and at this year's edinburgh tv festival he gave mctaggart lecture, which is one of the most high—profile moments for the tv industry, and in that, jack thorne was blunt, telling the audience tv has failed disabled people utterly and totally. jack, welcome to the media show. i wonder if you could explain to us in more detail why you came to that stark conclusion about the state of the tv industry? primarily because it's true. and i think that the argument must be broken down into three parts. one is that if you look at figures for representation, disabled people are chronically underrepresented. you know, 20% of our population are disabled and yet only 8.2% of on—screen talent are disabled. 5.4% of people working behind the screens, and if you look at the executive level, it goes right down to 3.6%,

so there is a real problem in terms of disabled people being employed within the industry. the second thing, and related to that is the stories that are told about disability are few and far between. that i can only think of a handful of shows in my lifetime and it is very hard to get those disabled stories told. i've been trying for years to tell disabled stories on conventional drama budgets, and every time i've been able to tell a disabled story on tv, it's been with a reduced budget because that's the only way of doing it. and we need to be elevated and we need to be put into the mainstream, and the reason why, and this was i think the reason why this speech belonged this year, is that i think that what covid showed — beyond anything else is the ableism is rife in our country and the fact that disabled people were shut out of conversations and ignored

in the statistics as to how many deaths were put into different columns, how many disabled deaths, those with underlying health conditions were sort of relegated out of main statistics, and if you look at care homes and disabled people in those homes there was a massive over proportion of disabled deaths — of the first 100,000 covid deaths, 61,000 were disabled. and then the third thing, and the, sort of, the thing that i'm particularly aiming at is that our spaces in which we make our work are inaccessible and that disabled people cannot make shows because there is frequently huge barriers to them being able to get into the spaces where we make our work. well, jack, let's work through some of the issues you raised in this speech with the help of some people who i know you know. an actor who plays izzy armstrong in coronation street

and is the co—founder of triple c, which runs disabled artist networking community. we also have briony arnold, drama producer and co—director of the deaf and disabled people in tv organisation. and then from the creative diversity network, deborah williams is with us and the cdn works across tv broadcasting to promote equality and diversity. i know you all paid close attention to jack's speech. did it resonate with you? did it describe a world you recognise, briony? 100%. it was startling and i messaged jack straight afterwards and said i was actually in tears because it resonated so much. and that's the key problem. that is the key issue. i'm a disabled wheelchair user, i'm a drama producer but, my god, they have not made it easy for me to get where i am. it's not been handed to me on a silver platter, that's for sure. and in terms of access, i

fundamentally agree with jack. there is no access. it has been made fundamentally difficult for me to get anywhere and to do myjob. in fact, i've had to people turn to me and tell me, "i don't think you should do producing. "i don't think you should work on television. "you won't be able to get on the locations. it is only through tenacity and my own will that i have gone, you know what, watch me. i have had to be manhandled. i've had to around in order to get to locations. i have to put my humility to one side, in a way. i have to allow people to help me in ways that i don't wish to be helped. i've had toilet situations where i've had to physically be manhandled into a toilet, and bum across urine—covered floors in order to be able to gain access a facility on a set because i was the only one available to me — the next one was miles away because we were in the middle of nowhere. but more than that, it's about attitude.

it is about people believing and seeing something that they think they understand when actually they don't. and it's about corresponding and talking to people like myself, and so many others that are amazing in this industry about what we can actually achieve and what we can actually do. the problem is, there's a heck of a lot of prejudice we have to fight against to get there. if it is your experience as a producer, and jack's experience as a screenwriter, what about you as an actor? very much the same. i spent most of my early career being auditionedl in leicester square, i in corridors, outside, having a mat put down in a disabled toilet - as my green i’ooiti. jobs and auditions being taking off me once they realised - i was disabled because it didn't match my cv. - just people's- assumptions, really. so the prejudice, the fact that you're always the person - who goes in and has to make it all right with everybody - to be all right with you. it's that continual fight.

it is notjust like someone going in and doing the jobi for the first time — - we all get nervous on our first day of a job — i you then have to go in and an advocate _ for your community and make everyone else comfortable. you have to advocate for your own access. i and that always makes you feel sometimes like a problem - or you become this issue whereas actually, if- everywhere, like jack's saying, is accessible and access - was thought through, you'd just be able to go on and do your. job to your best, and that's where it's exciting. - that is where disabled people, we are very solution focused . as people, and therefore we are very creative - and actually when disability is i seeping through into the media people get excited about it because it is creatively- interesting and exciting. and that's what i think's also| missing is that people see us as a less, and actually we add to a situation. | we're one in five people, - so if you took 20% of your team out, you're missing 20% of the voices and that i usually that means you're

missing out on ideas. - not that this should be yourjob any more than it is anyone else�*s, but i wonder, all four of you, when you look at these experiences playing out and you have them yourself, how do you explain those to everyone that you're telling about them? why do you think they're happening, given, idon't suppose many of you colleagues would be going to work actively wanting to make your life difficult, so why do we think it is being made so difficult? deborah, what's your view of that? i would say that the work we do at cdn is very much research—based. we look at evidence and we have done surveys and our work and other people's work show is there is a great level of ignorance and a level of fear so instead of embracing that in finding ways to talk about that honestly and openly, people ignore it and pretend it's not happening, so if you don't employ a disabled person, then you haven't got to have a

conversation about disability. sorry to interrupt, but the word fear there. itjumped out to me. help me understand more what you mean about that and i'd be interested to hear more from the other three as well. does the issue of fear come into this? i think fear is interesting because it is not a word... it's a word that has come out of our research from within the industry that they're afraid that if they say something it's the wrong thing, or if they do something it's the wrong thing and they're going to get called out on it. and that has been screaming loud and clearfrom our research over the last three years. and i want to again hold that stat, 5.4% of people in broadcasting are disabled in off—screen roles. 20% of the population is disabled. and that is enormous. that tells you that people are not experiencing disability in day—to—day life, and working with disabled people, living with disabled people. which means that when you come

into a closed environment, which a work environment is, and especially if that's on location or in studio, within our industry, you are looking at something that you don't know. that you do not understand. that you are fearful of. and you do not have time to work that through as an individual so the shortcut is to ignore it. jack, let's bring you in. there's not much for me to say other than what they've already said, but they speak much better than i do about this. that's the thing about the mctaggart lecture. i was given this platform but really i was speaking on behalf of a community, and that's all i tried to do and all three of these people actually read the speech before i did it, and all three gave notes on how to get the speech as strong as can be, and there is a very big reason to be angry here. that the cdn set this target with broadcasters of doubling disability by this year. in fact, delayed a year by covid.

and there was just massive, massive failures that instead of the sort of 5%, 10% incremental leap that we needed, there was 0.9%. tv is claiming that it is opening its arms and it's claiming that's changing and it's not. it's just not. in your speech you directly address that and say that disability is the forgotten diversity, the one that everyone leaves out of speeches. briony, presumably you would agree with that? wholeheartedly. it is important we raise any diverse group because the problem with the media industry is its full of white homogenous cis men and we want to make sure that we are telling created diverse we need to have a diverse group of people behind the camera writing, creating, finding those stories but also telling the stories in front of the camera, and that's why we need to see those faces. when i was growing up, i didn't

see people like myself, and it's so important for any child, whether they are black, white, disabled, asian, trans, to see themselves reflected back on screen. and therefore that has to come organically through the production process and from the people behind the screens as well, implementing those stories. and like jack said, he's been struggling to get their stories told, and this isjack thorne! i would add to that. the implication of, has television utterly failed disabled people? yes. television has, because it lacks ambition and imagination about the possibility of what disabled people can do and who disabled people are, and it is a simple as that. if you live in a silo within a genre or within the world in which you are working, and your understanding of any particular group is limited, then that is what you seek to replicate, and if you do not see ambition and authority

and leadership and humour in disability and disabled people, then you're not going to look for any of that. never mind the drama of life. you know, life isn't sad, as a disabled person. it isn't miserable. and as you're saying that, i'm thinking of another quote from jack's speech, in which he said the disabled stories need to be told, and when they are told, they need to be told with disabled people. i wonder, all of you, how you would like the broadcast industry to go about doing whatjack is recommending? do you prefer quotas, do you prefer policy commitments? do you prefer culture change programmes? what do you think are the necessary tools to use in order to deliver on the visionjack set out? all of the above, probably. just to get us started. and just take a leap. take a risk. nobody knows all the answers, but it isjust really easy. just talk to disabled people,

because as a disabled person it's awful to see somebody represent you and tell your stories that's it's not true, and perpetuating those myths. in our society now, the myths are so archaic and out of date. we live in a society where we it is ok for the news to keep going, "it'sjust those with underlying health conditions that are going to die." why make us less than any other human being? it is because our stories are not reported in the news. put us in every agenda, every agenda you have. make sure that disability is there and whether it fits in, and if you're worried about to go and talk to a disabled person. we get that it can be quite fearful, but we are there. we can help you. how do you view how coronation street has told the story of your character through the pandemic? they've done something utterly ground—breaking and, you know, they've taken reasonable adjustments and made them work. you know, they filmed me at home because i was

shielding, and i stillam. and, you know, that shows that if you can do it on a television show, you can do it on anything in life and thus, the media really leads and we are portraying different ways of doing that, and coronation street have been phenomenal for me. we have got wheelchair accessible all around the streets, which makes it easier for older people and people carrying heavy things. people don't realise that access isn'tjust for disabled people, because it makes life better everywhere and for coronation street to tell that story, because i think they're the only one who has told that story — other than jack's astounding drama which is coming up, which has told the story of how disabled people are doing in covid. we're one in five people. why are we being so excluded? you mentioned jack's new drama, you have a couple coming up, the first of which briony has been involved in as well. does this mean that at least some things are improving,

that it's easier to get commissions and when you do start work, that experience is at least improving where it was? well, yes, to some degree. certainly there are commitments that have been made post—edinburgh are really, really impressive in that respect. when barbara met alan was actually commissioned by history, not by drama, so we had to go in via a different door and it was a really, really joyful experience, and one perhaps briony won't blow her own trumpet about, but it is kind of incredible because it was accessible all the way up and there were members of the crew in every branch. and it was the first time i'd experienced that and it was amazing. she wrote a disability crib sheet that every time there was a mail out about the show, it was on it. it was amazing. what was on it? basically, because we are working with crew members that hadn't worked with anybody from the disabled community

before, we wanted to make sure the dos and don'ts. so it is basically to take away the fear about how to perhaps approach someone in a wheelchair. ie don'tjust go and grab their wheelchair. it might sound really obvious but you would be surprised. you know, it'sjust a general commitment to saying, look, we are here as employees as welt _ we are here to make a great programme but we also want to take away some of the question marks and the myths as well and to reassure people. but it was an incredibly joyful experience. we got to catch the most incredible cast of disabled actors as well. lots of whom have not done much or any tv work, and to find these people wasjust extraordinary, and i'm not going to lie, i cried like a baby when we were filming one particular scene because i was in a room full of disabled people who were doing something quite monumental and joyful and purposeful and that's such

a rarity in our industry and, yeah, it really got to me. well, i can understand why. jack, just before we finish this discussion, you gave this, as i said, very blunt speech that demanded the industry's attention. i wonder what the reaction was from the big guns within the industry when they heard that message from you? very, very good. very, very positive. i mean, the commitments from the bbc and netflix to making disabled shows was huge. channel 4 made a similar commitment. sky is building on making a commitment now. we haven't heard from channel 5 but hopefully we will. and with that, hopefully change will happen because people will become empowered and people will become used to seeing disabled people on screen. we will leave it there for the moment. thank you very much indeed, and listening to all of that is david edelstein, former channel 5 ceo.

former director of programmes at bskyb. david, we're going to talk about channel 4 and possible privatisation a moment. but you held those senior roles within uk broadcasting. i wonder if, you feel, looking back, disability representation was given the attention it warranted? it was well behind other minority diversities. the most successful lobby was from the deaf broadcasting council, getting subtitles and audio description. it took a while for the broadcasters and the regulators to get there, but it is now a requirement for broadcasters to have virtually all their programming subtitled, and 10% of it audio description. so, with the next wave of diversity challenge was from ethnic minority

representation, and all the broadcasters made commitments. they haven't been hugely successful. with disability, it's, kind of, three—dimensional. there's on—screen, behind the screen, and then what is the screen doing? so i watch corrie, and i'm impressed that izzy's storyline is not necessarily based on disability. she has other storylines as well. when i watch life by mike bartlett on the bbc, there was a character, melissa johns was playing a mainstream character. the fact that she was disabled was completely uncommented on. the first drama i ever commissioned was from a disabled writer, but he didn't write anything about disability, because he wanted to write about the politics of northern ireland. so it's multidimensional issue which has had less

attention than it needs. a lot of attention in the last few weeks, because disability representation was given a huge, if temporary boost by channel 4's coverage of the paralympics. but now we have this warning from channel 4 that it won't be able to do anything like that level of coverage again if it's privatised. and that issue, the possible privatisation of channel 4, is coming into sharp focus. next week, the government's consultation on this closes. a decision will follow in months, we think. and we know where channel 4 stands. its ceo spoke to the media show injune. we don't cost the taxpayer anything at all. we take money commercially from advertisers, we don't make a profit. we take all that money, about £1 billion of revenue a year, and we recycle it into small and medium businesses across the uk. that argument was reiterated again as channel 4 opened its new headquarters in leeds this week, but david, you disagree with it as you made clear in

a statement of the house of lords committee this week. why? well, most of it's completely untrue. there's no reason why the paralympics should disappearfrom channel 4 under private ownership. why would it? it does very well in terms of audiences, it earns its keep, although, the guardian misreported... we can give you the argument here. the programming director at channel 4 said, i just don't think there's any chance that a primarily profit—driven channel 4 would invest anything like what we invest in trying to build up and celebrate the paralympics in the way we do — a purely profit—driven channel 4 would be a very different beast to the channel 4 that we know now. well, i hope it would be, because i hope it would be a great deal would efficient and stop pumping money into some things. last year they cut £134 million out of its budget but boosted its numbers and its staff pay

by a significant margin. there are now 912 employees of channel 4 earning an average of £100,000 a year each. so, the notion that the money they earn goes into programming is clearly not true. clearly, if it was a private enterprise you would imagine that private enterprise would pay very well to secure the best talent. one moment, david. i'm just looking at some of the details from channel 4's annual report, its latest annual report. streaming growth up 24% in digital up 11%. revenue forecast to exceed £1 billion for the first time. it doesn't sound like a business that has been particularly badly run. allow me. i have run a lot of commercial businesses and it is badly run. it has ten times as many people working in programming as, say, channel 5. now and for the last 20 years.

so when alex said it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, it costs the taxpayer at least £75 million in wasted resources and payments. that wouldn't occur if it was run more efficiently, and if it were privately owned, and i have to say this. the paralympics cost £7 million in 2012 and rather more in 2016 and a bit more this year. whoever owns channel 4 in 2024 will be running the paralympics because it makes a lot of commercial sense. clearly, channel 4 would dispute strongly that it is not efficiently run. i would ask you, though, a different question, though, david. can i ask you a different question? all the problems you raise here, that it's remit�*s not clear enough, that the remit�*s not being properly enforced by the regulator, that it's not efficient enough... why does privatisation sort any

of those problems out? it seems to you've identified a problem and the solution that does not necessarily fit? because as because as soon as you enter into a contract with a private owner you can force them to commit will not commit to. so you are saying that a regulator that can't force a public service broadcaster now but could in the future do so with a private operation. no, no, it wouldn't be 0fcom that did it. it would be a government contract that did it. at the moment, 0fcom has no power to discipline channel 4 when it blatantly ignores... well, 0fcom does have the ability to issue fines. when did they ever do it? it has done it. only for bbc, not for channel 4. jack thorne, let me they bring you in. why do you think this is a bad idea? i don't really understand the argument. the argument seems to me that

salaries are a bit high at chnnel 4 and i don't think that is necessarily true and i don't really understand why it focuses not on what channel 4 has done historically which is made really good television. with television that people want to watch. and we live in the age of if you can't attract international finance you are in trouble. it is very difficult to make shows. and that means that the local is being lost and we are constantly looking for global ideas, and that means that shows that talk about our country, that talk about what makes our country interesting, that are focused on looking at the problems within our country, social realism, otherwise are lost. and it would be a tragedy. david disagrees with that, and we will have to return to the subject for the moment. the consultation ends at 11:a5pm in the 14th so you still have time and then we wait for months, we think, until there is a decision. many thanks

to all of my guests. the media show will be back at the same time next week, but from me and all of the media show team, for the moment, thank you for listening and goodbye. hello there. this upcoming week is looking pretty changeable. we've started off with a bit of sunshine around and some warmth. today, though, it looks decidedly wet for parts of england and wales in particular. then midweek, a ridge of high pressure will settle things down, we should see some good spells of sunshine before more rain arrives for friday as a new low pressure moves off the atlantic. now we've got a complicated area of weather fronts moving northwards across the country — this first one bringing light and patchier rain across parts of scotland and northern england, but it's this batch of rain across parts of central, southern, and eastern england which will

be quite heavy with the risk of some localised flooding in places, maybe some rumbles of thunder as it continues to journey its way north eastwards. but i think we should start to see skies brightening up in northern ireland, wales, southwest, but the sunshine comes out and could set off a few heavy showers. but disappointing temperatures where we have the cloud and the rain, otherwise highs of around 19—20 celsius in the warmest spots. that rain eventually clears away into the north sea. could see a few showers, though, clinging back across eastern england, and we'll see this very weak weather front push into the northwest of scotland to bring some patchy rain. but elsewhere, mainly dry, temperatures just into single figures under clear skies. 0therwise, relatively mild again where we hold onto the cloud. so, for wednesday and indeed, for thursday here, we have this ridge of high pressure building in, which is going to settle things down. there could be quite a bit of mist and fog, low cloud to start the mornings, but into the afternoons, i think there'll be plenty of sunshine around. i think wednesday looks like being the mistiest, murkiest start to the day. still a few showers across eastern england thanks

to that area of low pressure, and maybe a chance of some showers pushing to western scotland and northern ireland. otherwise for most, it should be dry where we get the sunshine breaking through, highs of around 20—21 celsius. otherwise, the high teens for most. thursday, again, a bit of early mist and fog, and then it promises to be a largely dry day — i think thursday looking like being the driest and sunniest day of the week. but we'll start to see wind increasing with outbreaks of rain across the far northwest of the country later on. top temperatures, though, 22—23 celsius. all change, though, for friday. a new area of low pressure sweeps in off the atlantic. it'll bring a band of rain, some of it heavy, into western areas. it'll tend to weaken, though, as it pushes eastwards, and behind it, we'll see sunshine and showers following. those temperatures a little bit lower on friday than thursday because there'll be more of the breeze, more cloud and outbreaks of rain.

welcome to bbc news — i'm david eades — our top stories. more extreme heat in more places — bbc analysis shows how the world is hitting 50 celcius time and again. we have a special report from nigeria, where the oil industry is accused of adding to the problem. more than a billion dollars of global aid pledged for afghanistan — as the un calls for urgent action to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe. the people of afghanistan need a lifeline. after decades of war, suffering and insecurity, they face perhaps their most perilous hour. now is the time for the international community to stand with them, and let us be clear, this conference is not simply about what we will give to the people of afghanistan. it is about what we owe.