Danny Cohen - Director of TV - BBC

I just don't see how it can apply in this situation (or at least, how it could be proven as it's a creative decision based on what a producer think would work best). Even if it did, surely the BBC has a role to have a diverse range of ethnicity on screen?

I believe you need to take action to improve the diversity on TV. Inaction just encourages the Status Quo

Bernard Manning.

He get plenty.... including that awful Southern TV gameshow from 1981.....

I know this might come as a surprise to you as it did with Ted Moult, but...

http://www.spiked-online.com/images/bernardmanningsuncover.gif

@popbitch @SaveBBCThree well this is exactly what I was thinking pic.twitter.com/FUMc4oxwlF

— Mike (@MikAlexH) October 15, 2015

I like how the word "digital" keeps being repurposed. BBC Three already is a digital channel!

Positive discrimination achieves nothing positive.

Any promotion of a person based on their gender, ethnic origin, nationality, religious beliefs, sexuality, health, physical or mental ability or otherwise is an ill-advised and quite frankly offensive mistake.

It boils down to this : by actively positively discriminating in favour of a female comic, or an Asian comic, or a lesbian or a Jew or anything else "different" to the "norm" (which is a whole other sociological and philosphical argument), for all your good intentions what you are actually doing, however inadvertendtly, is reinforcing two fundamental truths.

The first is that the person in question is perceived to be in need of artificial help to succeed - i.e. that their trade (comedy) and the way they have pursued and worked within this trade (jokes) is not valid or strong enough in itself to allow them to succeed. What sort of example does that set? Where a person can succeed not based on their ability or their capability to make people laugh, but by an accident of conception? What kind of message are you giving that person themselves? You're not that funny but because you don't happen to have a penis you can sit next to Paul Merton and crack some half-assed observations? The ultimate irony of course is that these decisions are more-often-than-not made by hand-wringing white middle class males...which makes it possibly an even more patronising set of circumstances. Chauvinism with a smile and a latte. Don't make me vomit.

The second relates to the audience reaction to this policy. Having an open public policy of positive discrimination is an alienating concept to many. We may think of ourselves as a tolerant and open-minded nation but in fact on the whole we are not. We are opinionated, closed-minded, selfish and intolerant of change and difference. We believe lies and sneer at the truth. We turn blind eyes to swearing by children in the streets, public displays of aggression and anti-social behaviour, people in need of help and disrespect figures in authority or those who would help us. We donate pennies to charity and spend hundreds on phones. We watch Jeremy Kyle in our millions and ignore worthy, intelligent programming. The Sun and the Mail sell millions of copies, the Indy and the Guardian f--- all. We are a horrible, judgmental, sneering and cynical country. So when we see and hear of positive discrimination, instead of subscribing to the aforementioned "good intentions" by the bleeding-hearted television executives, we straightaway reach the natural conclusion that the person hasn't earned their right to be there. Which immediately casts them as a negative distraction, the outcast, the bad seed, the elephant in the room. Which colours the programme, and the channel, and the medium.

I say all this as a bleeding heart lily-livered liberal myself. I don't want women or Asians or gays or lesbians or the disabled wrapped up in their own little packages and stored in the far reaches of the television universe at 11:35pm on Channel Crystal Fragments & Waterfalls. But having policies of positive discrimination are self-defeating. They are in themselves exclusionary and discriminatory. If women deserve a leg up, what about Asians? What about disabled people? If we continue with positive discrimination, Mock The Week will begin to resemble a Bennetton advert, by which I mean the focus will be more on fulfilling quotas and less about comedic talent and satirical nous.

Women comedians don't need the help of a few well-meaning but misguided male small-screen-sugardaddies to succeed. Joan Rivers, Josie Lawrence, Jo Brand, Jennifer Saunders and Joanna Lumley all managed to break through in a male dominated era. The fact that they are female in a male dominated world makes them more memorable and more noteworthy inamongst the sea of mediocre men. They are geniune role models to young female comics because of their scarcity, not in spite of it. They achieved fame, noteriety and respect off their own backs, not because someone hoisted them artificially. It can, and does happen - Sarah Millican, Miranda Hart and Holly Walsh are recent examples.

Finally, (thank god I hear you cry - even cwathen isn't this bad!) comedy is subjective. It is an entirely audience-based art form. Only you can find something funny because only you can "get" a joke or not. It makes little difference where that joke is coming from. When I read a joke online (a bit like you are doing now!) I don't immediately seek out the gender of the author if it makes me laugh. It's true that there are different styles of comedy, and female comedy is generally different to male comedy topic-wise, but still, if it's funny, you laugh. If it's not funny or you don't understand it, you won't laugh. Being male, female, Asian, transgender, Jewish, Welsh, having one leg or Down's Syndrome won't change that fact. It's like doing any other job really - if I can drive a train, a woman can. Or an Asian. Or.......

People who adopt absolutist positions on complex social issues are always wrong.

I guess that makes you wrong then... or brilliantly ironic.

While you do make some valid points, let's take just one recent television decision, not branded as 'positive discrimination' but pretty much doing so nonetheless.

The relatively recent decision to ensure that there is at least one female panelist on BBC panel shows.

It shouldn't be needed, but prior to its inception, weeks could go past with only male panelists - and I hope you're not going to tell me that every single one of these male panelists was better than potential female panelists?

Sometimes PD is more about giving things a nudge to be more representative, not this perceived position of 'promoting someone who may not be the best for the job'.

Announcing the policy is where they went wrong, completely undermined it.