing, not because black people have to be left wing to be any good. Surely the ability to dislike non leftwing people whatever the colour of their skin is an expression of equality? To like black people regardless of their political persuasion smacks more of racism than the very rational hatred of the right whatever their packaging.
But the problem is that the left don’t hate non-left wing black people as much as they hate other non-lefties; they hate them much more.
Here is a link to some choice quotes from American lefties on the subject:
Market forces don’t rule. It’s the BBC. They keep showing us expensive adverts explaining how they don’t have to obey market forces.
And it’s racist because she’s been sacked as part of a drive to employ a wider range of types of people, from different classes and races. In other words, if she spoke like Apu from The Simpsons, she’d have kept her job. However, they’d never sack a black person or a white person for failing to speak in a strong Pakistani accent. In other words, they’ve decided, based on the colour of her skin, what she should sound like, and have sacked her for failing to meet this ideal.
Thank you so much this blog. I stumbled upon it while doing research on media bias and it’s great. Keep up the good work!
She should try to get a job in broadcasting in the US. Americans love “posh” UK accents. Besides, she would probably also get paid enough to allow her to support her two kids without state “benefits.”
As a fellow ‘clipped’ speaker, may I ask why you are all in such a lather about whether this is racist or not? It’s discriminatory, and that’s the only important issue here. Which is worse: discriminating against the colour of your skin, or the sound of your voice?
If there is truth to this story, and my own life experience tells me that there probably is, Ms Ahmed’s boss comes out looking very bad indeed. It sounds like he hasn’t got the courage to use his own voice, and he’s going to go after others who do. But being anti-‘posh’ is one of the last two acceptable bigotries in our society (the other’s anti-Americanism, of course), and nothing will be done. Look out for other news outlets seeking to pour more onto Ms Ahmed’s head in the next few days.
James you left off anti-Israel, anit-male and anti-christian from your list of acceptable bigotries.
the bbc (british bigots corps), is becoming the leaders and flag bearers of modern day nihilism. they no longer provide the facts as required from a news organization, but tell you the ‘truth’ as they see it. and the truth as they see it is the same truth of der sturmer.
they paint the background and pave the road to a new holocaust (no less).
i can only comment on the anti-israel >anti-jewish>anti-semitic bias which has since become a policy of their news dept.
examples of demonizing israelis (people,pigs, and jewish robots alike) are easily found on this great blog and many others.
like der sturmer – the bbc has a lot of anti-nazi sentiments, so they say – getting public opinion ‘ready’ is the first step.
now for the point of this post:
after demonization has taken the lead,comes the steady flow of historical revisionism, look at this article:
in the middle you can find the next phrase: “the Protocols of the Elders of Zion – a document that historians believe was forged in Tsarist Russia, as a pretext for the persecution of Jews.”
get it? historians believe! which means, maybe it’s not true.
not to worry, bbc history dept are on the case.i’m sure theyll come up with a more truthful explaination.
the yrllow quote section they like so much quotes as follows:”The United States has a strange conception of freedom of expression “, while at it let’s stick it up to the evil americans too. (i mean it’s a quote by a lebanese men, but frequent visitors to bbc, know everything about americans, so they must agree)
i again appologize for grammer mistakes, and shalom from israel
forgot to add links:
jewish pigs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3221079.stm
jewish robots (gollems):
while at it, seems that the baathist bigots corps among others are achieving their goal.
59% of europeans think that Israel is the biggest threat to world peace. along with N Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and naturally th US of A.
i feel the warmth already.
i’m sure the bbc and the rest had nothing to do with it.
another way of looking at it:
those final contestants remain in news headlines constantly, so that’s it. they are the threat. where’s my ostrich hanz? i need to learn a few things aaiiiiiii.