I would say Charlene isn't too far behind her.The worst is Kellie, every single conversation no matter what it’s about she brings race into it. They could be talking about carrots and she’d relate it to a race issue somehow
I would say Charlene isn't too far behind her.The worst is Kellie, every single conversation no matter what it’s about she brings race into it. They could be talking about carrots and she’d relate it to a race issue somehow
Yep - there was no need for his brother to be on there promoting his book. This tragedy happened a long time ago and he is using the “fame” to his advantage.
The panel today were acting very differently to when they are on a mixed panel.
this sort of segregation is very dangerous. Black people are still a minority group in this country and this all black panel is disproportionate to the audience it serves.
the others must be annoyed too.
why did they behave so naturally on an all black panel? Can they only relate to their own skin people?
a lot of the issues discussed today were relevant to a black audience.
My point is the issues raised, the panel, the discussion were all limited to one audience. It wasn’t a diverse show, it was limited. It’s almost like they are discriminating against non blacks.I'm a bit confused why you ended with this statement. You are complaining about segregation and yet acknowledging that the issues raised were relevant to the people you are complaining are present because of their race.
Agree. Last Saturday on Allan Carr's gameshow, all 6 contestants were blackYep - there was no need for his brother to be on there promoting his book. This tragedy happened a long time ago and he is using the “fame” to his advantage.
The panel today were acting very differently to when they are on a mixed panel.
this sort of segregation is very dangerous. Black people are still a minority group in this country and this all black panel is disproportionate to the audience it serves.
the others must be annoyed too.
why did they behave so naturally on an all black panel? Can they only relate to their own skin people?
a lot of the issues discussed today were relevant to a black audience.
I think she’s still struggling with the transition between news reporter and a chat show anchorCharlene seems so insincere. You know when you just get bad vibes about someone?
Did you think that N had lost weight?Charlene seems so insincere. You know when you just get bad vibes about someone?
The playing field should be levelled at the point of the interview process. Black people should be considered for their employment based on their attributes and treated the same as white people, thus having the same chance of getting employment as anyone else.There have been all-white panels on loose women for years yet when there's an all-black panel every few weeks, especially when talking about issues particularly sensitive to black people, ITV are discriminating against white people do me a favour, white people don't need to weigh into every conversation, especially the white loose women who usually don't know what they're talking about when it comes to race issues (eg jane dismissing the microagressions black women have to endure purely for being black by comparing it to sexism she received for being a female journalist which of course is bad but can't she just listen to black women instead of making it about her??). White people aren't oppressed, especially when the biggest issue is them missing out a day on the loose women panel.
Yes, I thought she looked a lot larger last week in that pink shirt though. Her face looks thinner definitely.Did you think that N had lost weight?
In an ideal world, the playing field should be level but it isn’t. You can look up research of people with Black sounding names being rejected for jobs despite having identical experience to their white counterparts. We can’t suddenly just pretend that we live in an equal society when we don’t, as lovely as it would be.The playing field should be levelled at the point of the interview process. Black people should be considered for their employment based on their attributes and treated the same as white people, thus having the same chance of getting employment as anyone else.
My problem is ejecting white people from a job for the purpose of replacing them with a black person. That is not fair. It's discrimination. Someone who has contributed to a business, or a TV show, through no fault of their own, has essentially lost work through the colour of their skin. I know of atleast two white panelists who usually appear on the show that day and they will have lost work but why, because of the colour of their skin? Discrimination works both ways.
Yes, I thought she looked a lot larger last week in that pink shirt though. Her face looks thinner definitely.
I have no problem with an all black panel, I have a problem with literally removing someone from the panel because they are white. I think it's only fair that everyone goes through the same channel and gets the same treatment of employment.In an ideal world, the playing field should be level but it isn’t. You can look up research of people with Black sounding names being rejected for jobs despite having identical experience to their white counterparts. We can’t suddenly just pretend that we live in an equal society when we don’t, as lovely as it would be.
I don’t see how when it’s four white women on the panel, nobody bats an eyelid but when it’s four Black women, suddenly the white women are out of work and being discriminated against. People clearly see white as the norm and are offended when there is no ‘normal’ on the panel. Like I said before, some issues require a certain demographic on the panel to talk about it meaningfully. I don’t need to see Linda or Denise try to relate to racism when they’re clueless. These women are NOT being discriminated against for not being on the panel on a certain day. The nature of loose women is that the panel changes daily so by that logic, Stacey or Nadia or Janet are in no worse of a position when they’re not on the panel on a day when it’s Colleen, Linda, Jane and Ruth compared to a day when it’s Charlene, Kelle, Brenda and Judi. They’d have been at home not making their 3k or whatever fee anyway so it doesn’t really matter who was on the panel instead of them.
For the record, I think a huge problem with the show is that the women often have no experience of what they're talking about though some of them are more articulate so manage to cover it up better. I don't like the fact that they talk about LGBTQ+ issues with nobody present who is actually a part of the community. There needs to be more diversity beyond black women though when you look at the pool of celebrities who would be elligible for loose women, there aren't very many from ethnically or religiously diverse backgrounds. Also I don't think that white people can't be a part of racism discussions ever, I just don't think that its the end of the world when we aren't because on loose women as we've seen in recent times, the white panelists often get defensive and speak over the experiences of their black colleagues. Until they get less ignorant white women on the panel, I much prefer the idea of an all-black panel and I don't see it as discrimination because LW hasn't sacked any white women in order for them to hire more black women and Stacey or Janet won't be turning up to work in the morning to be told to go back home because they're not welcome on the show on that particular day.It's funny, as the Loose Women talk about many subjects that they don't have personal experience of, for example when they talked about gay care homes (with a panel of 100% straight women) and Nadia went on to discuss all of the gay stereotypes. They have also discussed trans issues, again with a 100% straight CIS female panel and no one seemed to complain that they didn't have personal experience then.
Well get rid of Charlene, Nadia, Gloria, Stacy, Kellie & there'll be plenty of vacancies.Anna Richardson was great and she is also bisexual, I believe. She didn't last long on the show, nor did India Willoughby, but I was glad about that as she's annoying as hell (nothing to do with her being a trans woman). It would be great to have an LGBT representation on the panel, when a vacancy comes up, I'm not saying someone should lose their job for the sake of it.
Brenda and Judi are great. I wasn't keen on Brenda at first but I think she has come out of her shell a bit more now.I get the feeling that Kellie and all the other black panelist’s approached the producers for an all black panel.
Brenda and Judy are the same whichever panel they are on but Kellie and Charlene were different personalities on there. It was almost as though they were subdued on the diverse panel and let loose on the black panel.
I think the blm movement has definitely worked in their favour - Charlene is a great reporter and got the chance to interview Trevor McDonald!
I agree. Love Brenda, like Judi. Used to like Charlene as news presenter but can't stand her in LW. And,Kelly just seems devoid of personalityBrenda and Judi are great. I wasn't keen on Brenda at first but I think she has come out of her shell a bit more now.
Charlene is great as a news anchor/reporter but not a Loose Woman and Kelle is great in Hollyoaks but subdued on Loose Women. When she was dancing and pressing herself against the screen it seemed very forced and awkward.