Hilary Devey's Women at the Top - Episode 1

First broadcast:
Thursday 9 September 2012 at 21:00
BBC Two
A BBC Open University Partnership




Before I begin, a slight warning that this blog post is certainly coming from a female perspective!  

There is a degree of anger in me about how women are treated in comparison to men within the working environment, eg. the noticable difference in wages.  So I watched this programme to learn more about the situation in the modern world.

I also watched the programme because I was worried.

Is there much point in me even attempting to break into the male-dominated television industry I so desire to work in?  Should I just give up now and work on my cooking and cleaning skills?

Absolutely not.

This programme provided fascinating insight into why modern working environments are so male-dominated, and the reasons all seemed tangible.

Hilary Devey started up her own business, Pall-Ex, and is currently the only female on the senior board with 10 male directors.

Hilary says, "I didn't let being a woman stand in my way."

And too right.  But Hilary was also surprised when one of her female employees, Holly, said she'd rather focus on her family than her career.  And I have to agree with Holly there.

But that is no reason for women to avoid breaking into business in the first place.

An experiment conducted in the programme - involving 3 groups attempting to build a paper tower of impressive height and strong enough to hold a glass - highlighted how the modern working environment should operate.

The first group consisted of only men, the second, only women, and the third consisted of an equal mix of both genders.  And there's no prizes for guessing which group's tower was the tallest and strongest.

Within the male group, they were all quietly competing for the position of leader.  In the female group, everyone wanted to contribute equally, which was not productive.  And in the mixed group, everyone listened to one another, worked together to select the best idea and build the tower, all whilst having a laugh at the same time.

The experiment proved that men and women are at their most productive when working together.  If companies took this on board, they could increase workflow and profit.

But the experiment also showed why women find it difficult to work as a single entity within a men's team - the way the two teams interact is so different.

An interesting investigation provided other reasons for this difficulty that women face - the way jobs are advertised in the first place.  

Words like, "gravitas," and phrases such as, "exceptional individual" are considered to be more associated with the male sex, as women are more likely to question their own abilities than men.  

The effect of using these terms not only deters many women from applying for the role in the first place, but will also distort the views of the people that are hiring, as these male-associated words and phrases are going to draw them towards hiring a man over a woman.

But Hilary is an exception to the majority of the female sex, and that is what causes her to be such an inspiration.

The part of the programme I enjoyed most involved Hilary showing her feisty personality that gained her her high position in business.  

She met Chris Bull, CEO, McBride plc, and grilled him about the way women are discriminated in business, even accusing him of hypothetically not leaving a meeting to attend his child's parents evening, as he would expect his wife to do.  

It's safe to say that Chris certainly wasn't anything near the dominating male in that room.

Image from: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01ml90w/Hilary_Deveys_Women_at_the_Top_Episode_1/

The Riots: In Their Own Words - Episode 1 - The Rioters

First Broadcast:
Monday 13 August 2012 at 21:00
BBC Two
BBC Productions

I am posting this slightly later than usual as I've only just caught up, having been away on holiday.  I hit BBC iPlayer immediately as this was a must-see for me!

The riots fascinated me, everything about them.

There has been a question mark against the reasoning ever since, and I felt this programme could finally provide an answer, considering it was broadcasting the words of the rioters themselves.

Yes, the controversial police shooting of Mark Duggan is what caused protests initially, but why did local businesses eventually come under attack?

"They just wanted money... everyone had their own reasons, and I guarantee about 80% of them never had anything to do with Mark, really."

One rioter looted and destroyed certain shops because they had failed to employ him in the past or because they had previously questioned his age, asking him for ID.  To me, these situations do not justify the extent of the violence.

Rioters were setting buildings on fire in attempt to remove all traces of DNA.  What shocked me the most was that the rioter mentioned above even admitted to blocking entrances to burning buildings to prevent the fire engines from gaining access.  Do these people have no guilt?

Many rioters were just jumping on the bandwagon, for they had no reasons to attack the businesses and, probably, no knowledge of why other people were doing so.

"You just think, 'wow, I'm getting all this free stuff,' and you're not gonna get caught 'cause there's so many people doing it."

The stupidity of some of the rioters, in their beliefs that the police would just forget the whole event once it was over, was quite amusing.  One girl was shocked to see her face in a picture taken by a CCTV camera.  This was in London, where there are over 400,000 CCTV cameras in total - 14 for every person [Ratcliffe, 2012].

So why would people ignorantly join in and think they weren't going to get caught, just because the police weren't attempting to arrest everyone at the scene?

But some people felt their violence towards the police was entirely justified.  

One scene that highlighted the irony of this statement involved a young rioter complaining that the police are always stopping him and searching him "for no reason," as he reached into his bag and pulled out about 8 bags of weed and lit a spliff.  

Now I know why these rioters have such disillusioned views.

In support of this, a statement that amused me that was one girl who got angry at an older boy who took things from her and her friend that they had just looted.

She even said, "we took it, so it's ours."

That was a taste of medicine that didn't go down well.

This programme was full of adrenaline and excitement - the kind of documentaries I like the most.  It was incredibly interesting to hear the rioters points of view, and it only strengthened my negative opinion towards them.  And rightly so.  

Another question I had that this programme answered - why did the rioting stop?

"The shops ran out of stuff."

Disgusting.

References

Web page:RATCLIFFE, J. 2012. How many CCTV cameras are there in London? [online] Available from: http://www.cctv.co.uk/how-many-cctv-cameras-are-there-in-london/ [Accessed on 19 August 2012]


Image from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01l3y0v

Jon Richardson - A Little Bit OCD

First Broadcast: 
Tuesday 24 July at 22:00
Channel 4
Open Mike Productions Ltd.

This programme, as part of The Channel 4 Goes Mad season, really intrigued me.  I have always wondered what defines OCD, and I really enjoyed the fact that it was a well-known comedian, Jon Richardson, who was exploring the details.  It made the programme feel much more real, as Jon feels he has experienced some level of OCD in the past.  In the programme, he sets out to find out how OCD really affects people's lives, and if he has the disorder himself. 

"So do I have a medical disorder, or am I just an annoying man who has to have everything exactly the way he wants?"

Around 1 million people in the UK have OCD, and as part of his investigation, Jon meets a number of people who have all been affected by it at some level. He goes on a short walk with fellow comedian, Tom Rosenthal, on which they both make comments on the rules of which parts of the pavement you are allowed to walk on.  He also speaks to his flatmates, who have to try and live around Jon's minor compulsions, such as having the butter spread evenly in the tub "like a beach, just after the tide's washed out." 

This is all very light-hearted,  but Jon's compulsions gradually begin to come across as more problematic.

He tells of how angry he gets when people enter his bedroom: "This is the only little bit of the earth that is mine."  He also meets his old flatmates, including comedian Russell Howard, and tells them of how he used to sleep in his car because he couldn't live in the untidy environment that they had created within the flat.  In an attempt to justify himself, he says, "I deserve to be unhappy for wanting it a certain way."

But, no matter how serious Jon's problems are portrayed in the programme, the people he meet demonstrate lives that are on the brink of unbearable.  He visits a woman called Gemma, who is obsessed with cleaning.  Her compulsion is so strong that she can't even allow Jon to enter her home as she doesn't feel it is clean enough, even though she had been preparing for his visit.  She spends hours creating lists of objects needing to be cleaned, but often achieves nothing.  She even dusts individual sheets of paper.  

Reaching higher levels of compulsion, he meets Joyce, a woman who has had OCD passed down her genetically, and whom had passed it onto her son too.  Her son had so much potential, but unfortunately could not live with his extreme OCD and committed suicide.  Joyce even said, "I'd have rather not been born than have my son die like that."  That sentence was the horrifying crux of the programme.

It is really interesting to see the shock on Jon's face when being told this story.  I enjoy seeing comedians out of their comfort zone - it adds emotional depth to the programme, because we are so used to seeing only the humorous side of these people.  It was the first time in the programme, or ever, I had seen Jon Richardson without a cheeky smile on his face.

The programme was fantastically informative.  In the end, Jon was "diagnosed" as a perfectionist, not as having OCD, and I like to think that the people he met while filming the programme and the tough experiences he learned of will prevent him from developing OCD in the future.  

"I feel I have Obsessive Compulsive Order, so my brain works in a measured and maticulous way.  I keep my forks a certain way and I smooth my margerine over, but I'm happy with that."

Are we all... just a little bit OCD?

Image from: www.channel4.com/programmes/jon-richardson-a-little-bit-ocd

Gordon Behind Bars - Episode 4

First Broadcast: 
Tuesday 17 July 2012 at 21:00
Channel 4
One Potato Two Potato

So, after watching this final episode of Gordon Behind Bars, are my opinions still the same as the ones I formed after watching episode 1?

Slightly.

I thought the concept was brilliant.  But I didn't realise that the prisoners were going to produce one product, and one product alone.  Can a lemon treacle slice really solve all the problems that prisoner's have caused within society?

No, but it's a start.  And that is what's important.

At the beginning, I judged the prisoners.  They represented lives I would never want to be a part of.  And I have no shame in this - the prisoners had all committed crimes to get to the positions they were in.

But in this episode, I feel, as viewers, our opinions were being manipulated to support the prisoners in some way.  We were supposed to feel sorry for them, and be proud of them for the hard work they were putting in.

"Today, in my mind, I've forgotten the word, 'prisoner,' and they've turned into cooks." - Gordon Ramsay

I am happy to go along with this, when I feel that the prisoners are going to make an attempt to reform.  But are these prisoners that dedicated?

Yes, I believe a lot of them are, especially after receiving Gordon's help.  But one prisoner certainly wasn't.

Paul had a drug problem before entering jail.  In order to help him make something of his life, Gordon gave him work experience in the kitchen at one of his top restaurants, The Savoy, and, provided that he stayed off drugs, he would give him a job at the end of it.

Surprise, surprise, Paul went back onto drugs and threw the opportunity away.

This moment made me really angry and highlighted the mood of the series for me.  Do these prisoners really deserve our help, or Gordon's?

Situations like this answer that question in my mind with a straight, 'no.'  But I understand that Paul does not represent all prisoners.

I did enjoy the series - I found it really interesting to see the lives behind the bars and how these people reacted to the proposition of hard work.  I was pleasantly surprised, and I'm really happy that Gordon's project is having a positive effect on the prisoners.

"This course has made me happy inside, makes me wanna get up in the morning, makes me want to strive to be someone, to do something, y'know, with my life." - David Jones

I fully support anything that will stop prisoners committing crimes over and over again.  I enjoy seeing people reform, succeed and make something of their lives.

I just wish that Gordon could have shown more faith in the project continuing after his departure.  The series closed with his single favourite word:

"F**k."

Undercover Boss - Episode 3 - Paddy Power

First broadcast:
Monday 16 July 2012 at 21:00
Channel 4
Studio Lambert Ltd.

Well, I decided to watch this programme because I had got myself all settled down ready to watch The Riots: In Their Own Words on BBC2.  Unfortunately, a court judge prevented this programme being shown (grrr), so I switched over to Undercover Boss.

For those who have never seen it, Undercover Boss involves someone who is very high up in a company, such as the director, going undercover and posing as a new employee in their own company.  They do the dirty work at the bottom of the chain, and get a feel of what it is like, and what needs to be changed in order to increase profitablity.  They then invite the employees they met to head office (in this case - "Power Tower" - oh dear), and put right the wrongs they discovered.  This is usually in the form of a pay rise, or a free holiday.

I actually think the concept is really strong - it is really interesting to see how the big guys cope doing the dirty jobs - but only if the company are prepared to research into every branch and every employee in their chain, to make a fair change.  

Paddy Power has 400 branches, yet the undercover boss, William Reeve posing as Sam Palmer, only visited 3 or 4 of these shops, and met around 5 employees.

Yes, it is wonderful that he was able to meet these employees needs' and reward them for their hard work and effort.  I am not saying that these people do not deserve it, but what about the large number of other employees that "Sam" did not bother going to meet? They could be more hard-working and in more need of help.

One employee got given the chance to go and work in a branch in Australia, after his application to change jobs within the company had previously been lost.  Had they checked if any other applications had been lost? How could they?

Two other employees got given a £5000 holiday each for them and their families.  He then issued a company-wide extra day's holiday.  It's hardly the same thing.

One manager was thanked for her hard work and told that the company would put £20,000 into relaunching her shop.  Yes, this is beneficial to the company, and not just one employee, but 1 shop of 400 is hardly a monumental change.

I would be very intrigued to see a follow up programme to all episodes in the Undercover Boss series, highlighting the differences the show has made to the individual companies.  I worry that this programme would only consist of a couple of refurbished shops and some holiday snaps.

I think the idea behind the programme is genius, but conducting company-wide research is one aspect that I would like the programme to introduce in future series.

Image from www.channel4.com/programmes/undercover-boss

The Town That Never Retired - Episode 2

First Broadcast:
Thursday 12 July 2012 at 21:00
BBC One
Silver River Productions





I was highly intrigued by the concept of this programme.  With the state pension age rising in the UK, older people are to be expected to work much longer into their lives.  This programme conducted a study to investigate how feasible this is going to be.

"If you take a newborn today, it's quite likely that their state pension age will have to be 77... If you think on to our children's children or your grandchildren's children, their state pension age could easily be into their 80s." 
- Raj Mody - Head of UK Pensions PwC

This is a scary thought, but only in this day and age.  If, in the future, people are to have a greater life expectancy, then they should be fitter and more able to work when they 80 compared to the 80 year-olds of today.

Nick Hewer, who is presenting the programme alongside the brilliant Margaret Mountford, asks the question:

"Even if we are still raring to go, will anyone want to employ us?"

In order to gain an answer, they put pensioners back to work, and in this second episode, put them up against people of a younger age.


The problem I can see with this experiment is that the young people were hopeless!  They didn't represent the younger generation of workers at all.  I'm 19, I've been working since I was 15, and I was totally shocked and angered by the attitude of these young workers, particularly in comparison to the enthusiasm of the pensioners.

A lot of the younger people didn't even bother showing up to work, often pulling a sickie.  I do wonder if these layabouts were selected because of this trait, as you'd think the workers would make more of an effort, seeing as they're representing their generation in the UK on television.  It angered me because I know that I am much more  hard-working than them, and I know a lot of people of my age that are equally capable, yet our generation is being made to look like we're lazy and incompetent.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the programme.  I like watching programmes that enable me to have a good rant.  I am also big fans of the presenters, due to my abnormal obsession with BBC's The Apprentice.  I just feel that the experiment was flawed.  The older generation wouldn't have cut the mustard if the programme had employed younger people with more work ethic.  Not to discriminate the older generation - a lot of them aren't computer literate,  but that's simply because they haven't grown up using this kind of technology. This, combined with the fast pace of the working environment would have put the younger generation further ahead.

The programme is looking well into the future anyway, when people are expected to live longer, and therefore, work longer, so why put the pensioners of today back to work in order to gain an understanding?

Image from www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00tt325 

Cherry Healey: How to Get a Life - Episode 4 - How prejudiced are we?

First Broadcast: 
Wednesday 11 July 2012 at 21:00
BBC Three
Renegade Pictures (UK) Ltd.






As a society, we initially judge people on their appearance.  We all do.

But that's not a fault on our part.  That's how we are made  - our eyes gather information much more quickly than our ears.  If someone us speaking to us, we can see them directly, whereas our ears have to wait until the end of the sentence to process an adequate opinion.

I watched this programme to open my eyes. And it did.  But even though I learned a lot from watching the programme, it hasn't changed my views completely.

Cherry met a few people who are fed up of being judged purely on their appearance. But everyone is.

Alison is in a wheelchair, and is also very independent.  As society, we look at people in wheelchairs as people who need help, and Alison has shown that this isn't the case.  She says that if she needs help, she will ask for it.

I feel this puts able-bodied people in a difficult position.  We are never sure if we should offer help, because we do not want to steal a disabled person's independence away from them, but we also do not want to come across as rude for not offering help.  An act of kindness could become an annoyance, and have the opposite effect to the one that was intended.

I really admire Alison.  She is persuing her dream just as she would have had she not had the accident.  She even says she is doing it to spite her wheelchair - "Ha, you're not going to control me and ruin my life."

I know you have to go through a situation like that to really understand what it's like, and she's made me re-think the way I see people in wheelchairs.  Just because they cannot walk, they do not always require help.

I also admired Rebecca the firefighter.  Her strength and determination shows that she really should not be a victim of prejudice - she is just as capable as men.

Moving on to Gurdev, who is a Sikh and carries around a dagger under his jacket as an essential symbol of his religion.  I can fully understand how prejudiced views can take over.  Knife crime is on the rise on the UK and it's very understandable that a lot of people would find it difficult to trust someone who carries around a dagger, and would even see them as a threat.  This, to me, is the only truly controversial issue covered in the programme, as the prejudiced views are actually making an attempt to stop someone fully persuing their religion.

As with every other episode in this series, I admired Cherry's honesty. 

At the beginning of every programme, she expresses her concerns, saying that she feels the world is running away from her, whilst, on the screen, we see her standing with the goings-on of the city sped up behind her - an effect which makes her honesty relate to the real world and also, us. With her revealing her thoughts so openly, the programme helps us come to terms with our own opinions and not feel so guilty about them.


“What unites us is our desire to be treated as individuals.”

Image from: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01k77mc

The Exclusives - The Final

First Broadcast: 
Thursday 28 June 2012 at 21:00
ITV2
TwoFour





I had been backing Ellie from the start. Initially because I felt I had to support someone, and the only relatable aspect is that she has a Media degree, and I am studying Media myself.

But she really proved herself as the weeks went on.  What baffled me most was that on the first episode of the show, the judges worried that she was too "serious" - she was the craziest person on that show! Her video project with Peter Andre proved that.  I don't think I would have had the guts to tell Peter Andre that his songs were "sh*t," no matter how true this statement may be. It's Insania.

In comparison to the other rookies, she definitely showed the most potential.  Felix just copied the ideas of others.  He had no voice, he never seemed to do any research, and I found his style of interviewing very awkward, with him just blurting out inappropriate questions.

Stu was great.  He didn't really show it, but I believe that he really did want this opportunity.  He may have been in with more of a chance if he had shown passion for anything else but himself.

What I didn't like about the show is that we didn't get to read the articles the rookies had written. When competing for a job in journalism, writing is a main aspect, and we didn't get a taste of it at all.

I just hope the right person won!

Image from: www.itv.com/exclusives

Gordon Behind Bars - Episode 1

First Broadcast: 
Tuesday 26 June 2012 at 21:00
Channel 4
One Potato Two Potato






Brixton Prison – hardly the most obvious place to start up a baking business.  Particularly when it’s the prisoners doing the baking.  

That’s exactly why I tuned into this brand new series, Gordon Behind Bars.  I’m not a huge Gordon Ramsay fan as I don’t particularly enjoy programmes that are 90% made up of bleeping noises,  but this time round, his mission intrigued me, not only because it was such a monumentous challenge, but also because I had no idea how society would receive it.

"My plan's pretty straight-forward: it's about getting them working, off their arse, and then working."

So far, so good…

"I'm gonna try and set up a business behind bars, getting the prisoners cooking on the inside to sell on the outside."

That’s where I see a downfall.  

I may just be shallow-minded, but are people really going to want to eat food that has been cooked by criminals?  Fair enough, Gordon will be managing the project, but he can’t watch over every single one of them whilst the baking is going on.  Are prisoners likely to have a grasp of health and safety regulations?

“They could spit in it, they could let it on the floor, they could do anything with it,” one member of the public states.

Even if, as society, we are prepared to consume food that has been prepared in prison by prisoners, is that really fair on food businesses that people have put a lot of work and money into?  Is it right of Gordon Ramsay to step in and create extra competition for these businesses?  After all, a lot less people would consider buying prison-made food at all if Gordon Ramsay were not fronting the campaign.

But I see where the benefits of Gordon’s mission lie.

"If there's one thing these guys have got on their side, it's time.”

People don’t care what prisoners get up to in their cells.  As long as they are not living in luxury, we couldn’t care less if they sit in their cell all day and do nothing or not.  In fact, we may see that as a fitting punishment.  

But it’s all about making money, to put something back into society.

"The taxpayer forks out £38 grand to keep each of Britains' 88,000 prisoners banged up, yet only 10% of them do any hard work."

Gordon says: "It just seems a complete waste. The amount of money we spend keeping those guys in there. It's costing us a fortune."

"In cash-strapped Britain, few offenders graft full-time to pay anything back."

This is where my support lies.  

So many of the prisoners featured in the programme have been in and out of prison their whole lives.  If the tax payer is paying so much for that kind of lifestyle, it is most definitely a waste of money.  

If these prisoners can make their time in prison more productive in order to make money for the outside world – fantastic!  If this kind of business were to be set up in every prison, it may also act as a deterrent for offenders and  might encourage people to try and make lives for themselves in the real world instead of spending it in prison, if they would be working whilst in there anyway.

In terms of the programme, what’s more entertaining than Gordon Ramsay forcing a bunch of tough criminals to make fairy cakes?

Favourite quote from the show:

"the ruthless criminals can't resist a little bit of glitter."

That's not a sentence you're likely to hear in any other programme!

I am highly looking forward to the upcoming episodes in the series and I am very intrigued to see how Gordon’s mission pans out.

Image from www.channel4.com/programmes/gordon-behind-bars

Can We Trust the Police?

First Broadcast: 
Monday 25 June 2012 at 21:00
BBC Three
Special Edition Films LTD.




I have always found the documentaries broadcast on BBC Three to be full of truly shocking and thought-provoking content, displayed in a gripping and thrilling way.  This is particularly true for the Crime Season that BBC Three is promoting at the moment.  The series, Our Crime, which was broadcast back in April, demonstrated how less fearful of the police people have become, even going to the extent of filming their own shocking crimes and posting them online. So Can We Trust the Police? was a must-watch for me. 

A lot of the content was certainly thought-provoking and it did shock me, but it didn't grab me in the way that previous BBC Three docs had.  The opening to the programme showed swarms of police partaking in extremely violent events, and scenes of last years' riots in London. These images set the programme up to be full of adrenaline - it wasn't. But it still was a very thought-provoking documentary.

The programme looked at a number of isolated cases, one involving a friend of Adam Deacon, who was fronting the programme.  David was his name, and he had recently been attacked by the police after being wrongly accused of a crime.  Yes, everyone makes mistakes.  But what shocked me was that the police weren't in uniform, they didn't let David know who they were or why they were attacking him.  They even filmed footage of the violence.  

What I don't understand is why they were attacking him at all, and with such brutality?  Whatever happened to handcuffs and the "right to remain silent?"  If this is the new approach the police are taking on, even without thorough research, then yes, why should we trust them?

Adam illustrates how police can make a judgement: "They hear my accent, they see what I'm wearing... some of the time I've got a hoodie on and I think they think, 'criminal.'"

An occurring theme throughout the programme involved Adam standing in a dark room, wearing dark clothing, sharing his views and opinions on the police.  The darkness that surrounded him heightened the terror within his stories of the police and how they treat his friends and people who share his image.  It caused us to focus only on his words - a powerful effect.

"1 in 3 people think the police are corrupt, 1 in every 5 think they are dishonest."

But not all police are violent.  One firearms officer says, "I hope I go through my firearms career without having to draw my weapon."  Another policeman that Adam visited was PC Lang in Fife. Most of the cases he had to deal with involved wildlife. 

The excitement demonstrated at the beginning of the documentary barely made an appearance, and, overall, the programme didn't answer the question posed in the title at all.  Adam's closing words are, "As to whether I trust the police... I'm not sure. Personally, I think we'll always be asking if we can trust the police."

The obvious avoidance of the question highlights how controversial a topic this is - an answer cannot be formulated, no matter how much information is gathered.  This kind of cliffhanger builds suspense, but do we really want suspense within a topic like this - a topic that could affect our own safety?

Either way, it allows us, as viewers, to form our own opinions.

My opinion? No, we can't - not fully.  But I think one day, we could.

Image from www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01kbymz