And Another Thing…

“Ronnie and Reggie, on the other hand, are so used to seeing black and Asian faces on TV (and yes, on Doctor Who) that I doubt they even register the characters’ colour.”

Agreed. I’m 21 and I have to admit I hadn’t registered anything out of the ordinary.

The Captain Jack storylines (and the Torchwood spinoffs) I think are fantastic. I can’t think of a more prominent gay “superhero” in any comic/book/tv show etc. (though please correct me on that!).

Irrelevant of your sexuality, anyone can get behind this fabulous and charming 21st century superhero, and that’s brilliant.

The only sad thing is that there aren’t more brilliant people like Russell T. Davies to make programs like Dr Who!

PS Very Very Very excited about tonight’s episode, especially the bit in the trailer where Wilf looks like he’s taking on the whole world in some futuristic battle station!

Nice one Tom.

Of course may have something against Donna because she is brave, clever, funny and ginger. Obviously an indication of the Scottish or Celtic infiltration of the UK at all levels. The BNP can’t be happy about their Englishness getting diluted in such a way.

Happy New Year and I guess we all know where you, like me will be at 6:40 tonight.

My inner geek demands I point out out that Captain Jack isn’t gay but bi-sexual or omnisexual as they call it the show.

Captain Jack loves or lusts after those he connects with, without gender ever being a barrier or issue. As a person of a similar disposition, I found it refreshing to see it on tv.

Oh, Tom. You’ve come perilously close to the position you were humble enough to admit a few weeks back, that the left have the nasty habit of closing down any argument by going sinisterly ad hominem. The objections, as I saw them expressed in the thread you talk about, were not against black people, or indeed gays, but rather the multicultural liberal agenda that was forced down people’s throats (for which reason I thought your comment toward Wrinkled Weasel was both unnecessary, and willfully misrepresentative of what he was trying to say, with the not-so-subtle implication of racism)

You also say things that just aren’t true, or at least are only selectively true – for example, you say ‘And how fantastic that young, gay men and women can now see gay characters on TV who aren’t defined by their sexuality’

Yet, at the same time, people such as Alan Carr, Graham Norton and Stephen Fry all very openly trade on their sexuality, and so to imply that anyone recognizing that fact has some kind of ‘uncomfortable-in-the-modern-world’ agenda is little unfair.

It doesn’t not stretch the realms of the imagination to suggest that positive discrimination exists within the BBC, however much one may support it or deplore it – to reach for the mud when someone queries whether this is the case is hardly, recent experience would suggest, the way to win an argument.

I agree with all of this, and in fact for all of the carping on about race, Davis did not give us a black Doctor – something that would have been entirely consistent with the show’s mythos (there were black Time Lords in the show in the 1970s).

But there is a point about Russell Davis’s over-sexualisation of Doctor Who. In the original series, the Doctor’s companions included men, women and children, often at the same time.

Since Davis re-invented the franchise, every Doctor has to be someone teenage girls can fantasise about and every regular companion has to be a young woman. Every one of them kisses the Doctor (often in oddly contrived plot twists). All of the main characters are cast as sexual beings.

Similar is the constant engagement with the companions’ families. It’s soppy and irritating to even the biggest fans of the reinvention, and seems to come from Davis’s desire to make Doctor Who as much like HollyOaks as he can get away with.

As a fan of the original series, some modernisation was a good thing, and today’s television can’t completely ignore sexual tensions. But I do think that Davis’ HollyOaks-ization of Doctor Who has actually weakened his reinvention, and I hope that Moffat will bring a sharper and darker edge back to this coming series.

Yes, this issue made me think hard too.

And by the way, I have two Scissor Sisters cds. Some of my best friends are musicians.

If this was about diversity or reflecting diversity I would support it 100% but it is not, it is about pecking order and hegemony and the use of tyranny, which minorities use – Political Correctness being the vehicle – to abuse others.

There are two ways of looking at this, one as a Dr Who fan and the other as a piece of artistic work that has been commissioned by a publicly funded corporation.

Firstly, I am not a Dr Who fan. The show is overblown and relies on big budgets too much. Signs of near genius have been apparent, particularly in “Blink” – a very paired down and visceral plot line which was all the more powerful for its compact and glib premise. Signs of crass stupidity have also been apparent, such as the bus episode. Did no one seriously question the need to transport a London Bus to the desert? What was wrong with the usual quarry outside Daventry and a bit of CGI?

Political Correctness in Drama is what it says – political. It is there to reflect and impose a world view that not all of us share, which is, broadly, a left-leaning liberal atheist world view.

The BBC is master of PC, though their forte is omission rather than out and out propaganda. Don’t let me have to give you examples, you know this is true.

This view is endemic in light entertainment, because it has an unrepresentative constituency.

Let us get to the matter of internal logic in fiction. I have no difficulty in believing in pointy-eared aliens for the purposes of entertainment, but it has to be placed in a logical context. Regardless of how absurd the premise, characters have to behave within it.

What we are talking about here is a crass and very deliberate effort to proselytize, specifically that it is OK to be gay and that black people are fully integrated into Western European society. Now, I do not disagree with either premise, though the latter is one of potential rather than reality.

Some people are uncomfortable with the negative impact of immigration. Some are uncomfortable with sexual diversity, indeed, diversity of all kinds. You appear to dismiss this group of people out of hand, which, incidentally, is what the BBC does.

If you were dependent wholly upon the BBC to understand the problems of sexuality and race in society, you would not have an accurate view.

So essentially, Dr Who is perpetuating a wider view, held within the BBC, that does not represent the majority of British citizens.

Think back, Tom. Take a look at “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. It’s a great movie, wonderfully written and as good as any Dr Who episode. And yet, it is dripping with McCarthyite paranoia about Communism and Atom Bombs.

Can you tell me, with certainty, that DW has avoided the trap of pandering to the popular social mores of its time?

I’m not long in the tooth, but I went to primary school on the outskirts of the main conurbation in Scotland, and throughout my years there were no more than two non-European faces amongst a roll of 250 – Pakistanis, sister and younger brother (sister arrived in my class at P4).

I don’t think it’s too unusual to see non-Europeans on proggies. What *is* unusual is that RTD has put them in positions of power and/or influence (not necessary synonymous). Black African Generals? Black British captains of industry? Black American Presidents… oh, wait…

… when he’s gone back in the past, they’ve also featured and our forebearers haven’t been portrayed as inveterate racists on account of RTD not being a santimonous prig. Think of William Shakespere coo’ing over Martha’s ebony beauty (and Africans in whimples), or of the delicious discussion of Empire and natives in the Family of Blood.

This is not to say that Asian characters haven’t featured, but now I think about it, there haven’t been many Chinese or Japanese. Racist bar-steward.

What is a turn-about, I think, is that he’s telling the story from downstairs. It’s not five-star Generals or captains of industry or politicians who save the day (often the opposite), but office temps and shop workers and tubby residents of Welsh council estates; geeky kids, squaddies, goofers and AUs – be they white or black or brown or green like the Vinocci.

Plus, RTD would have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Much, much better than that dreck, Robin Hood.

All fiction is political. The writer drives the story to a conclusion of their own choosing. Had we missed that..?

I have nothing to say on this thread other than, being a gay, black cyberman isn’t easy; especially when those pesky Raston Warrior Robots are around.

They really get on my chest unit !!!! >:(

I forgot to add – Dr Who ROCKS !

As an arch nemesis goes . . . he’s actually quite a nice bloke.

A bit like Tom.

A kind of parallel discussion has been going on in OH’s blog in relation to the portrayal of couples in TV advertising (or at least in the sofa ads) ie whether ads reflect reality.

I wonder if the answer’s quite simple in that both RTD and advertisers inhabit the media world whose HQ is London. The creative industries attract and are tolerant of all kinds of people and a metropolis offers opportunities that are less apparent in the provinces. Ads/progs just reflect the reality that the creative people perceive/inhabit but with an eye on the wider public and, so, we have mixed couples cosying up on DFS sofas but not gay couples (yet).

Apologies if I’m over-simplyfying, having ‘butted in’, as it were!

I assume that introducing all this is all part of the Labour/BBC equality programe. Can we not just have good stories and shows and acting without all this subliminal social engineering.
The token woman, the token gay , the token black. the token englishman.
Can we not just get on with things.

I know you dismiss it all Tom but it is there. There are people at the BBC and in government that do nothing but promote all this stuff.

Well said Tom. I’ve been saddened by those who see any positive portrayal of gay people as “political correctness” rather than just an attempt to show the world as it ought to be – and, in many places, is.

Dr Who is a BBC programme and as such there is a duty, as far as I am concerned, to reflect the reality of the make up of the population of the UK.

That includes black people and gays.

I don’t care how uncomfortable that may make some people feel, being made to feel uncomfortable is not the same as being discriminated against and being disadvantaged because you are part of a minority group, and that has generally been the overall experience of minorities in this country.

The Labour Party are, in my view, to be congragulated for their commitment to making discrimination and inequality a thing of the past. And so is the BBC.

That doesn’t make me a liberal luvvie, I stay in Glasgow, but as a parent and as a human being I want my child to grow up in an environment and with cultural references in which black and gay people are part of the norm. Because they are.

People who;

”are uncomfortable with the negative impact of immigration. Some are uncomfortable with sexual diversity, indeed, diversity of all kinds”

Have got plenty of other media outlets which cater for them.

This countries Parliaments have passed laws which have ensured that this country in its public life is as committed to equality as it can be.

It is wholly right that the public broadcaster reflects that.

Happy Easter and all the best for 1982, from all of us at the Alzheimers Society.

MENSA are annoyed. Apparently thick people want to join.

Brilliant post Tom.

“observer” has made my point better than I did.

“This countries (sic) Parliaments have passed laws which have ensured that this country in its public life is as committed to equality as it can be.

It is wholly right that the public broadcaster reflects that.”

Thus proving, that in some peoples’ eyes, the BBC is not only a propaganda mouthpiece for the Government, but a government that has made it illegal to have a difference of opinion.

I rest my case.

Thus proving, that in some peoples’ eyes, the BBC is not only a propaganda mouthpiece for the Government, but a government that has made it illegal to have a difference of opinion

————–

Quite frankly I regard that statement as hysterical.

No one has made your point of view illegal – it’s just that you don’t run the show any more.

If you want to run the show then get yourself elected.

The BBC is the public service broadcaster it is only right that it reflects the parties that the public votes for.

I don’t see how anyone can accuse Dr Who of being politically correct, when we have just watched 2 episodes that normalized and glorified the ownership of illegally held firearms.

Poor old Wilfred would be facing a mandatory 5 years if he were caught with that old pistol, and Martha and Mickey would have got a lot longer for their machines guns.

Politically correct? No. More diverse? Yes.

Now had they made the new Doctor a female, or made the new Doctor black, then yes, you could level that accusation at the show, but they haven’t. All they have done is introduce a bi-sexual character in Captain Jack.

There was a debate on IMDB a few years ago, just around the time Daniel Craig was revealed as the new James Bond, where some people were calling for the next Bond to be black. I am sorry, but that would be unacceptable. Characters in movies, TV shows, books, etc..that have been about for decades, are what they are. We don’t need to go about changing them.

Hysterical? Does the fact that the CPS take a Christian couple to court for arguing in private with a deranged convert to Islam – a case it spectacularly loses – not strike you as being hysterical? After all, it was about a “difference of opinion”

Does the fact that Damian Green, a serving MP gets arrested and placed in a police cell for entirely political reasons, not strike you as being hysterical? After all, that was really about control of information the Government did not want us to know, and nothing to do with national security, as proven when the case was thrown out?

There are plenty of cases to show you, Observer, that having a difference of opinion is deemed illegal in this country.

And again, not only have you fallen into the trap of revealing what you believe the BBC is, that is, a state-sponsored propaganda arm, you have now given the game away big time: as I said, this is about hegemony, not equality -

“it’s just that you don’t run the show any more.”

I don’t want to “run the show”. What I want is nobody “running the show”. I can decide what TV I like and do not like without political interference, “reflects the parties that the public votes for” especially the kind you are promoting.

Never mind, your type will cease to be relevant in a few months, and thank God for that. The nastiest part of this issue, Tom, is people who believe the Government should control the media, as this commenter does.

And it is very sinister.

I don’t watch Dr Who so can’t comment specifically on the casting of that prog. But honestly Tom, do you believe the cast of BBC dramas – particularly those targeted at children – are chosen purely on their acting merit?

Next you’ll be telling me that it’s purely coincidental that the fictional scottish Island of Balamory boasts such an impressive social diversity, including a hyperactive black fitness instructor, Josie Jump; a laid-back Afro-American painter called Spencer; an Asian family; and a paraplegic Geordie shopkeeper by the name of Penny Pocket. There is even Archie the Inventor, who wears a skirt and lives in a pink castle, but I don’t think we are supposed to infer anything from this.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is that people link together ‘gays and blacks’ when they talk about discrimination as though the two groups are in some way similar in terms of discrimination. The fact is that these two groups of people are dissimilar, and ought not to be grouped together.
In my 70 years of existence, I have met thousands and thousands of persons. I cannot honestly say that I have ever know a person’s sexual orientation when I have first met them. On the other hand, when I have met someone who is ‘black’, I have always noticed that fact.
In terms of Dr Who, in what circumstances should a character’s sexual orientation become evident? In what circumstances does it matter?
On the other hand, a black face is obvious. So what, that a person has a black face, or an Asian face, or an old face, or an ugly face (subjectively speaking, of course).
The only link between the ‘gay’ and the ‘black’ which OUGHT to be evident would be if the script actually included some sort of story line which included some sort of discrimination, either sex or colour. In Dr Who, there is no need for either.

IN GENERAL TERMS, I think that discriminating is a much over-rated thought. I think that the law of ‘unintended consequences’ come forcefully into effect when government involves itself in everyday activities. For example, is it religious discrimination for the Catholic Church not to allow atheists/Buddhists/Muslims to become catholic priests? If ever the government tried to enforce such a rule, then there would really, really be civil disobedience. Enough is enough and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

The above rambles a bit, but I am sure that people reading it will understand.

If you dont like tomatoes and labour pass a law saying everyone must like tomatoes, you will still not like tomatoes.

Labour DEMAND that you like tomatoes.

Luckily the Lords managed to throw out a law just six weeks ago that would have made negative criticism of Tomatoes a criminal offence. I kid you not

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8356093.stm

I’ll tell you what disturbs me. US black film actors, male and female, are so extraordinarily brilliant that just the mention of their name in the publicity is almost a guarantee of world-wide, box office success.

Over here, the situation is exactly the reverse. UK black TV actors are, on the whole, dreadful. Stiff, stilted, weirdly, street-accented regardless of role, they simply feed into the simplistic, political correctness jibes. They’re there because they’re black, not because they’re any good.

It’s not just a pity, it’s a shameful example of an open door becoming a barrier.

Black UK actors coming up shouldn’t have to overcome the meretricious reputation of those who’ve gone before,as well as all the other hardships of the profession.

Appointing on undeniable merit, not colour, is surely the way forward.

What, like Lenny Henry?

Hysterical? Does the fact that the CPS take a Christian couple to court for arguing in private with a deranged convert to Islam – a case it spectacularly loses – not strike you as being hysterical? After all, it was about a “difference of opinion”

——————————-

What does that have to do with the characters in Dr Who? Ditto the case of Damian Green? And neither of these cases demonstrate that having a difference of opinion in this country is illegal. That is a hysterical statement, people are allowed to state their opinions all the time – I’ve read your blog you seem to have no problems stating yours.

And what precisely is wrong with the public service broadcaster reflecting the reality of the public it broadcasts to? It’s supposed to do that.

4.The Public Purposes

The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows—(a)sustaining citizenship and civil society;(b)promoting education and learning;(c)stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;(d)representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities.

Now, as you have said – you can decide what type of TV you like. If you don’t like Dr Who and its portrayal of blacks and gays then don’t watch it. Nobody is forcing it down your throat, but – and this is the key point – the cast of characters in Dr Who is not ”propoganda”, to describe the depiction of black and gay characters in a children’s TV programme as ”propoganda” indicates that you are the one who has the issue here, not RTD.

I hope labour leave cucumbers alone. I can’t stand them in vinegar like the Scots do them.
Labour have yet to learn that they cannot pass laws making people accept what they do not like.
You cannot not employ someone just because they are a woman so you just find another reason instead. You will never win with this Tom.

@ Old Holborn

Exactly.

Observer, you are so wrong and so misguided on so many points that it is indeed pointless to take this any further.

You have stated, quite uncategorically, that you believe there is a duty of the BBC to reflect the political consensus of the time.

“The BBC is the public service broadcaster it is only right that it reflects the parties that the public votes for.”

So, you have effectively consigned it to being the media arm of whatever the Government of the day is, and consequently you feel that programmes like DW should reflect the prevailing view, and presumably, if the BNP were to attain power, you would be comfortable, as a democrat, to see programmes being made about Jewish conspiracies and how scientists have proved that blacks are less intelligent than whites? You would acccept that, because,

“If you want to run the show then get yourself elected.”

And this is where we must part company, finally, and fully.

I have said, I do not want to “run the show”. You do. You want control over the BBC in general and light entertainment in particular. You want it to reflect your views.

I do not. Let me say it again, I do not.

Thankfully, your kind of desire to control everything we see and hear will become irrelevant in a few months time when the Tories gain power. Personally, I give them short shrift, but one thing is certain, the kind of Stalinist attitude you cling to will become a thing of the past.

No more, this must have become a dead bore for our host.

”The best of black British acting talent was recognised yesterday at the Screen Nation Film and TV awards, as Naomie Harris and David Harewood won awards for their roles in smash-hit Hollywood blockbusters.

Harris, who starred in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest and At World’s End, scooped the best female performance accolade at the awards ceremony popularly known as the “black Baftas”.

Harewood was named best male performer for his role in Blood Diamond opposite Leonardo DiCaprio.

But even as the list of winners highlighted the soaring successes of many black British actors, the mood last night was not entirely celebratory. Charles Thompson, the Ghanaian producer and founder of the annual awards, warned that Britain was facing a “drain of black talent” as actors left for America after becoming disenchanted by the dearth of decent roles.

He cited a number of black actors who had left to re-start their careers in the US, including Thandie Newton, Marianne Jean-Baptiste and Idris Elba.

Mr Thompson said black actors were far more prominent in Hollywood and that there was not the same opportunities in the British film industry, an aspect which this year’s award winners reflected”

From The Independent.

You can find loads of other articles basically saying the same thing via any competent search engine.

I think the fact that black actors enjoy far more prominence in the US than they do in the UK is not necessarily related to the competence of UK black actors.

I agree it must have become a dead bore for our host but I am afraid I have to make one last point.

I am not a Labour Party supporter. I can wax lyrical about the reasons I don’t support Labour and I don’t support Tom Harris – but this thread is about Dr Who and the BBC and Tom is right.

I said to you the parties – plural – that the public vote for. Look up the BBC charter, see what they are supposed to do – and if you don’t like it get yourself elected and change it.

This is not a Labour party position, far from it, but you and others like you try to make it one.

You are, I have to say, wrong. The desire to see programmes which reflect the reality of the situation, where black people and gay people, or omnisexual people in this case, are portrayed in a natural setting (well as natural as a sci fi kids programme can be)is not some kind of Labour party plot. It is supported by many many people including SNP voters in sunny Govan like me.

Tom is right.

As I always like to think about it – for those who find it so noticeable to see a handful of people with black faces on television, imagine how noticeable it was for decades if you were black and *didn’t* see any…

Couple of points. I don’t agree that it is just since Davis took on the franchise that every regular companion has to be a young woman. I started watching Dr Who in the John Pertwee era and his assistants were always girls.

I also don’t agree with the political correctness interpretation. I think there is a very definite agenda in Dr Who which you can call multi-cultural if you like but I think what they are aiming at is hipness, not political correctness. It is the opposite of politically correct in some ways – there are no disabled people for example. There are no mentally ill people. There are no poor people. Yeah I know Rose and her mum lived in a council flat and their outfits were somewhat chav-ish. But only chav-ish. Not actual chavs. These ladies shop at Miss Selfridge and Debenhams, not George at Asda.

No, the image they are trying to project is about modernity, not political correctness. The same goes for the character’s sex lives. Captain Jack is a player. He would contemplate a relationship not just with any gender but probably any species and he has no hang-ups about it. If he was a bit more tortured by that, instead of enjoying it, then some people might feel more comfortable with the character – he would pay for his sin. It is the immorality (by certain peoples’ standards) of the character which people object to.

What makes me laugh however is that Dr Who is actually a highly moral programme, in the same way that Star Trek was. A progressive morality I suppose.

With regards to the casting of characters in Doctor Who, is it just me, or does anyone else notice the almost complete absence of Asian (Indian, Pakistani and Chinese) characters, together with the overwhelmingly high (for the UK) proportion of Black characters?

Britain is certainly a more racially diverse nation than it was back when Doctor Who was first aired on screen, but the demographic of the UK is certainly not 66% White, 32% Black and 1% Asian (more like 92%, 3% & 4% as of 2001) as it would seem in the latest Doctor Who episodes. Even if London alone is taken into account, the racial demographic as of 2006 was approximately 70% White, 15% Asian, and 11% Black, including those of mixed race.

I often wonder if Russel Davies, or whoever chooses the characters, dislikes Asians because he typecasts them all as “Muslims” and therefore “homophobic”, or if he has a “thing” for Black men, much like Donna (she’s had two black boyfriends so far).

Perhaps it is merely a case of how the liberal media see Black people (representing youth culture and the future) as opposed to Asians (representing tradition and the past), or it could simply be a case of racial discrimination in favour of Black people and against Asians.

I found the “diversity pensioners brigade” in the Christmas specials particularly ridiculous, as it is so unreflective of real society. At least a couple of Doctor Who’s many Black characters have been portrayed as villains, and not as the token sidekick hero (redolent of the idea of the “noble savage”, and so prevalent in modern American films, and where Latinos are conspicuous in their absence)

Of course, the BBC’s villains virtually always have to be White, and predominantly male. I often worry that Black and Asian youngsters, living in areas with a non White majority, will get a false impression of White men, on account of their portrayal on the BBC’s children’s dramas.

The real worry is, although these matters irk me somewhat, they appear to be driving many to extreme politics, a million votes for the BNP in the recent is a case in point. People are getting sick and tired of a political agenda, where “minorities” are constantly portrayed in positive roles, whereas traditional British values are trampled upon and seen as irrelevant to a future Britain.

Never one to miss the chance of using a strawman are you Tom?

I could address this one for ages but most seems to have already been said.

I would just make a quick observation to help demonstrate that the BBC discriminates in terms of race rather than attempt to portray reality. (there are literally hundreds of these examples but this is the most open and shut to me):

When the BBC ran their pretty cheesy 100 Greatest Britons series, they featured an advert for it in which Britain’s greatest folk were queuing up as if waiting for an interview, Shakespeare looking nervous, Newton contemplating, Denise Lewis….

What? Yes… Denise Lewis. A fine athlete no doubt. Never met her, probably a lovely person. But top 100 greatest Britons?

I believe our sports people bring glory to our country, I agree with showering the successful ones with accolades. I hope Denise Lewis never has to tread on anything less than rose petals.

However, she got 1 gold medal. 1. Great in itself but hardly spectacular through all time is it? I mean I could name a British athlete for each of the 21 digits on my body that has achieved more. So why did the BBC consider her worthy of a place next to some of the most magnificent humans in WORLD history? Perhaps the heptathlon is a really really special event. Or perhaps it was something else about her?

Frankly being lectured by some BBC halfwits makes me choke. It is not what I pay a licence fee for and those PC minded fools need to go a long way before they can prove I have something to learn from them. About politics certainly.

Anybody suggesting tokenism isn’t rife is a fool. British TV is chocker with it. It condescends the audience and worse still condescends the demographic it seeks to assist.

Not that many whiteys in The Wire and no tokenism in sight. Just play with a straight bat is all I ask. It is all we need.

Is putting on a production about Robin Hood or King Arthur and having an all white cast really racist?

(the storm trooper line was very funny)

We are not talking about the demographic of the UK though. Dr Who has always been a very London-centric programme.

And if the writer does see black people as symbolic of youth culture and the future so what?

Tne whole idea that the racial (and sexual) make up of the characters in Dr Who is based on “political correctness” is just rubbish.

The idea that people vote BNP because there are too many black characters in Dr Who is even more ludicrous.

Even if you accept that there is any kind of link between the over-representation of ethnic minorities in an entertainment sphere and people voting for fascists it still doesn’t make any sense to blame Dr Who for it.

Have you seen the charts lately? I can’t be bothered doing an ethnic analysis of the top 40 but we can be pretty sure that black musicians will be over-represented. What I wonder is the political-correctness-conspiracy-theory to explain that? On second thoughts don’t bother and – just a suggestion – get a life!

Indy, you are right about modernity in the case of Doctor Who. And to be fair that is what this thread is about.

If something is London based then of course it will be different to something set in sister marrying country.
I haven’t watched Doctor Who for 20 years but I would have no issue with anyone they wish to cast.
You mention the charts Indy, fine, the charts aren’t cast (although it seems like they just about are these times).

There is a difference between the appearance of modernity and straight forward PC stunt casting. I would like to see a study on cast demographics in positive and negative government ads. The ones that explain how not to get mugged or how to correctly claim a benefit. There are only ever white muggers.

The BBC work on a socio-political agenda, it is so clear that I wonder if it could seriously be denied. The problem is it gets in the way of quality.

People ask why we cannot produce the quality of American TV, this is part of the problem. Politics and warm fuzzy feelings first, drama second. Can you imagine a Shane Vendrell character passing the suits at White City?
Fortunately with stuff like Doctor Who it makes little difference. Who can speak of the demographics in that reality?

@P.Quinn, if you watch the Torchwood series (a D.W. spinoff), one of the main characters is a Japanese woman. Just a heads-up.

If the population in Doctor Who appears more multicultural than Britain itself, perhaps the diversity is intended to help with overseas (US) sales of the program?

I’ve been wondering the lack of representation of Asians in Doctor Who. Is it so difficult to throw in a few Asian extras? Or is it trying to deny the existence of Asians in Britain?

I agree– too politically correct. I don’t need my entertainment trying to brainwash me into accepting certain sexual practices or lifestyles as okay. There are plenty of races in the world, and it makes sense that Dr. Who would meet more than Caucasians in his travels. Why would he only hang out with whites? He shouldn’t be racist. He isn’t even human.

” Obviously an indication of the Scottish or Celtic infiltration of the UK at all levels. The BNP can’t be happy about their Englishness getting diluted in such a way. ”

Do you even know what the UK is, by the way? I mean, Celtic people have always lived in the UK since its foundation; infact the majority of countries (though not people as England is the most populace area) are Celtic nations.

Also, the BNP is the British Nationalist Party not the English Nationalist Party and consider all ”British people” to be descended from the Celtic/Basque ”Britons”. They abhor an independant England and refuse to acknowledge that the original English founders were Germanic settlers from the continent…that would make them filthy immigrants, wouldn’t it? Immigration is a bad thing in their eyes, of course.

They do not care one jot about ”Englishness” being diluted, they care about the ”bloodlines” of white ”British” being diluted. They are a national party in all UK countries and Nick Griffin is of Welsh descent(hence the name) and has a home in Wales.