Now we, as actual liberals, do not agree with the very concept of ethnic quotas but then we, as actual liberals, do seem to be rather out of step with the march of our times. Still, it is true that if and when the BBC moves out of London it should righteously – therefore must – hire more white folks and fewer of the melanin enhanced.
For London is more ethnically enriched than the rest of the country.
The argument used to be that the BBC, as a national institution, should reflect the nation itself. Not, on the face of it, an appalling suggestion. More recently this has morphed. As all such suggestions do of course, there are those with an eye for the main chance everywhere. The latter insistence becomes, well, the BBC hires mostly from London, therefore the ethnic make up of the BBC should reflect London’s proportions, not the nations.
This is how detective series set in the most white part of the nation – say, Tyneside – end up with casts more attuned to Clapham. Eh, whatever, right?
But that ethnic portion is very different. If we take “white” as our marker, some 60% of London is so. Some 87% or so of the country is. This is complicated a bit by “other white” but let’s leave that aside.
So, we really have seen the demand that the BBC should be, as an institution hiring in London, 40% non-white. But now that the BBC is not going to be in London then it should be 13% non-white, right? After all, whatever the rules are we should be obeying them for that’s what the rule of law means.
OK, yes, this is all – because we’re real and actual liberals – distasteful because we don’t believe in the ethnic hiring idea in the first place. Whether that’s pro- or anti- whites or gammons or the melanin-enhanced or whatever. But it is still true that if we are to have such then the BBC moving out of London means that the targets need to be changed. For London isn’t Britain.