BBC's 'No Conscience' Conscious Age Discrimination

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC have continually justified the high salaries and benefits paid to its hierarchy as necessary to attract the high level people they need to fit those positions, and to match those earnings found in the private sector.

However, since most of these aggrandized bloated positions are only found at the BBC, and nowhere in the private sector, with no media corporation able to exist if they awarded their managers similar earnings.

This aside, one would assume therefore that at least the BBC were really hiring top level people who knew their job and could perform it at a very high level, at least if you didn't look through the TV guide for any given day to see what they were offering.

Following the recent exposure of age discrimination by the BBC over the termination of one their presenters, this is what transpired;

The BBC was yesterday forced to make drastic changes to its rules for selecting TV presenters following the Miriam O’Reilly verdict.

As the corporation was left reeling from the employment tribunal’s finding, it tried to repair the damage by announcing that it was changing the guidelines on how it chooses on-screen talent.

Senior bosses are terrified of other women coming forward with similar discrimination claims against the broadcaster.

Within hours of yesterday’s landmark result the corporation revealed it would produce ‘new guidance’ to ensure ‘fair selection’.

As part of the changes ‘senior editorial executives’ will undergo ‘additional training’.

BBC Creative Director, Alan Yentob, said yesterday: ‘As a consequence we will be looking hard at training, especially senior editorial executives, about recruitment in this way; we will be reviewing our guidelines so that people feel that they get the help and assistance they require.

‘I think there are questions here for the whole industry, these are not easy decisions, it is a creative industry and we need time to reflect on this and we are actually going to take this time to get it right, but in this instance we didn’t get it right.’

I'd like to know why these top executives who are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in salaries under the justification that they are 'top level' should need 'additional training' to manage people. Isn't that what they are supposed to know already? Otherwise hire the people who would be doing the training.

Another element in this story that shows just how negative the BBC is, besides the obvious age discrimination, is that emails passed between the hierarchy reveal that they knew exactly what they were doing was wrong, and were seeking ways to make it appear that it was right. They acknowledged privately they WERE trying to dumb down in order to attract a younger audience, because that is the ignorant youth they have creates and wish to appeal to. But they had to find other excuses to justify their actions.

So lest you think that any bias perpetrated by the BBC is unconscious, think again. They know full well it's wrong, but just look at how to get away with it. When a particular blatant incident proves their conscious bias you can just expect to hear that their staff need 'additional training', and that will get the public off their backs.

What they need is termination from the public purse - the BBC doesn't just not fulfil its remit, it is negative for the society that supports it to do so.

CUT THEM LOOSE!

Emails that showed the panic that gripped the BBC in Countryfile presenter's age discrimination sacking
By Emily Andrews and Paul Revoir
Last updated at 3:36 PM on 12th January 2011

* Emails reveal BBC's slapdash approach to recruitment
* Another labels two stalwart presenters as 'no spring chickens'
* Veteran journalist now in line for six-figure payout
* BBC accepts ruling and apologises to presenter
* Tribunal blasts BBC obsession with 'ethnic diversity'

As Mirian O'Reilly celebrates her £150,000 payout, a series of sensational emails have emerged that reveal the BBC's panic over her ageism sacking.

In a landmark ruling, a tribunal declared yesterday that senior executives were obsessed with ‘ethnic diversity’, ‘rejuvenation’ and attracting younger viewers when they decided to axe the Countryfile presenter at the age of 51.

But a series of revealing internal corporation emails, published by the hearing, show BBC bosses drew up a ‘risk assessment’ at the time of the Countryfile shake-up to head off expected claims it was ‘dumbing down’ and ‘pandering to a younger audience’.

Shockingly, it even made disparaging remarks about two of the stars who remain on the show – John Craven and Julia Bradbury – saying neither were ‘spring chickens’.

In an email to executive editor Andrew Thorman, the BBC Publicity Department recognises they could be labelled ageist and sexist over the cull.

And in a contrived effort to deflect criticism, the email adds: 'To counter any suggestion of ageism I will position John Craven as a central figure in the new series.'

In another exchange between Mr Thornton and Countryfile magazine editor Cavan Scott the issue over swelling numbers of reader complaints is broached.

Mr Thornton tells Mr Scott: 'If it is an age thing then Julia and John are hardly spring chickens and if it is about personalities then it is subjective and all programmes need to refresh their output and that includes faces on the screen.'

Countryfile series producer Teresa Bogan even gives Mr Thornton her thoughts on 'additional ethnic talent', revealing the corporation's slapdash approach to hiring.

She adds: 'Do you want me to [look through their showreels] or would I be wasting my time (ie is Jay just gonna pick someone)'

One of the axed presenters, Michaela Strachan, later shows her hurt at 'being dumped'.

She wrote to Andrew Thorman: 'I'm not even much older than Julia Bradbury. Did Jay need to make it quite so brutal?'

She adds: 'Oh, it's a cruel harsh world . . . Well, I'll bring my zimmer next time I come to Birmingham.'

The emails are a stark revelation over the inner workings of BBC recruitment processes and attitudes towards age and ethnicity that inspired Miriam O'Reilly to take the corporation to tribunal.

Miss O’Reilly, now 53, had been told to be ‘careful about those wrinkles’ before she and three other women were replaced by younger staff – two from ethnic minorities.

She said standing up to the BBC had been ‘the right thing to do, however hurtful, however stressful it has been’.

She added: ‘I never wanted to leave my job ... there are still years in me yet!’

Miss O’Reilly will now consider fresh offers from the BBC, which issued a humiliating ­apology and said it would be happy to work with her again.

The corporation – already under fire over the axeing of Arlene Phillips from Strictly Come Dancing – has now been forced to draw up fresh guidelines which will put a string of older stars on our screens.

Bosses, including the former BBC1 Controller Jay Hunt, were judged to have shown ‘complacency’ in their casual attitude to the way they treated staff.

It was alleged during the hearing that Miss Hunt ‘hated women’ – an accusation she vigorously denied.

She was also recorded as saying she needed ‘to achieve social engineering to re-gear the channel’.

The tribunal said this meant ‘finding presenters to reflect particular aspects of diversity to fit specific slots’. Miss O’Reilly revealed she had been offered a pay-off – thought to have been around £80,000 – to keep quiet and drop the case.

She described yesterday’s ruling as historic, a verdict backed by employment lawyers.

Helena Derbyshire, of law firm Shoosmiths, said: ‘This is the first reported age discrimination claim challenging the assumption that workers need to be youthful to be attractive.’

Miss O’Reilly revealed she had earned only £500 in the past two years, as she struggled to find work due to the BBC’s displeasure with her.

The saga began when she was dropped along with Charlotte Smith, 46, Juliet Morris, 45, and Michaela Strachan, 44, to make way for younger presenters such as Julia Bradbury, 40, and Katie Knapman, 38.

BBC bosses claimed the decision was nothing to do with age, but the need to ‘refresh’ and ‘rejuvenate’ the show.

But the tribunal’s judgment was scathing of the BBC practices – in particular of Miss Hunt and Andrew Thorman, the executive editor of Countryfile.

Miss O’Reilly told the initial 12-day hearing last year that even before she was axed she had been told to be ‘careful about those wrinkles’ in preparation for high definition television, to consider using Botox and offered a can of black hair dye.

The veteran presenter, who had worked for the corporation for 25 years, said she knew this had ‘the ring of truth’ because of the prevailing ‘ageist attitude’.

Yesterday at an emotional press conference, Miss O’Reilly revealed it had taken a huge amount of courage to take a stand against the BBC, particularly since it meant all other work had dried up.

‘It was hard to take on the BBC because I love the BBC and I loved working there,’ the mother-of-two said.

‘I think it is one of the best broadcast organisations in the world but I felt that I was treated badly because of my age.

‘Standing up to the BBC was the right thing to do, however hurtful, however stressful it has been. I would like to go back to work for the BBC.

‘I took this action because I wanted to work for the BBC.

‘I never wanted to leave my job, I want my career. I am only 53, there are still years in me yet! Ageism is endemic, it is part of the culture of broadcasting.

‘We still have a long way to go with ageism in visual media. It is not just the BBC. We are seeing changes but we are not seeing enough and it is not fast enough but we hope that after this case and the stand I have taken it will happen a lot quicker.’

She said she had refused the BBC’s earlier settlement because it wanted her to sign a gagging order and would not accept recommendations for age equality audits.

She said: ‘When I was dropped from Countryfile because of my age, I felt that after over 20 years with the BBC ... I deserved to be judged on my ability and not on my appearance.

‘I don’t think having wrinkles is offensive, you know, we all get old, the alternative is pretty dire.

‘I would like to continue working so long as I am good at my job. I do not want to be judged by how I look – I know you can’t frighten the horses, you have to look presentable – but I do not believe that youth has to be key to keeping your job.’

Miss O’Reilly told the tribunal she had been ‘devastated’ when she was told in November 2008 that she was being dropped after eight years of working for the show as a freelance.

The programme relaunched in April the following year in a Sunday evening prime-time slot with Miss Bradbury and former Blue Peter presenter Matt Baker, 33, along with veteran broadcaster Mr Craven, 70, who was kept on for a slot called John Craven Investigates.

It was also announced that they would be supported by presenters Adam Henson, 44, Jules Hudson, 41, James Wong, 28, and Miss Knapman – the latter two are both from an ethnic minority background.

In its judgment, the tribunal panel said the BBC had subjected Miss O’Reilly to direct age discrimination and age victimisation, though not sex discrimination.

It said keeping Mr Craven suggested age was not a factor, but his position was ‘quite different’ to that of the other presenters due to his high profile.

Crucially, it said: ‘If Miss O’Reilly had been 10 to 15 years younger, she would have been given proper consideration to remain as a presenter of Countryfile.’

BBC director general Mark Thompson apologised to Miss O’Reilly and said the BBC would be speaking to her to ‘discuss working with her again’.
We'll change our ways, vows Beeb

By PAUL REVOIR
The BBC was yesterday forced to make drastic changes to its rules for selecting TV presenters following the Miriam O’Reilly verdict.

As the corporation was left reeling from the employment tribunal’s finding, it tried to repair the damage by announcing that it was changing the guidelines on how it chooses on-screen talent.

Senior bosses are terrified of other women coming forward with similar discrimination claims against the broadcaster.

Within hours of yesterday’s landmark result the corporation revealed it would produce ‘new guidance’ to ensure ‘fair selection’.

As part of the changes ‘senior editorial executives’ will undergo ‘additional training’.

BBC Creative Director, Alan Yentob, said yesterday: ‘As a consequence we will be looking hard at training, especially senior editorial executives, about recruitment in this way; we will be reviewing our guidelines so that people feel that they get the help and assistance they require.

‘I think there are questions here for the whole industry, these are not easy decisions, it is a creative industry and we need time to reflect on this and we are actually going to take this time to get it right, but in this instance we didn’t get it right.’

Miss O’Reilly received a phone call from BBC director general Mark Thompson yesterday in which he apologised and told her she was welcome back.

Mr Yentob said: ‘What we’ll be saying to Miriam is if she wants to, we’d like to talk to her about further opportunities for employment.’

BBC insiders last night predicted the coming weeks will see a series of announcements handing older women prominent presenting roles.

It is already in the process of renegotiating the deals for older women newsreaders including Julia Somerville, Zeinab Badawi and Fiona Armstrong.

But critics say unless they are given more prominent slots – such as a major bulletins rather than occasional slots on the news channel – then the moves will still be regarded as a public relations exercise.

The BBC has pointed to its decision to move Rip-Off Britain - presented by Angela Rippon, Gloria Hunniford and Jennie Bond – to BBC1 ‘peak time’ from day time as evidence it is addressing concerns.

A senior BBC insider said: ‘This [ruling] does not mean you can’t pick a presenter on the basis of what most appeals to the audience. But you need to do it in such a way that is fair and based on criteria and that the process is done properly.’

[Teddy Bear]

Another excellent article on the subject.

It reminded me of the Consultation on the BBC's Diversity Strategy that invited viewers to give their views, although how the general public were to know about it is beyond me, about how the BBC should deal with diversity, or in their words "CREATE diversity". They even pay hundreds of thousands of pounds a year for a 'Head of Diversity' to lead their quest to create a diverse society.

Now we see it's so long as there are no old people in it, unless of course they're Muslim.

A BBC obsessed with diversity and feminist pieties is gloriously hoist with its own petard

By Stephen Glover
Last updated at 11:01 PM on 12th January 2011

The BBC likes to present itself as the most progressive organisation in the world, a trenchant opponent of sexism, racism, ageism and every other kind of -ism you can think of.

It even has a so-called Head of ­Diversity, whose well-remunerated job is presumably to ensure that there are enough vegetarians, people born under the star sign of Capricorn, single ­mothers with a surname beginning with J and left-handed Methodists on the ­payroll of the BBC.

So it is a rich irony that the ­Corporation should have been accused by an ­industrial tribunal of ‘social ­engineering’ over its sacking of a female ­presenter because she was regarded as too old.

Miriam O’Reilly, 51 when she was fired, now 53, will pocket some £150,000 of licence-fee payers’ money. The BBC spent an estimated further £100,000 fighting the case.

Though I am no fan of interfering industrial tribunals, it is impossible to disagree with the judgment that BBC executives were obsessed with ‘ethnic diversity’, ‘rejuvenation’ and trying to attract younger viewers when they got rid of Miss O’Reilly.

This supposedly high-minded ­organisation, so quick to criticise others who display allegedly reactionary behaviour, turns out to have the morals of a hard-hearted brothel keeper who throws her charges on the street once they reach a certain age.

The irony deepens when we consider that Miss O’Reilly was sacked as a ­presenter of the BBC1 programme ­Countryfile along with three other women to be replaced by younger staff, two of whom were from ethnic minorities.

A revealing email from Teresa Bogan, then Countryfile series producer, spoke of ­finding ‘additional ethnic talent’.

A rather condescending term, I would have thought. In order to put the appropriate ticks against the ‘ethnic talent’ ­boxes, the BBC was prepared to give poor Miriam O’Reilly and her colleagues the heave-ho in a most brutal manner.

She was ­offered £80,000 if she walked away and never spoke about the affair. To her great credit, she chose to fight.

The BBC emerges from this case as a muddled and bureaucratic organisation which agonises over concepts such as ‘fairness’ and ‘diversity’ and prides itself on its feminist credentials — before going on to behave in a nasty and ­underhand way.

This is by no means the first time a female presenter has been ­dismissed for the ‘crime’ of being too old.

In 2007, Moira Stuart, who had worked for the BBC as a newsreader for many years, was sent packing, seemingly because she was regarded as too old.

There was an outcry, which suggested that many people do not share the BBC’s views about age, and she was later reinstated in a minor role.

Anna Ford left the BBC in 2006 at the age of 62, saying she didn’t want to be ‘shovelled off into News 24 to the sort of graveyard shift’.

The BBC worships mindlessly at the shrine of the cult of youth. It seeks attractive young ­presenters, usually though not invariably female, who may be short on talent but are loved by the camera. When they reach a certain age, they are often unceremoniously tossed on the scrap heap.

It seems to have escaped the notice of the Corporation’s executives that we live in an ageing society.

A recent report by the BBC Trust, its governing body, suggested that the ­average age of a BBC1 viewer is 49 and of a BBC2 viewer 51. Over the next decade or so, these ­figures will continue to rise as longevity increases.

Not everyone wants to watch only pouting 30-year-old ­lovelies whose main, perhaps only, attraction lies in their features. I have absolutely nothing against 30-year-old lovelies, but I also look for knowledge, experience and talent — qualities by no means lacking in all 30-year-olds, though occasionally in limited supply.

For example, I confess my heart always lifts when I see the gnarled old face of Jeremy Paxman louring at me at the beginning of BBC2’s Newsnight.

Paxo may not be getting any younger, but he knows his onions and, despite occasional infelicities, remains a first-class interviewer.

By contrast, my spirits tend to sag when I see the far more beautiful and youthful face of his ­colleague Emily Maitlis at the start of the programme.

Ms Maitlis is neither as forensic nor as knowledgeable as Paxo, and, although I am sure she is very clever, her ­artfully devised attire and sultry manner tend to distract.

Perhaps when Ms Maitlis is older I shall like her more — if she is not sacked first.

There are, if one thinks about it, a lot of quite elderly men on television, some of them much older than Paxo.

The wildlife expert David Attenborough is 84 and the Strictly Come Dancing ­presenter Bruce Forsyth is nearly 83. Terry Wogan, who has admittedly scaled back his work, is a child of 72.

They and other male oldies still hold the floor because no one can do it better.

It is very difficult indeed to think of ­septuagenarian or octogenarian female television star presenters, and this only confirms the point made by Miss O’Reilly — that the BBC (and probably other broad­casters) discriminate against women of a certain age.

Of course, no one, male or female, should ­expect a job for life come what may. There are old boobies and young geniuses. Stale presenters of either sex should make way for gifted newcomers. We don’t want the BBC to become a gerontocracy.

My proposal to the BBC is that it should stop thinking in terms of age or sex or ethnic ­origin, and set out to employ the most talented people to produce the best possible programmes. It should get rid of this habit of fretting about ­quotas and ticking boxes, and make quality its only concern.

I suppose the Corporation may conceivably be so anxious to show it has overcome its undoubted prejudice against older female presenters that it will continue to employ all of them so that some new proof of fairness can be declaimed.

More likely, it will continue to advertise its virtue while ­indulging in double-dealing.

The BBC’s recent, much publicised initiative to put four older women newsreaders back on the screen - Julia Somerville, Fiona Armstrong, Zeinab ­Badawi and Carole Walker - has reportedly led to each of them doing an average of about two days a month.

The BBC’s Creative Director Alan Yentob, who at nearly 64 is himself no spring chicken and perhaps a candidate for retirement, has said: ‘What we’ll be saying to Miriam is if she wants to, we’d like to talk about ­further opportunities for employment.’

Oh yes? I expect she will be offered a job reading the news on Radio Lincolnshire.

It seems to me rather unlikely that this one case will make the Corporation change its ways.

Progressive and apparently enlightened it may pretend to be, full of feminist pieties and talk of diversity though it undoubtedly is, the BBC will probably remain an eager, if misguided, follower of the cult of youth.

[Teddy Bear]

Worth noting that the ex-journalist woman in the story below, who accuses the BBC of forcing her out 'for being too old', and then unsuccessfully tried to get her to sign a gagging order, happened in 2012. This is a year after the Miriam O'Reilly case who successfully sued the BBC for ageism, and BBC assurances that they would address this issue. Of course, they had previously tried to deny that it was ever an issue, but the judge wasn't so easy to convince.

So we see a few examples that illustrate the BBC mindset from this.

• First they have no compunctions about lying in an effort to present themselves in a different light.
• The light they want to be seen in, according to what they preach to the public, has nothing to do with what they actually practice. Just a pure sham.
• Having been found out, they offer immediate assurances that 'lessons have been learned' and things will now change.
• Nothing changes! They go on just like they did, only trying to close the loopholes that might reveal future transgressions.

PURE SCUM!

'The BBC rubbed me out because I'm an older woman': Journalist claims she was forced out of corporation after 30 years because it is sexist and ageist

• Olenka Frenkiel, 59, was asked to sign a gagging order when she left in 2012
• She refused to sign it but evidence heard in House of Lords on women and broadcasting prompted her to speak out after keeping quiet for two years
• The journalist admits the broadcaster is getting away with not telling truth
• She has described being 'starved' of work and feeling that she had to leave
• Complaint comes after Miriam O'Reilly sued the BBC for age discrimination
• BBC says 16% of female presenters are over 50 and 25% of correspondents

By Gemma Mullin for MailOnline

A journalist who says she was forced out of the BBC after 30 years claims ageism and sexism within the corporation is still rife.

Olenka Frenkiel, 59, was asked to sign a gagging confidentiality agreement when she left in 2012, but she refused on the basis that she wanted to speak openly about discrimination.

The reporter, who was the first BBC journalist to cover reports of the Berlin Wall collapse, has spoken out after hearing evidence in the House of Lords select committee on broadcasting and women.

She told the Guardian: 'I find it extraordinary that BBC Current Affairs still claims it's trying to find older women - when it's spent the past decade getting rid of us.

'I don’t like it that the greatest broadcasting organisation in the world is getting away with not telling the truth.

Frenkiel, who also makes documentaries, claims it's not just presenters who are being pushed out when they get older - it is reporters 'who appear on screen for their journalism'.

She told the paper that for a while she 'fought back' by asking round other departments in the hope that she would get her films commissioned, after they were rejected by her own bosses.

The former Newsnight presenter describes the process as being 'starved' of work so you seem unproductive and then fighting to be heard, which comes off as being 'difficult'.

Eventually she began to notice the men of her age were thriving while the women were gone and she was being 'rubbed out' - and she decided to leave quietly.

Her complaint comes three years after Countryfile presenter Miriam O'Reilly successfully sued the BBC for age discrimination after she was dismissed from the programme.

The then director general, Mark Thompson, said the case would be a turning point for the corporation - but Frenkiel emailed him the very same day to argue that such judgments were still happening.

She reportedly told him the current policy employed by the BBC which forces middle-aged women to leave 'has to stop'.

Another former BBC reporter, Liz Mackean, also refused to sign a gagging order when she left 18 months ago, after her film on the Jimmy Savile scandal was controversially cancelled.

She has pointed out that the fact there are fewer older women than men suggests 'a gender bias'.

However, the BBC claims that around one in six female presenters are aged over 50, while nearly 25 per cent of female news correspondents are in the same age range.

A BBC spokesman said: 'We actually have many excellent experienced female journalists across BBC News: Lyse Doucet, Orla Guerin, Sarah Montague, Martha Kearney, Carole Walker and Maxine Mawhinney among others.

'Maxine is one of the best known faces on the BBC News Channel, and we’ve increased the number of presenter appearances of Carole Walker too in recent months.

'We will continue to work hard to make sure our presenting teams are as diverse as possible.'

The spokesman added that improving representation of women on-air is a priority for the organisation and said they have been working hard to achieve.

Other female presenters disgruntled by their treatment by broadcasters include Anna Ford, who claimed she was jilted because of her age when she left the BBC in 2006 at the age of 62.

While Selina Scott was awarded £250,000 by Channel 5 after she successfully sued them for ageism in 2008 when she was 57.

The current director general, Tony Hall, announced last year that the BBC would stop using the controversial gagging orders.

[Teddy Bear]

Miriam O'Reilly tells that despite assurances about addressing ageism and sexism at the BBC, nothing has changed.
Her comments about DG Hall are entirely in keeping with what we have learned about this man, he certainly has a face that I would like to use as a punching bag for taking us for idiots.

Miriam O'Reilly: 'Sexism thrives in the BBC and no PR spin will cover that up'
BBC Radio Devon presenter Judi Spiers has lost her job and reignited the row over sexism. Miriam O'Reilly, who won a landmark ageism case against the BBC, says the attempts of its feeble PR machine aren't fooling anyone

By Miriam O'Reilly, Former BBC Countryfile presenter

When I won a landmark ageism case against the BBC in January 2011, the corporation was quick to react. The former director general, Mark Thompson, made a public statement saying my tribunal win was a “wake-up call” and a “turning point” in its treatment of older women.
Later, when I sank into a leather sofa in his plush office on the top floor of Broadcasting House and sipped tea from a china cup, I was impressed as he earnestly told me the BBC had to reflect its audience and so it would be “reaching out” to put more women, particularly older women, on air.
It seemed as though the battle had been won.

Tony Hall also used well chosen words when he took over as director general. He admitted the male/female balance of broadcasters was “not right”.
He wanted, he claimed, to “celebrate the contribution of women at the BBC”.
It was all very encouraging. He quickly broke the male dominated presenting line-up on the Today programme by appointing another woman; Mishal Husain.
He promised to get more women on air, particularly in local radio, and set targets in 2013 to see half of all 41 local radio breakfast programmes have a female presenter or co-presenter by the end of that year.
Except, it didn’t happen.

With all of these ‘turning points’ and ‘wake-up calls’; plus a healthy dose of ‘reaching out’ and the ‘celebration’ of women over the past four years, one might reasonably have thought we’d be seeing a big difference in the number regularly broadcasting on the BBC.
But we’re not. Instead, along comes another story of an older woman being pushed out. Judi Spiers, a popular 62-year-old presenter on BBC Radio Devon, has been dropped in favour of a man, David Fitzgerald, 53.

The BBC says David’s producer, Monica Ellis, will also be on the show – her inclusion in the press release sounds to me like a feeble attempt to dampen cries of sexism.

But no carefully chosen words or PR effort can disguise the fact that men continue to outnumber women on TV and radio.
So what’s going on? Are there just not enough women with the talent to make it on to Beeb? Is it that men have more ability as broadcasters?
Of course not - it’s prejudice against women plain and simple.

In January, the Lords Communications Committee inquiry into women in news and current affairs was handed evidence 'of an informal culture of discrimination against older women within the BBC’ that saw female broadcasters 'coerced' into leaving roles. The report concluded that the BBC had a policy of discriminating against older woman and covered it up with gagging orders
This, according to the Lords is contributing to a serious lack of women on air.

I brought my action against the corporation for which I had worked for 25 years because I believed it was a chance to bring about a change in the unfair treatment of older women. Myself included.

Now I work as a freelance journalist and campaign against ageism. I also counsel woman at the BBC experiencing sexism and ageism who contact me for advice and support.

I am told by former female colleagues at the BBC that everything we hear is true - sexist and ageist attitudes towards them thrive.
This creates often insurmountable hurdles in progressing their careers.

One woman told me recently because she has small children producers automatically assume she would not be suitable for overseas assignments, but they don’t hesitate to hand them out to men with families. And, of course, female presenters are often not paid the same salary as men who do the same job.

As soon as the BBC is challenged on the lack of women presenting in TV and radio, it trots out the same names in an attempt to quash the criticism. We hear the same old words and the same old promises.

The BBC has all the rhetoric but none of the commitment to make the necessary changes to ensure our public broadcaster gives women opportunities equal to those afforded to men.

Its actions to stamp out sexism should speak louder than all the fine words they can muster.

If the same effort was put into giving women opportunities on air as it is to the PR machine set in motion to counter the criticism, we would have seen an end to this ludicrous discrimination by now.

Judi Spiers has apparently been offered other opportunities by the BBC to appear on local TV programmes. But I doubt this will add up to regular work - it usually doesn’t.

I had hoped that, after my victory against the BBC, older women would no longer lose their jobs just because of something they had no control over and no cause to feel ashamed of – getting older.

But the reality of the situation for women working within the BBC has hardly changed.
Now I realise the BBC’s promises for change are just empty words.