Please keep complaining to the BBC about the John Inverdale incident

[LieweHeksie]

I am fucking fuming.

I took the time to write a complaint to the BBC not about the incident itself, but about the BBC's utterly inadequate response which labelled his comments as 'insensitive' and 'clumsy' and to apologise 'if any offence was caused'. I complained that the BBC had completely missed the point and had failed to acknowledge that these comments (and many others made throughout their Wimbledon coverage (on both TV and Radio) are clear indications that the BBC tolerates overt sexism. These comments were not 'insensitive', which suggests that they were accurate but somewhat tactless, they were overtly sexist and deeply offensive. It is unimaginable that BBC staff would have made an equivalent comment about Andy Murray having to rethink his career plans on the basis of being less ?of a looker? than Rafa Nadel.
Their reply?

The same standard 'apologise if any offense was caused' shite. No acknowledgement that there was any wrong doing here.

In my opinion the BBC needs to publically acknowledge the sexist behaviour of its staff and make a clear statement that this will not be tolerated in the future. And this will only happen if we keep the pressure on.

On a positive note, their online complaints form is very easy to use :)

[mamasin]

Thanks for reminding me - just submitted online complaint

[GummyLopes]

I've complained too.

Too many men think women give a flying fuck whether or not they find them attractive. We don't need an opinion or comment on us when we're going around living our lives, let alone winning Wimbledon.

[Bearleigh]

I had already complained to BBC before I read your thread - but absolutely agree. The more people who complain the better.

And actually the only time I met JI, he was rater unpleasant - I physically bumped into him by accident in a farm shop, and he was very rude. He probably didn't find me attractive - too old I suspect...

[LieweHeksie]

I agree that JI is probably a "reasonably normal bloke"

And it makes me deeply upset to be reminded that "reasonably normal blokes" routinely think and say this shite.

[BasilBabyEater]

Let's give Inverdale some credit.

I think it's a bit unfair to him to assume that if he were sacked, he'd suddenly turn into a raging misogynist with a vendetta against women everywhere (I'm assuming he's not one already). Let's assume he's a reasonably normal bloke not some kind of lunatic.

Secondly, fearing that someone will turn into a maniac if you sack them, is not a good reason for not sacking them. In fact, it's a better reason to sack them - it shows that you think they're a maniac in the first place and who wants to work with a maniac?

But as I say, I think it's a bit unfair to Inverdale to speculate upon his unhingedness or otherwise in the event of a sacking.

[Leithlurker]

Perhaps that might be true about the racist language Kim, although I think if it was said that as a black person they had overcome huge social barriers it would have caused a small amount of disquiet. Said in relation to disability it has a different context and meaning, and possibly as a community were more sensitive about comments that on the face of it are not just truthful but seem to be supportive.

Coming back to Inverdale, I think it is actually better for him to stay in place as he will forever be linked to that and as a example of sexist language he serves as a constant reminder. Sacking him would do what apart from take him off the BBC, as with Andy Gray, et al, Inverdale as a journalist would pop up somewhere else possibly feeling he has been hard done by and much more ready to pursue vendetta's against all women. I do not think that is what people would want. As for his apology, I have not read it, but from the reaction on here I take it he did not go far enough. So what should he have said, and once he said what ever the words were would that satisfy?

[LineRunner]

Just to add that I complained about the 'apologies' and got the stupid standard better back.

Happy to re-complain.

[Leithlurker]

Kim as I said before I am not getting in to who' is the most oppressed or who suffers the most. I disagree that there would be any repercussions.

If you care to repeat the same very unscientific and by no means conclusive experiment as I just did, type in to google "Sacked for sexist language." What came up were multiple pages of different examples, some were of women being sacked for the offence, but the indication is that indeed people are held to account for sexist language and behaviour. Now do the same for disabelist language and if you like me got a single page with no direct links to an actual case, that makes my point. If you get different results for the second I will be delighted and would like to know.

The sheer fact that a much more common understanding and likelihood of people recognising sexist language as opposed to the still very uncertain knowledge as to what constitutes disabelist speech is clear. But see this starts to sound like were more hard done by than you, in truth were all suffering the same kind of entrenched social barriers. The "othering" happens to anyone perceived to be none white, none, male, none powerful (That usually means wealthy, but it could be politicle power, or social power like the Beckhams maybe)

The only case I can recall where someone lost their job for saying anything dodgy about disabled people was Glen Hoddle, and even then he did not actualy say it it was his spiritual healer.

[Leithlurker]

Short of getting in to a "my oppression is worse than yours" type argument which is neither helpful or in fact the point. I would have to say that you are not seeing the same level of harmful daily disabelist and undermining use of language as a great many in that community do.

Jeremy Vine
Jeremy Kyle
Victoria Derbyshire
Melanie Hunt

Are all examples of broadcasters as well as many other bloggers like Guido Fawkes who not only commit acts of diabolism but encourage others to do the same.

Kim's point was that if he had said a disabled person was less attractive or a black person was less attractive, he would have been fired. On the evidence from other communities, I would also strongly suggest particularly the Muslim community, not only would have he still had his job, he would be defended by those shouting about "pc gone mad", and a "right to free speech". So no I do not accept Kims point, which in fairness she was echoing from others she was not the first one to suggest the premise.

[BasilBabyEater]

Is it not clear what I'm saying LL? Sorry.

My point is that when disabled groups complain, or anti-racist groups complain, their complaints are taken seriously. When women complain about sexism in the media, our complaints are not taken seriously. We are told that we are equal already, so what are we complaining about - there are always a spate of articles whingeing about women complaining. Other groups who are systematically disadvantaged, are not treated like this, that was Kim's point which you said was wrong. I don't think she is wrong.

Acknowledging as you rightly do, that other systematically disadvantaged groups are also treated badly, does not negate the point Kim made.

[Leithlurker]

EH?

[BasilBabyEater]

But when disabled groups complain about the patronising language used, their complaints are not dismissed as uppity complaints from a bunch of wankers who have already got equality so WTF are they complaining about.

They provoke thought and discussion and at least a pretence of taking the complaints seriously.

[Leithlurker]

Kim your not correct to say that a comment about any other group would have seen him go.

Most sport presenters will fail to use correct language and or terminology when describing disabled sports people. No one has ever been sacked for concentrating on someone's impairment or how as a disabled person they are extra "brave" than anyone else.

Racist comments are also still to be heard, even though the "Ron Atkinson" affair did prompt a huge uproar and he was sacked. In sacking him ITV for a while created a backlash against themselves and indeed against black football players. Perhaps BBC are looking to retrain and reinforce non discriminatory language by allowing Inverdale to be the centre of the storm instead of giving him an easy way out, killing the debate, or creating the kind of backlash we have seen before

[leakylills]

I have complained too, in no uncertain terms..

[leakylills]

kim147 Exactly. Apology means diddley squat I'm afraid. The man has caused enormous offence and outrage. He is symptomatic of everything that has held women back for so long. He MUST go. But do you think His bosses at the beeb who he plays golf with and lends his holiday home to will act?

[sugarplumfairy]

I have now complained, I listen to 5 live all the time, and had to turn off yesterday as John was on again with the golf, and I didn't want to listen to him.

He probably would have commented on Rory McIlroy's hair, or something equally pointless with regards to the sport.

[leakylills]

Inverdale's back on today, Golf or something, radio 5. Ron Atkinson was rightly sacked immediately from ITV for his racist outburst. Inverdale, Sexism ? Well... who cares eh? Only those angry old Lesbo's

[northernlurker]

Pagwatch and Basil - those are both good points and I want that to happen too. I just think that are constructive ways to move that forward - and using Inverdale's situation as a starting point for debate is probably more helpful than using it as a debate issue in itself isywim. And yes the irony of the DM had not escaped me. Gits.

[BasilBabyEater]

On one level your thing of he's apologised, therefore what more is there to do is right Northern, but I still feel there is more to do.

Because no one would say if he'd apologised for making a racist remark, that he's apologised so it's OK.

I want sexism to be taken as seriously as racism, because I think there is no moral difference demoting someone's humanity because of their sex, and doing so because of their race.

And if we accept every apology every nob makes every time they make sexist remarks, this will never happen. Sexism will always be acceptable in the way that racism simply isn't anymore. 30 years ago, a man in his position could have made a racist remark and kept his job. Now, he can't. But he can if he goes for sexism. Why is that OK?

What the BBC could do, is look at its policy on sexism and get its staff trained up in why women are human beings just like men and so you need to talk about them with exactly the same assumption of their humanity as you would about that of a man.

I realise that's a little wooly and long-winded, but that's basically what I'm thinking.

[Pagwatch]

I want to agree Northern, I understand your point - and I don't want him to lose his job. but I wish someone involved (preferably him and whoever drafted that lame ass apology) would say
'actually I have thought about it and wtf as what she looks like got to do with anything'

I am not a complaining kind of person but tbh his apology was more irritating to me because it is kind of 'gosh I didn't mean to call her a munter' rather than 'actually what was I thinking!'