Newsreaders 'may be forced to wear veils'.

[DemonArchangel]

The BBC has announced that it may consider the introduction of veils for female newsreaders, following complaints from some Muslim viewers.

Speaking in a press conference at Broadcasting House, Deputy Director-General Mark Byford indicated that that the introduction of veils was being considered, albeit as a "last resort".

"Naturally, we as an organisation must try to represent the multicultural modern society of the United Kingdom, giving due consideration to the requirements and sensitivities of various communities and faith-groups", he said.

"While we have no plans as yet to introduce veils for our female news anchors and journalists in the field, it is certainly one possibility"

Last Resort

As Chair of the BBC's Journalism Board, Byford would be the figure expected to give the go-ahead to any major change in news broadcasting practice. However he was quick to stress that the move was not the first preference of the BBC Trust, saying it was "the most extreme option on the table, frankly the last resort".

The traditional Muslim veil, or hijab, has previously been worn by female journalists operating in hard-line Muslim areas like Afghanistan or Iran, but the BBC had recently announced that news anchors were only permitted small symbols of faith. Under the existing regulations, small crosses, crescents, or Stars of David may be worn as personal jewellery, but more obvious displays are forbidden.

'Disgusting display'

The Deputy Director-General's press statement came in the wake of controversy among the Muslim community over a newsreader's presentation, described by one leading Muslim as "disgusting". 112 complaints were received by media regulator Ofcom following a risqué display of décolletage by C5's Natasha Kaplinsky last week, in a row that has prompted broadcasters into a major rethink of their news presentation.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, described the newsreader's outfit as "inappropriate for an influential female media figure", and "frankly, a disgusting display of flesh which could corrupt young Muslim minds".

Bleeeech. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Adrian II]

I can't find this anywhere in the BBC pages.

[Geoffrey S]

What a strange, strange article. On the one hand, the guy mentions veils as an absolute last resort - and a highly unlikely course it is at that. On the other, the only thing complained about in this case is rather revealing attire of a particular presenter, prompting questions about how far public newsreaders should go in that regard - perhaps a valid question, though considering the presenter in question I can't say I mind.

Edit: can't find the article either.

[Adrian II]

Edit: can't find the article either.Maybe they withdrew it? Happens all the time on websites. I seem to remember the BBC had an internal discussion about the wearing of veils in 2006 or something.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If this is serious, I would advise the BBC to require female newsreaders to wear veils.

While topless.

[Samurai Waki]

Do the religionists ever stop talking? Seriously. The next time I see anyone of any faith spewing out their garbage I may have half a mind to punch them in their teeth.

[Marshal Murat]

"Can I interest you in Pastafarianism?"

:rifle:

Headshot.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nonsense. Maybe the UK should start devising a written constitution instead of just winging it.

It reads like a fake article.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do the religionists ever stop talking? Seriously. The next time I see anyone of any faith spewing out their garbage I may have half a mind to punch them in their teeth.

I take it that "turn the other cheek" is out of the question?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Do the religionists ever stop talking? Seriously. The next time I see anyone of any faith spewing out their garbage I may have half a mind to punch them in their teeth.

Why don't you create a religion out of that unforgiving violence? Oh, i'm sorry- i forgot the spot was already taken.

[naut]

If you get offended by something, don't watch. Those who are irritated should pool their money and set up their own TV station and show "news". Don't press your repressive crap on me or others.

[Fragony]

Ah, news from the UK :laugh4:

GAWD

[Samurai Waki]

"Can I interest you in Pastafarianism?"

:rifle:

Headshot.

Any religion that requires full pirate regalia whilst attending services is good in my books.

[Veho Nex]

How bout rastafarism, i wouldnt mind if they started making threats about how the newscasters arn't... 'spiritually' connected enough and that they would be willing to donate some... 'spirit' should the need arise.

[Viking]

Bleeeech. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


Think about the young nudists; their minds are getting corrupted by all these clothings. :yes:

[Craterus]

Why don't you create a religion out of that unforgiving violence? Oh, i'm sorry- i forgot the spot was already taken.

Catholicism is certainly unforgiving and violent. ~:wave:

[English assassin]

I seem to remember the BBC had an internal discussion about the wearing of veils in 2006 or something.

Indeed. Or rather, not even that. Here's what the DG had to say about it at the time:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23372510-details/BBC+closes+door+on+newsreaders+in+muslim+veils/article.do


The headlines over the past week largely arose from a seminar organised by the BBC's governors. The way it was covered is itself very instructive.

The seminar was an attempt to have as open a dialogue as possible about the question of impartiality and some of the editorial dilemmas which the BBC faces daily.

Several papers insisted the seminar had taken place at a 'secret location' or reported revelations from 'a leaked memo' about its deliberations.

In fact the seminar was open to external participants and many outside guests took part. Far from being secret, it was streamed live on the internet.

The seminar included a number of sessions in which people inside and outside the BBC discussed hypothetical stories and issues. It was a handful of remarks in these 'what if' sessions that sparked the headlines.

But they were just that - off-the-cuff remarks during a free-ranging discussion. They were not, and were never intended to be, a statement of official BBC editorial policy.

I'd bet good money this is more "Ohmigod teh muslims" nonsense.

[Dâriûsh]

I can't find this anywhere in the BBC pages.

Maybe it has something to do with this case (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1532667/BBC-%27not-crammed-full-of-soft-liberals%27-says-deputy-chief.html), from 2006.



Mr Byford, 48, who has overall responsibility for the corporation's news division, refused, however, to rule out the possibility that a Muslim woman could read the news wearing a veil.

[Dâriûsh]

Bleeeech. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Where does it state that the veil would be compulsory? The title of the thread indicates that they would force the veil on newsreaders.

[DemonArchangel]

I got that impression after reading the article, it's my mistake. My apologies.

[Samurai Waki]

huh. I actually read some back history on the hijab, and it seems that it actually has Persian roots, but is solely not an Islamic tradition. More so in fact a symbol of Judaic and Christian cultures, up until roughly the 11-12th Centuries. And is still widely used in both Judaism and Christianity, so getting angry at the muslims over it, seems rather counter-intuitive. Instead, a "Head Scarves United" seems more like an appropriate umbrella group where angry Pro Head Scarf-ers can unite to bring the evils of womens hair under a comfortable and non erection provoking status.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Catholicism is certainly unforgiving and violent. ~:wave:

:laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

EMM:

Well put. :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

I don't see why the aim is multiculturalism. The norm should be what the natives do, and others are tolerated. And considering how amiable the British are at borrowing things from other cultures this IMO is a good compromise.

Anyhoo, my aim is to emigrate.

~:smoking: