I was pleased to see that Miriam O’Reilly won her age discrimination claim against the BBC. At first glance, the fact that she was replaced by a younger man and woman whilst the veteran John Craven remained in place, didn’t look like the easiest of claims with which to succeed.
However, the fact that a BBC executive told her to “watch those wrinkles when HD comes in” and another told her it was “time for Botox” was pretty helpful ammunition for her.
The BBC also has a rather unsavoury history of dispensing with the services of older women; think Moira Stuart and, particularly Arlene Phillips who was booted off Strictly Come Dancing in favour of the undoubtedly more photogenic, but less knowledgeable, Alesha Dixon who was more than half her age.
In the Telegraph yesterday senior BBC executives are reported as being concerned that this ruling will lead to “casting decisions” being made in Employment Tribunals and the loss of “creative freedom” for broadcasters.
Nonsense.
Miriam O’Reilly was put out to pasture because she was clearly seen to be too old, which was dressed up as her not having sufficient recognition with the viewers.
If she had been put on screen at primetime she would soon have become recognised by the viewing public: how else do you get recognition? Julia Bradbury and Matt Baker had to start somewhere in their careers. What the BBC really meant was they thought the audience wouldn’t like an older woman fronting the show and because the BBC would claim to be giving us what we want the decision to sack her was therefore our fault.
Loss of creative freedom? If Eastenders wants to write out a character to suit a plot line there is nothing in this decision to stop them.
The BBC, of whom I’m generally a big fan, needs to take a good look at itself and review how it makes these decisions. But should we also look at ourselves? Weren’t the BBC executives reflecting a more widely held prejudice against older people (particularly older women)? Comments welcome, as ever.
No related posts.
I’m afraid it’s a branch of show-biz. Viewers have all sorts of reasons to move, and the appeal of a given presenter is one of them.
Anyway, the old non-prime time CountryFile was rather better I thought. I liked it tucked away in the schedules.
I’ve been reading about this case. I think that she won £100,000 in compensation plus she was reinstated.
I suspect that the BBC should have had her on a rolling short term contract, it would have been easier to come to a mutual agreement
But they would still have had the same problem when they came to terminate if she thought it was on the basis of her age, or sex etc, wouldn’t they?