I work at the BBC and I have the rage

[alltherageattheBBC]

The Humphrys/Sopel leak is the last straw. The dripping contempt and the fact that they're laughing at us and there is nothing I can do cos I need my job makes me feel so enraged I could weep.

www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/12/john-humphrys-jokes-about-bbc-gender-pay-gap-in-leaked-off-air-recording

I'm sick of this attidute. Why isnt Gracie paid as well as Sopel? Because she's a woman and they think they're doing her a favour giving her the job at all. Yeah, they trot out the same old 'reasons'; previous salary (er, obvious flaw there in a discriminatory system), experience, profile blah blah.

for all the unconscious bias training, I've yet to meet a senior manager who appeared to reflect, question or examine their own actions.
They cut staff in £20 000 with about as much thought as they give to choosing a sandwich; the 'talent' pay is a different matter.

'Diverse' is anyone who doesn't tick the boxes of male, middle-class, privately educated, white. In my book that's normal, not different.

It's wrong, wrong, wrong and, as they never tire of reminding us when tightening up expenses or cutting low paid roles, it's public money.

Yup, you financed that cosy joking blokey banter. Total cost of a year of Humphrys and Sopel? Around £850 000.

but mostly

[boatyardblues]

John Humphries is at it again this morning - sneering about the easily offended and #metoo with John Cleese. Two dinosaurs we could do with hearing a LOT less from!

[SeaRabbit]

That's a good idea as I turn off when Humphrys is on too. I'll try and message them in the same way.

[borntobequiet]

Thought I had posted this the other day but think I didn't - anyway, if JH is presenting I turn off and email the Today programme to tell them I'm not listening and why not.
Petty I know but he has annoyed me for so long.

[PetiteMarseillaise]

Whoops, completely missed @GrouchyKiwi 's post - that's exactly the reply I received. I'm even less impressed now!

[PetiteMarseillaise]

Sounds like @Dozer and I had the same cut and paste response about Humphrys' comments being "not campaigning" therefore he doesn't need sanctioning I'm not impressed by the BBC's response.

[InfiniteSheldon]

I've had a meaningless acknowledgement of my complaint. I have asked them to explain what they are doing re the gender pay gap, to explain why they haven't started doing it already/before it was public knowledge that forced their hand and to sack Humphreys

[Dozer]

What is their ACTION on pay?

And what about channel 4 and privately owned media cos?

[Dozer]

Shit response. Makes out that only public comment (“campaigning”!) is of relevance to whether someone is impartial, which is bollocks. He had that conversation in his workplace!

“Analysis” of pay is already publicly available!

[100YearsOfVote]

yep me too

[Modestine]

Yes, same here.

[Firstaidnovice]

haha grouchy, I guess someone at the BBC has been hitting the copy and paste button hard this morning.

[GrouchyKiwi]

Ah, cross post Firstaid. I was faffing with formatting.

[GrouchyKiwi]

I got a response to my complaint this morning.

Thank you for contacting us about the off-air conversation between Jon Sopel and John Humphrys. The BBC has been clear that this was an ill-advised conversation and has stated that it is committed to getting its pay structures right. It is conducting a comprehensive analysis of presenter pay which is expected to be published at the end of the month.

John Humphrys is bound by the same rules on impartiality as all other BBC presenters. Staff are entitled to their own opinions but if they choose to campaign on a topic publicly, then judgements are made as to whether they can go on to interview people on that subject. In this case, John was clearly not ‘campaigning’ on the topic.

We are grateful that you have taken the time to contact us. Please be assured that your complaint has been included on our audience feedback report that is seen by BBC senior management.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints Team

I'm not convinced that a tweet agreeing with a letter can be considered campaigning.

[Firstaidnovice]

Has anyone else had a reply to their complaints?

Here is mine - "Thank you for contacting us about the off-air conversation between Jon Sopel and John Humphrys. The BBC has been clear that this was an ill-advised conversation and has stated that it is committed to getting its pay structures right. It is conducting a comprehensive analysis of presenter pay which is expected to be published at the end of the month.

John Humphrys is bound by the same rules on impartiality as all other BBC presenters. Staff are entitled to their own opinions but if they choose to campaign on a topic publicly, then judgements are made as to whether they can go on to interview people on that subject. In this case, John was clearly not ‘campaigning’ on the topic.

We are grateful that you have taken the time to contact us. Please be assured that your complaint has been included on our audience feedback report that is seen by BBC senior management. "

I'm curious as to how expressing your views on mic (where you'd have to be a fool to have an expectation of your conversation remaining private, come on) is different to one tweet, but hey.

[mommybunny]

Humphrys was on Today AGAIN this morning!!! Do you think the BBC is doubling down on him?

[Modestine]

I'm thinking of complaining again about that Humphreys response to the James Bond remark. It was at about 6.45am today. He can't just sneer at everything to do with women's equality and get away with it.

[OldPony]

I have also complained and have asked for a reply. Thanks OP.

[Dozer]

Nothing YET.

But I agree.

I switched over within 20 seconds this morning, had heard enough!

[LizzieSiddal]

I find it ironic that Jenni Murray was sent a warning letter about her behaviour, when she dared to ask a very valid question of a 52 year old a trans woman. It was along the lines of “do you think you have a different perspective as you weren’t born a woman”. Jenni was hounded onSM and told off you her employers.
What’s happened to JH regarding this? Absolutely nothing!

[badbadhusky]

Thanks for taking one for the team, Dozer. As soon as I realised it Humphosaurus, I switched off and played a Woman’s Hour podcast instead. I feel much less ragey this morning. (If I plan to continue doing this, I need a decent clock in the bathroom - Today’s highly predictable format keeps me to time.)

[Dozer]

This morning there was an item about encouraging young women to apply to work in cyber security services, 4 interviewees. Humphries interviewing. I really cringed.

In the intro to the subsequent item about Carillion I think, the next interviewee, a man, commented that he looked forward to seeing a female “Q” in James Bond, and Humphries guffawed awkwardly.

[Modestine]

Yes, Sopel should have stood up to him. I should think he felt bullied and wrong-footed which may be some pathetic excuse. I still can't bring myself to listen though. Not sure my blood pressure could take it!

[TalkinPeace]

Its worth listening as you can feel Sopel cringing.
He's still a cowardly shit for not slapping Humphrys down
but he knew the conversation was wrong.

Sopel's next alumni speech might be fun - I'll be the heckler with the grey hair

[badbadhusky]

Smug git is the polite version, though a reasonable summation. I will be turning over every time he’s on Today in future.