Tory MP Nick Fletcher blames crime in young men on female Doctor Who

[Ancient Citizen]

Doctor Who lost half its audience with the latest incarnation.
Wonder why that was?

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Doctor Who lost half its audience with the latest incarnation.
Wonder why that was?

I would've thought it was the same reason that a lot of shows lose their audience, bad scripts and repetitive stories.

 

[blueparrot]

Doctor Who lost half its audience with the latest incarnation.
Wonder why that was?

From reviews it seems to be a mix of storylines and bad casting of companions, which is probably why Davies has come back, that said think the current series is quite good.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

I would've thought it was the same reason that a lot of shows lose they're audience, bad scripts and repetitive stories.

Could be, then again, there may be other reasons.

 

[youngbob]

Doctor Who lost half its audience with the latest incarnation.
Wonder why that was?

Same reason it lost half its audience and got canned in the 80s: people get tired of stuff eventually and move on to other things.

 

[everythingchangesbutblue]

Could be, then again, there may be other reasons.

Nah, not enough dinosaurs that care if it's a female doctor in real life. Bigots and intolerants shout the loudest on social media but the overwhelming majority are not fuckwits.

 

[Vicious111]

Not accusing you of being racist, mate. Point is, "diversity" on TV is just a thing now. I mean, it's been a "thing" for longer than either of us have been alive (unless you were born in the 40s?). They had all-black families on TV in the 50s, they had a transgender character on Corrie in the late 1980s and she was an established character for nearly thirty years, etc. And obviously there are thousands of other examples from the last 60 years of popular culture and society.

My point wasn't that you're a racist at all. Considering it's the case that "diversity" on TV has always been a thing, you have a choice - you can either spend the rest of your life feeling angry about something that's always existed (which you're more than entitled to do), or you can let sleeping dogs lie and try to calm down a bit? TV companies and major brands are always trying to look "progressive" because it's where the money is, it's not a new thing.

TV is a good example as it's generally at the spearhead of such movements. I'm really not angry, it's not something that affects my life. I've just stated that it's so blatantly overdoing it on the equality casting that I find it obvious to the point I lose the message of the Ad.

but the deeper fallout of this is that I am concerned about positive discrimination however and it's long term impact. That's what I'm talking about here and that every other poster has purposely avoided to engage. Do I care what colour, creed or sexuality people on TV ads are? Not one ounce. But Positive discrimination is dangerous and divisive. An example was a Scottish business fund exclusive to minorities. Why should a governing body be handing out grants with ethnicity as a driving factor? And it's a problem that has spread all over the corporate sectors.

Positive discrimination is as you so rightly said, a progressive PR strategy. If we wanted real equality why wouldn't these companies remove gender, sexual orientation, names (linked to ethnicity) and age from their recruitment processes and instead give each candidate an automated number. But we don't and won't because companies want a company image of some sort of American stock photo laughing over their Chai Latte's.

But back to point of positive discrimination (aka discrimination). I'm yet to hear of any real world benefits? We both know companies are recruiting with diversity in mind, meaning ability and experience are being forgotten on a crusade of discrimination disguised as equality. The founding principle of modern day equality is in itself creating inequality. Surely that's not hard to understand is it?

 

[mat]

Same reason it lost half its audience and got canned in the 80s: people get tired of stuff eventually and move on to other things.

As a Whovian I agree I ready for a rest.

Jodie is the Colin Baker of the new era.

 

[mat]

TV is a good example as it's generally at the spearhead of such movements. I'm really not angry, it's not something that affects my life. I've just stated that it's so blatantly overdoing it on the equality casting that I find it obvious to the point I lose the message of the Ad.

but the deeper fallout of this is that I am concerned about positive discrimination however and it's long term impact. That's what I'm talking about here and that every other poster has purposely avoided to engage. Do I care what colour, creed or ability people on TV ads are? Not one ounce. But Positive discrimination is dangerous and divisive. An example was a Scottish business fund exclusive to minorities. Why should a governing body be handing out grants with ethnicity as a driving factor? And it's a problem that has spread all over the corporate sectors.

Positive discrimination is as you so rightly said, a progressive PR strategy. If we wanted real equality why wouldn't these companies remove gender, sexual orientation, names (linked to ethnicity) and age from their recruitment processes and instead give each candidate an automated number. But we don't and won't because companies want a company image of some sort of American stock photo laughing over their Chai Latte's.

But back to point of positive discrimination (aka discrimination). I'm yet to hear of any real world benefits? We both know companies are recruiting with diversity in mind, meaning ability and experience are being forgotten on a crusade of discrimination disguised as equality. The founding principle of modern day equality is in itself creating inequality. Surely that's not hard to understand is it?

Were you more offended when a white actor was cast as Othello or a black actor that was cast as Anne Boylen for TV dramas?

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

in a tribute to his boss Johnson his lack of research and grasp of the brief means that he does not understand that the character of Dr Who is genderless - its an alien - it can regenerate as a chair leg but this thick twat doesn't understand that

That should be a good part for St. Marcus, or both of those Geordie twits, or even CamelGob, Oh, and there's both Nevilles (not inc. T. Neville 'cos it's a fellah's turn to be Dr. Who!)