/ Danny Baker

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/09/danny-baker-apologises-for-chimp-tweet-about-royal-baby

Christ, the state of us.

It never occurred to him that a depiction of the first mixed-race baby in the royal family for a thousand years as a chimpanzee might be in any way offensive, apparently. Because his mind isn’t diseased, he says.

I’m not familiar with Mr Baker’s work, but I suspect the BBC would be better off without it.

jcm

Post edited at 09:36
13
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I’m not familiar with Mr Baker’s work, but I suspect the BBC would be better off without it.

Can you elaborate on why? Is it because

1) You think he must be a racist?

2) You think he must be thick not to have seen how people would interpret it?

3) Another reason? If so, what?

37
Rog Wilko 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I may be a bit slow but I can only see one possible way to interpret it. This society still has a way to go. I think the BBC should never employ him again. And can I suggest that use of the phrase "political correctness" be not used on this thread?

20
john arran 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

In his position he certainly should have been expected to be more aware, but I can easily see it being a genuine oversight. It always surprises me whenever people raise the issue of race when it comes to the royal family as I simply don't have any intuitive feeling that the two of them are racially different; maybe I don't read enough tabloidesque journalism to have it constantly reinforced, so I judge on the basis of the occasional image I can't avoid, which is of two well-to-do people rather than of two different-race people. That said, were the gag to have been applied to any other royal birth, it still wouldn't have been funny!

3
Gordon Stainforth 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > 

> Can you elaborate on why? Is it because

> 1) You think he must be a racist?

> 2) You think he must be thick not to have seen how people would interpret it?

> 3) Another reason? If so, what?

Nick, I can't believe you've posted this in all seriousness. First, whether it's racist or not, it's highly offensive to compare a newborn baby to a chimpanzee. (I almost added 'surely?') Second, it most certainly does have racist overtones.

Why are you searching for other reasons? If someone were to describe David Lammy as a baboon, for example, would the offensiveness of that need to be explained to you?

The only question here is why did Danny Baker say this if NOT to be offensive? And that is indeed a very difficult question to answer.

7
wintertree 09 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> The only question here is why did Danny Baker say this if NOT to be offensive?

I’ve long assumed that spewing endless pathetic shite without any consideration was the key quality sought in radio DJs.... 

1
Dave Garnett 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> 3) Another reason? If so, what?

He was just desperate to make a royal baby joke and this was apparently the best he could come up with?

If so, that's pretty tragic for him as any kind of comedian, let alone what it says about his engagement in popular culture (which I would have thought was his specialist subject).

1
Tyler 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I'm puzzled by the whole thing. I'd have thought DB was categorically not a racist being part of the demograph more likely to be complaining about this sort of thing  than originating it. Also, if you wanted to be a bit racist surely you'd go for something a bit more subtle, comparing black people to chimpanzees isn't even the sort of thing that crops up in the most unenlightened and unpleasant parts of Twitter. But unless you live in some sort of racism free bubble (which does not exist in the UK) then he cannot have been blind to the implications of what he posted. I really don't know what to think, if you were this obviously racist there would have been form before now, he's been in the public eye for decades.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

He's just been fired by the BBC

1
ChrisBrooke 09 May 2019
In reply to Tyler:

>  I really don't know what to think, if you were this obviously racist there would have been form before now, he's been in the public eye for decades.

That's not the point. He's obviously a massive racist and has been hiding it for his now decades long career. Finally the curtain has been lifted, his true colours have been shown and we must all condemn accordingly. He should be offered no chance to explain himself, no chance at redemption, any apology and retraction must be dismissed out of hand, and he must lose his livelihood. That's how we do it in 2019. 

For what it's worth, to me it looks like he made a crappy, ill-judged, not particularly funny, 'edgy'/'irreverent'  joke about something else, which could be, and now is being viewed through the lens of race. He has apologised and removed the offending post. That's about the end of it for me. 

18
earlsdonwhu 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Well, he was just sacked.

stevieb 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Massively tone deaf joke from Danny Baker. I'd be surprised if he's racist, but he is a Millwall fan who grew up in the 60s so you never know.

But can we stop trying to get people sacked whenever they (presumably inadvertently) say the wrong thing. I think the overreaction to the smallest mistake actually builds support for far more unpleasant viewpoints.

3
dunc56 09 May 2019
In reply to Rog Wilko:

It's PC gone mad !

On a serious note - does that mean I don't have to avoid radio 5 live on a Saturday morning now ? 

Post edited at 10:42
1
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Nick, I can't believe you've posted this in all seriousness.

>

  Well, for the rather obvious (I would have thought) reason that it is normal to understand the intent of an action before pronouncing both guilt and sentence.

If MR.X hit Mr.Y with a hammer we might all agree that this was a bad thing (as we do with the case under discussion).

A court might, however, wish to examine whether it was

a) a genuine accident

b) a drunken accident

c) done with intent to cause GBH (or death)

d) done with intent to cause GBH  (or death) with racist motivation.

  The sentence would vary accordingly.

  I find it curious that as a lawyer JCM, whilst openly admitting he knows nothing about Mr.Baker, apparently knows what the sentence should be.

  So I am intrigued as to why this should be.

Post edited at 10:41
6
Tyler 09 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> But can we stop trying to get people sacked whenever they (presumably inadvertently) say the wrong thing. I think the overreaction to the smallest mistake actually builds support for far more unpleasant viewpoints.

I'm not sure why celebs even go on Twitter, I've yet to read a headline saying "Celebrity X today massively increased their popularity and secured massive role in new film because of Tweet" but I've read plenty along the lines of "Celebrity X facing calls for sack over Tweet"

Toby_W 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I saw this and get what he says he was aiming for, perhaps put the parents in clown outfits but this joke... I'd say I live in a fairly isolated little bubble regarding racist behavior but I saw this and thought awwwwwww f***!!  Even if you were a through and through racist you wouldn't post something like this.

It's like he went for the shove and hold at the top of a cliff but forgot the hold and pushed someone to their death.  Or perhaps clenched a rocket between his bum cheeks for a joke before realizing with horror as the sparks start spraying his bollocks and he can't release that he's not thought this through.  Do we think he was drunk or just a massive brain fart?

Cheers

Toby

Gordon Stainforth 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think the 'accident' theory is very far-fetched, but I suppose can't be ruled out.

What I'm saying is that the 'actus reus' here is offensive, per se.

It's like bad manners. You could argue that someone behaves badly 'by accident', but it's still bad manners.

4
In reply to Tyler:

Actually i can think of one...James Blunt tweeting about the suicide of Keith Flint

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6770501/James-Blunt-pays-tribute-Keith-Flint-tremendous-kindness-tragic-Prodigy-star.html

But you're right, it's a mine field that is rarely navigated well and best avoided

Post edited at 10:56
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> What I'm saying is that the 'actus reus' here is offensive, per se.

> It's like bad manners. You could argue that someone behaves badly 'by accident', but it's still bad manners.

>

  Yes, and nobody is denying that this was at the very least "bad manners" and would certainly give racial offense.

  Are you saying that intent is irrelevant ?

ChrisBrooke 09 May 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I'm not sure why celebs even go on Twitter, I've yet to read a headline saying "Celebrity X today massively increased their popularity and secured massive role in new film because of Tweet" but I've read plenty along the lines of "Celebrity X facing calls for sack over Tweet"

Spot on! I know I write some crap on here, but I'm not famous and am unlikely to be. If I ever am, God help me when the Daily Mail find out about my views on top-roping, TPS, and mountain bikes on foot paths.....

I can't imagine why any famous people use social media for anything other than the most basic promotion of their latest 'thing'.  If they voice their opinions or worse, try to be funny, history tells us it has a good chance of ending badly.

1
In reply to Postmanpat:

Wow, his wiki page is already fully updated with the controversy and sacking! 

I was looking at it because I remember him being on a Michael Aspel show early on friday evenings which I would watch as a child.....The Six O'clock show. It was on at 6 

Gordon Stainforth 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Yes, and nobody is denying that this was at the very least "bad manners" and would certainly give racial offense.

>   Are you saying that intent is irrelevant ?

Yes, at the basic level of offensiveness. No, in terms of overall culpability. But it's a secondary point. It's quite bad whether intentional or not; it's doubly bad if intentional. In this case it's quite hard to see how it was unintentional. But I suppose we're all capable of blabbing and saying stupid things that we didn't intend, from time to time ...

stevieb 09 May 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I'm not sure why celebs even go on Twitter, I've yet to read a headline saying "Celebrity X today massively increased their popularity and secured massive role in new film because of Tweet" but I've read plenty along the lines of "Celebrity X facing calls for sack over Tweet"

Well clearly for the Kardashians or gamer youtubers, things like Twitter and Instagram are what build their fame and fortune. I guess this is also true for some established celebrities, although even without gaffes they will often divide their support e.g. Gary Lineker, Charlotte Church. Also some, like Neville Southall, try to use their 'fame' for worthy causes.

ianstevens 09 May 2019
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> I may be a bit slow but I can only see one possible way to interpret it. This society still has a way to go. I think the BBC should never employ him again. And can I suggest that use of the phrase "political correctness" be not used on this thread?

I would have thought the intended way to interpret it was a commentary that the public treat the royal family like animals in a zoo to be stared at with no right to privacy. Not a very good "joke" anyway and likely to be unpopular in its own right. A chimpanzee, given the racial overtones linked with that (correctly or otherwise) was a terrible choice given the hatred spewed towards MM by the Mail for being a bit different (read: not English and Caucasian), but I doubt there are any pictures of other well dressed zoo animals holding babies. 

A stupid tweet yes, but not deserving of crucifixion he'll no doubt receive. Seems he apolgised and removed as soon as the potential to offend was pointed out to him (whether or not he was awareness of the racist overtones). 

2
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Why are you searching for other reasons? If someone were to describe David Lammy as a baboon, for example, would the offensiveness of that need to be explained to you?

Listening to Joe Rogan the other day, talking about himself in his youth, he described himself as being "a chimp".  His point was, he was dumb, practically swinging from the trees, banging rocks, incapable of stringing sentences together.

Seemed like a self-effacing, somewhat humorous, statement.

It struck me though, he could just as easily have been describing his guests.  Which would have been amusing too. 

But if his guest had been black, you can guarantee he would have been accused of racism;  even though skin-colour, or race, almost certainly wouldn't have been in his mind.  Only in the mind of the accuser.

We live in weird times, when it is accepted to point fingers and cry "Racist!"....when the racist thought or connection exists only in the mind of the accuser and not the accused.

12
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Not to mention how petulant his apologies were: "... because, well, mind not diseased" and "... guessing it was my turn in the barrel".

If I was in his position I would have gone for "Oh my god I likened a mixed race kid to a chimp. I didn't mean it like that but of course it looks awful. I'm a moron. Sorrysorrysorrysorrysorrysorry. I'm a very very stupid old man." or similar.

3
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> We live in weird times, when it is accepted to point fingers and cry "Racist!"....when the racist thought or connection exists only in the mind of the accuser and not the accused.

... as well as hundreds of years of historical context.

4
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I think the 'accident' theory is very far-fetched, but I suppose can't be ruled out.

Damnit.  I just had to google a picture of the royal baby.

It doesn't look REMOTELY African/black.  I can't see how anyone looking at it could possibly have thought it does, and equating blacks with chimps, called it as such for racial reasons.

Seems the media outrage crew, and the BBC, have taken the least charitable reading on his comment possible.

The world has gone mad!  

15
The Lemming 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I wonder if wanting to keep the birth private and away from the media, as much as possible, was a good judgement call by Harry and Meghan?

I think this has been justified.

Yes I think the joke was racist as it does not take a rocket scientist to work this one out. However I feel that the punishment is vastly disproportionate to the act. Should Danny have been summarily sacked so quickly?

6
ianstevens 09 May 2019
In reply to ChrisBrooke:

> Spot on! I know I write some crap on here, but I'm not famous and am unlikely to be. If I ever am, God help me when the Daily Mail find out about my views on top-roping, TPS, and mountain bikes on foot paths.....

> I can't imagine why any famous people use social media for anything other than the most basic promotion of their latest 'thing'.  If they voice their opinions or worse, try to be funny, history tells us it has a good chance of ending badly.

Because just promoting your latest "thing" is not engaging to followers, meaning you have less of them. Look at the outdoor industry for example, are the sponsored athletes always the "best" or are there some who are "Championship level" (the odd world cup semi for example) who have the sponsors they do because of their social media following? Other industries have similar stuff and money-for-posts models, and for that you need and audience, and to gain an audience you need to be engaging. Effective social media users make it seem like you actually know them, so you associate with them and buy products they use and so on. Why do skilled actors with big film roles do crappy TV adverts? Same thing, different time.

So basically, for money.

felt 09 May 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I'm not sure why celebs even go on Twitter, I've yet to read a headline saying "Celebrity X today massively increased their popularity and secured massive role in new film because of Tweet" but I've read plenty along the lines of "Celebrity X facing calls for sack over Tweet"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a political celeb, has massively increased her popularity by tweeting, I'd say.

Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> ... as well as hundreds of years of historical context.

The Irish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Jews and Germans I know have plenty of historical context to be offended bydaily life.  

Getting outraged, or having people sacked, over phrases that have no racial motives, is the epitome of hyper-sensitivity.  

7
In reply to Pan Ron:

WTF are you talking about?? You think white people describing themselves as swinging about in trees like chimps would be regarded as racially offensive if done in the presence of black people??

jcm

Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Not to mention how petulant his apologies were: "... because, well, mind not diseased" and "... guessing it was my turn in the barrel".

> If I was in his position I would have gone for "Oh my god I likened a mixed race kid to a chimp. I didn't mean it like that but of course it looks awful. I'm a moron. Sorrysorrysorrysorrysorrysorry. I'm a very very stupid old man." or similar.

Sounds like the kind of expectations made of people during the Cultural Revolution.  Sorry, your self denouncement was insufficient...back to the re-education camp for a few more months.

11
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> WTF are you talking about?? You think white people describing themselves as swinging about in trees like chimps would be regarded as racially offensive if done in the presence of black people??

Calm down.  You have completely misunderstood.  Take a few deep breaths and read it again.

What I am saying is, if you can call a white person a chimp, or a donkey, to describe their stupidity, calling a black person the same for the same reasons should not automatically mean you are racist and cost you your job.  

3
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Quite. His ‘apologies’ were, precisely, petulant.

Anyone think this particular ‘joke’ would have been made about the sainted Princess Di’s babies?!

jcm

2
Tyler 09 May 2019
In reply to felt et al:

Ok, ok, I hear ya, there are loads of examples of celebs securing great things by posting stuff on Twitter.

Talk about people taking a poor joke on the internet too seriously.....

2
Pedro50 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

 > It doesn't look REMOTELY African/black.   

No but "it" is actually a he.

3
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

  Well, you have accepted that intent makes a difference. Hence my post.

  On a broader point, the difference between deliberately giving  offence and taking offence is very important. If all that matters is whether Y claims to be offended by something then X is always guilty. A dangerous concept.

1
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Sounds like the kind of expectations made of people during the Cultural Revolution.  Sorry, your self denouncement was insufficient...back to the re-education camp for a few more months.

Heh heh heh. "Cultural Revolution". You can sure shift through the gears quickly, Ron, I'll give you that.

JimR 09 May 2019
In reply to Pedro50:

the guys is either a racist or an idiot who has committed a serious error of judgement. Either option justifies his sacking. His so-called apology compounds the initial offence.

8
skog 09 May 2019
In reply to Pedro50:

> No but "it" is actually a he.

Careful, you run the risk of being sacked for saying that if they decide later that they identify as female.

Seriously, though - it was a stupid tweet but my first reaction on seeing it was that he was trying to make a joke about the pictures we get fed, of royal babies and kids all kitted out in their posh fancy dress and how ridiculous it tends to look.

The tweeter should have probably known better, but straight out sacking after they deleted it and apologised?

John2 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Was it not Danny Baker who compared the appearance of William Hague to a foetus?

MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The Irish, Japanese, Vietnamese, Jews and Germans I know have plenty of historical context to be offended bydaily life.

Cool. Who are the Irish, Japanes, Vietnamese, or Jews (we know who the Germans are, of course!) in this story again?

> Getting outraged, or having people sacked, over phrases that have no racial motives, is the epitome of hyper-sensitivity.  

"Having people sacked"? Who's had Danny Baker sacked? I'd phrase it "Danny Baker got himself sacked". And besides, the epitome? For once, you appear to have a failure of imagination.

6
Mike Highbury 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Are you quite sure that this what we most want to be talking about today?

2
Rog Wilko 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> We live in weird times, when it is accepted to point fingers and cry "Racist!"....when the racist thought or connection exists only in the mind of the accuser and not the accused.

This defence, if it is one, reminds me of the now notorious UKIP candidate who makes extreme comments about whether he wouldn't or would if pressed rape Jess Phillips and holds up his hands in mock surprise, saying that was satire. I would have thought that likening black skinned people to apes is the oldest racist trope in the history of the world, and probably recognised as such by any intelligent person.

5
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Cool. Who are the Irish, Japanes, Vietnamese, or Jews (we know who the Germans are, of course!) in this story again?

Just making a comparison about people who would have equal right to be offended about life....but don't.  While the slightest sniff of racism and there is a never ending array of people being offended or being offended on the behalf of others.  Hyper-sensitivity.

> "Having people sacked"? Who's had Danny Baker sacked? I'd phrase it "Danny Baker got himself sacked". And besides, the epitome? For once, you appear to have a failure of imagination.

Got himself sacked.  For a tweet.  Using the word "chimp".  With likely no racist intent.

Perverse, that the left fought for years to institute workplace protections and workers rights.  And today they justify people being sacked for the flimsiest of transgressions.

5
WaterMonkey 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

He made a stupid joke about the royals being performing monkeys in suits. Nothing whatsoever racist,

We will never stamp out racism if we keep misinterpreting normal words with racist connotations.

Very disappointed with the BBC and the OP of this blatant witch-hunt thread.

4
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> This defence, if it is one, reminds me of the now notorious UKIP candidate who makes extreme comments about whether he wouldn't or would if pressed rape Jess Phillips and holds up his hands in mock surprise, saying that was satire.

Maybe worth re-examining that one yourself.  A grim joke for sure.  But watch on YouTube the background and the context....rather than automatically buying into the notoriety.  Jim Jeffries makes rape jokes all the time...why is that accepted for what it is, but the moment someone runs for UKIP history gets re-interpretted?

> I would have thought that likening black skinned people to apes is the oldest racist trope in the history of the world, and probably recognised as such by any intelligent person.

Are we really living in a world where calling a baby (that is 1/4 black and looks entirely white) a "chimp" means racism?

3
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to JimR:

> the guys is either a racist or an idiot who has committed a serious error of judgement. Either option justifies his sacking. His so-called apology compounds the initial offence.

More brave new world stuff.  There's a 1% chance he was being racist.  But for being an idiot his sacking is "justified".

Why should he apologise for being a racist if he wasn't?  Sounds like a good old witch-dunking.

4
skog 09 May 2019
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> And can I suggest that use of the phrase "political correctness" be not used on this thread?

It's political correctness gone ... no, of course I don't think it has gone mad, and I do think political correctness, where that means being sensitive to people and groups that are often discriminated against, is a good thing.

But there are certainly plenty of people going mad with it.

Surely the best outcome when someone says or does something offensive is to get them to understand why it was offensive, who they've potentially distressed or harmed by doing it, and to try to avoid doing so again, hopefully raising the awareness of others in the process?

Many of us don't live day to day suffering serious prejudice, so don't have it on top of our minds at all times. And nobody lives suffering every kind of prejudice, so everyone is probably going to overlook it in some contect, at some time. So everyone can slip up and do something really offensive by mistake.

When someone who doesn't mean to be offensive does so accidentally, and then hordes descend attacking them for it, and no apology will be accepted - how does that help? Sure, if they're unrepentant and not interested in learing or correcting their mistake, fine, condemn them. But people who do admit their mistakes, and hopefully try to correct or learn from them, shouldn't be treated as pariahs.

Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Heh heh heh. "Cultural Revolution". You can sure shift through the gears quickly, Ron, I'll give you that.

You seem to be demanding correctly toned denunciations and apologies.  Perhaps this, but in colour, and posted on Twitter rather than hung around a neck, would be satisfactory?

https://cdn.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/li-zhensheng.jpg

1
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Just making a comparison about people who would have equal right to be offended about life....but don't.  While the slightest sniff of racism and there is a never ending array of people being offended or being offended on the behalf of others.  Hyper-sensitivity.

Of course, I doubt anyone here could think of a recent instance of Jews being offended. Silly black people, being all hyper-sensitive about chimps; all that stuff is in the past, no monkey chants or bananas thrown on the pitch at black footballers anymore, is there?

> Got himself sacked.  For a tweet.  Using the word "chimp".  With likely no racist intent.

He has likely thousands of black listeners (who, as you've pointed out, are all a bunch of hyper-sensitive nancys), so as a commercial decision it makes total sense. Ironically, your attempt to downplay this is clanging all over the shop.

> Perverse, that the left fought for years to institute workplace protections and workers rights.  And today they justify people being sacked for the flimsiest of transgressions.

You're a real working class hero. Strange I don't see you on any threads about worker's rights, unless they've got the heave-ho for being a bigot of course.

9
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> You seem to be demanding correctly toned denunciations and apologies.  Perhaps this, but in colour, and posted on Twitter rather than hung around a neck, would be satisfactory?

I'm not demanding anything. Just saying what I would have done if I was actually contrite.

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> He has likely thousands of black listeners (who, as you've pointed out, are all a bunch of hyper-sensitive nancys), so as a commercial decision it makes total sense. Ironically, your attempt to downplay this is clanging all over the shop.

>

  Where did he suggest that all these black people are "hyper sensitive nancys)?

  I'd make a wild guess that his most of his black audience react much more charitably and are just disappointed that he will no longer be on the air.

1
captain paranoia 09 May 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Oddly enough, the BBC News24 ticker feed is only saying that DB has said he's been fired. You'd think BBC news might be able to get a definitive statement from the BBC itself...

Rog Wilko 09 May 2019
In reply to skog:

In recent years we have seen numerous examples of non-apologies, from politicians as well as celebrities. People "apologise" for the fact that some person was offended by what was said (how over-sensitive of them!) and don't aplogise for what they said. Baker's so-called apology falls into this category. As Monkey Puzzle quoted above:  "... because, well, mind not diseased" and "... guessing it was my turn in the barrel". A phrase like "because, well, mind not diseased" is a classic example of the offender blaming the offendee.

It sounds a bit like the comment made by someone late at night after an evening of boozing (or use of some other drug) and who woke up in the morning thinking "Sh1t, I need to get out of this somehow."

Post edited at 12:26
5
Martin W 09 May 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Actually i can think of one...James Blunt tweeting about the suicide of Keith Flint

> But you're right, it's a mine field that is rarely navigated well and best avoided

As epitomised in the very same article by Noel Gallacher's bone-headedly poisonous comments about James Blunt.

Yanis Nayu 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I was quite astonished to see this. I tried to understand the non-racist aspect of the tweet and struggled, and I also struggle to see how someone with Baker’s background and intelligence could not understand the racial overtones. 

However, the speed with which he’s been sacked and the implication over a lack of due process doesn’t sit comfortably with me. 

All quite sad - I’ve always quite liked Danny Baker. 

MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Where did he suggest that all these black people are "hyper sensitive nancys)?

That was Pan Ron.

>   I'd make a wild guess that his most of his black audience react much more charitably and are just disappointed that he will no longer be on the air.

You imagine that most people agree with your take on things? All the people I just imagined agree with me.

Edited as thought replying to someone else.

Post edited at 12:21
1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Of course, I doubt anyone here could think of a recent instance of Jews being offended. Silly black people, being all hyper-sensitive about chimps; all that stuff is in the past, no monkey chants or bananas thrown on the pitch at black footballers anymore, is there?

A monkey chant and bananas thrown on a pitch....therefore means any use of the word monkey in proximity to black automatically mean racism?

> He has likely thousands of black listeners (who, as you've pointed out, are all a bunch of hyper-sensitive nancys), so as a commercial decision it makes total sense. Ironically, your attempt to downplay this is clanging all over the shop.

We're back to the "commercial decisions" justification again.  Charming world we're in if that over-rides due process or actual wrong-doing.  Any ideas how many of his listeners actually took offense?  How many black people take offense?  I suspect few.  But no doubt there is a suitable number of people chomping at the bit to point fingers and be the first to spot racism...lots of cultural kudos to be had in that.  

Automatically seeing racism in this sort of thing is a bit suspicious to me.  A bit like anti-gay preacher discovered in a compromising position with a young boy, perhaps the accusers here complain a little too much, and are possibly over-compensating out of guilt?  

> You're a real working class hero. Strange I don't see you on any threads about worker's rights, unless they've got the heave-ho for being a bigot of course.

Just asking for consistency.  Wouldn't have thought that would be too much to ask.

7
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> That was you.

>

  Really, where did I do that?

> You imagine that most people agree with your take on things? All the people I just imagined agree with me.

>

  Yes, I think that's the problem with white "representatives"of minorities. They think that they know what those minorities  think and therefore have a right to represent their position. Me, I think minorities are well able to represent themselves.

Post edited at 12:26
1
skog 09 May 2019
In reply to Rog Wilko:

It read to me like someone realising they'd done something stupid and making an apology for it, but getting a bit petulant at the end, probably through feeling that the scale of the response and punishment didn't fit the crime.

But I don't suppose either of us really know exactly what was going through his mind - I'm just of the opinion that someone shouldn't generally be written off for making one mistake, when they do acknowledge that it was a mistake.

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Automatically seeing racism in this sort of thing is a bit suspicious to me.  A bit like anti-gay preacher discovered in a compromising position with a young boy, perhaps the accusers here complain a little too much, and are possibly over-compensating out of guilt?  

>

   That's thing about people who claim to hear the dog whistle. They don't realise it's because they're the dogs.....

Post edited at 12:36
4
The New NickB 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I would be tempted to go with monumentally poor judgement over racism, that extends to his apology as well. Neither would go down well if he was my employee. I suspect TalkSport have already been on the phone!

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> However, the speed with which he’s been sacked and the implication over a lack of due process doesn’t sit comfortably with me. 

>

    How do you think all the nice BBC white middle class liberals who acted as judge and jury could possibly be seen at the next Chiswick dinner party if they stood up for a working class racist like Baker? God knows, he might even have voted leave :-0

4
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A monkey chant and bananas thrown on a pitch....therefore means any use of the word monkey in proximity to black automatically mean racism?

No, but you'd be wise to consider the context. It's not some niche connotation known only to a few, is it?

> We're back to the "commercial decisions" justification again.  Charming world we're in if that over-rides due process or actual wrong-doing.  Any ideas how many of his listeners actually took offense?  How many black people take offense?  I suspect few.  But no doubt there is a suitable number of people chomping at the bit to point fingers and be the first to spot racism...lots of cultural kudos to be had in that. 

The BBC is the national broadcaster in an ethnically diverse country in the 21st century. You're trying to excuse a salaried, prominent presenter on that national broadcaster comparing the first mixed race royal with a chimp. If you never think about the existing connotations of what your about to say and how they might affect the people listening then you have no social or emotional intelligence. If you do but disregard it because "that's their problem", then you're a selfish git at best.

> Automatically seeing racism in this sort of thing is a bit suspicious to me.  A bit like anti-gay preacher discovered in a compromising position with a young boy, perhaps the accusers here complain a little too much, and are possibly over-compensating out of guilt? 

OooooOOOoh! The old switcheroo there! Nice attempt to shut people down there - what is this, the Cultural Revolution?

> Just asking for consistency.  Wouldn't have thought that would be too much to ask.

I expect the BBC's T&Cs for presenters will be pretty explicit about social media and perceptions of racism. I try to keep the T&Cs of my employment in mind when making decisions.

3
Wanderer100 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > 

> Can you elaborate on why? Is it because

> 1) You think he must be a racist?

> 2) You think he must be thick not to have seen how people would interpret it?

> 3) Another reason? If so, what?

The blokes a prick. 3rd time he's been fired by the BBC. The most annoying voice on radio in my opinion.

3
Rog Wilko 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   They don't realise it's because their the dogs.....

Speaking as a paid-up member of pedants anonymous, there is some scope for ambiguity here. ;o))

They don't realise it's because their the dogs don't understand the concept of racism perhaps?

MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Really, where did I do that?

See edit on my post.

>   Yes, I think that's the problem with white "representatives"of minorities. They think that they know what those minorities  think and therefore have a right to represent their position. Me, I think minorities are well able to represent themselves.

So why did you make a wild guess that most black people agree with you?

The New NickB 09 May 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I don’t think anyone has described Danny Baker as a comedian before.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

And in any case, what is this nonsense about me or anyone else representing minorities? I don’t like this stuff and I don’t want my national broadcaster employing people who peddle it. I don’t represent anyone.

jcm

MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Oh no, John, if you're white and don't like racism you must be virtue-signalling. Showboater.

2
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> See edit on my post.

> So why did you make a wild guess that most black people agree with you?

  I don't think they "agree with me" . But most minorities I know  spend most of the time worrying about the same things as white people-the rent, the mortgage, the annoying bloke at work, what's for dinner, aunt Doris who is sick and how their football team will do at the weekend.

  But it's just a wild guess. If you think you can champion their because because you know better, feel free.

3
WaterMonkey 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> He has likely thousands of black listeners (who, as you've pointed out, are all a bunch of hyper-sensitive nancys),

Can we now get you sacked for using a word that was once used by Gammon-headed homophobic idiots in the 80's/90's?

1
Ramblin dave 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> No, but you'd be wise to consider the context. It's not some niche connotation known only to a few, is it?

There's no point arguing with Pan Ron on this, this stuff's a religion for them. A presenter could be fired for wearing a swastika armband and shouting "death to the Jews" on live TV and they'd argue with a straight face that it's PC hysteria and the swastika was probably intended as a Hindu good luck symbol and "death to the Jews" is just a way of pointing out the inevitability with which death comes to all of us (including Jews).

Post edited at 12:45
7
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I just listened to his interview on LBC. He wades into the BBC in how they spoke to him when sacking him and mentions Occams razor about 10 times. One second he seems contrite, then he seems to be coming out fighting....very odd. Worth a listen

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/danny-bakers-first-interview-since-being-sacked-by/

Post edited at 12:45
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Can we now get you sacked for using a word that was once used by Gammon-headed homophobic idiots in the 80's/90's?

No, because this social media account isn't in my real name, linked to my job, or represented anywhere in my T&Cs. Too late a lesson for Danny, unfortunately.

2
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> No, because this social media account isn't in my real name, linked to my job, or represented anywhere in my T&Cs.


Nevertheless, it is a deeply offensive term to use. Are you going to apologise?

4
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I don't think they "agree with me" . But most minorities I know  spend most of the time worrying about the same things as white people-the rent, the mortgage, the annoying bloke at work, what's for dinner, aunt Doris who is sick and how their football team will do at the weekend.

Sure. I don't recall saying that offense or just sadness at played-out racist imagery took up much of people's time. 

>   But it's just a wild guess. If you think you can champion their because because you know better, feel free.

You know what, you're right; white people should say nothing about racism. It's not like it directly negatively affects my life, right?

In reply to Ramblin dave:

> There's no point arguing with Pan Ron on this

Nor anything else, if he’s the one I think he is.

jcm

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

 > You know what, you're right; white people should say nothing about racism. It's not like it directly negatively affects my life, right?

>>

   I think you should let those who from racism take the lead, not presume to know what they think or want.

Post edited at 12:55
3
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Nevertheless, it is a deeply offensive term to use. Are you going to apologise?

No, because a) it was ironic, b) no one is actually offended, and c) I'm probably going to say worse before this thread is done.

6
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I think you should let those who from racism take the lead, not presume to know what they think or want.

So we should wait for black people to confirm that being compared to chimps is offensive and dehumanising? If only this had happened before.

Post edited at 12:57
gribble 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I call my daughter "monkey".  She's not financially privileged, though she is mixed race (African/Blighty).  She's called monkey coz she climbs lots, and pretty proficiently.  Not sure where any offence might be there, so I'll ignore it until daughter says otherwise.  Luckily, I don't work for the BBC!

3
TobyA 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Didn't you say that that  YouTube-UKIP-guy was one of the YouTubers who was influential in helping you re-think some of your opinions? What's his YouTube name... Sarkan of something isn't it?

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> > I think you should let those who from racism take the lead, not presume to know what they think or want.

> So we should wait for black people to confirm that being compared to chimps is offensive and dehumanising? If only this had happened before.

See my first post....

1
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> No, because a) it was ironic, b) no one is actually offended, and c) I'm probably going to say worse before this thread is done.

  Who are you to say no one is actually offended? You imagine everyone thinks like you? It's a deeply offensive homophobic term and no amount of weasel words "I didn't mean it like that", "I was being ironic" will stop it being such. Are you going to wait for gay people to confirm that it is offensive?

  You should thank you're lucky stars that you don't work for the BBC.

3
abr1966 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Its at best a crass, mis-judged phrase, possibly said without much thought in the manner that Baker is known for.....as in fast verbal nothingness.

However, the fact that he used it is not acceptable and I agree that he should be subject to disciplinary action.

If I'd used that phrase in that context id expect to be in trouble for it and subject to disciplinary action.

Sad that the usual culprits on here are diluting, distracting and re-directing the actual issue.....

4
WaterMonkey 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> No, because this social media account isn't in my real name, linked to my job, or represented anywhere in my T&Cs. Too late a lesson for Danny, unfortunately.


Shows how easy it is to use a term that some will find offensive though doesn't it? Even if you never intended to be homophobic. It would be unfair to start a witch hunt against you though wouldn't it?

2
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

>  I don’t like this stuff and I don’t want my national broadcaster employing people who peddle it..

What "stuff" would that be?

1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Bit of a straw man there doncha think?

Calling a baby a chimp = wearing a swastika armband (something the baby's father did, did he not?)?

1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> > I think you should let those who from racism take the lead, not presume to know what they think or want.

> So we should wait for black people to confirm that being compared to chimps is offensive and dehumanising? If only this had happened before.

Where was a black person being compared to a chimp? The royal baby, is quite literally, not black and probably about as African as Nancy Pelosi is native American.

7
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to TobyA:

Nope. But I've watched his videos before. Having done so, I know the context behind the rape joke. 

It would be worth those making the accusations against doing the same level of background reading, rather than relying on a video spliced together by Hope Not Hate.

Edit: in terms of rethinking opinions, in hindsight I don't think I really have: being left wing was pretty easy when it meant workplace protections and opposition to invasions. As this thread shows, the left is something quite different these days, in many ways the opposite of what it was. Being sacked for innocent statements, as a result of an overblown Twitter outrage and mob tactics, is a new thing. Does taking issue with that really mean my opinions have changed?

Post edited at 13:58
8
In reply to Pan Ron:

There is no context which makes ‘there isn’t enough beer in the world for me to rape you’ acceptable.

You’re vile. Go away.

jcm

3
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Seems to get a lot of laughs, and no outrage, when Jim Jeffries says it.

But hes ardent anti-gun, anti-trump and would probably vote Remain. So I guess it's different.

1
john arran 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If people making (even inadvertently) points that many may take as racist, are no longer welcome on the BBC, how is it that Nigel Farage, having promoted his Breaking Point poster (among a great many other racist things) is still invited to appear on BBC Question Time?

Could it be that the subject of his tweet was royalty rather than asylum seekers?

Edit: typo

Post edited at 14:07
3
EarlyBird 09 May 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

> However, the speed with which he’s been sacked and the implication over a lack of due process doesn’t sit comfortably with me. 

I think any employer would be justified to sack Mr.Baker in the circumstances - if a case of gross misconduct is serious enough it can warrant immediate dismissal, and bringing the company into disrepute could reasonably be considered to be serious enough to justify that response (particularly considering the high public profile of Mr.Baker and the potential outcomes for the BBC of not dismissing him). He still has access to due process but I wouldn't fancy his chances in a tribunal.

1
EarlyBird 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Being sacked for innocent statements, as a result of an overblown Twitter outrage and mob tactics, is a new thing. 

No it's not. People are sacked all the time for comments they make on social media. They just don't have Mr.Baker's high public profile.

mrphilipoldham 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Ladies of the name Nancy shall be changing their names by deed poll en masse.. 

ablackett 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

A small amount of context in his defence, is that he has had a regular feature over the years of "monkey dressed as famous people set to fairground music"  where he plays fairground music and reads out the name of famous people.

Anyone familiar with his work would presumable recognise this link and that was the joke he was making.  Absolutely mad to sack him.

2
stevieb 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>     God knows, he might even have voted leave :-0

no luck there, Danny’s a remainer 

Stuart (aka brt) 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Seems to get a lot of laughs, and no outrage, when Jim Jeffries says it.

> But hes ardent anti-gun, anti-trump and would probably vote Remain. So I guess it's different.

Nope, because when JJ tells his stories there's usually a bit of a twist where the joke ends up being on us. This and he's not running for public office. 

In reply to john arran:

Farages poster didn't have a picture of a queue of monkeys though did it? Had it of done, then 100% he would probably never have been on TV again.

1
Roadrunner6 09 May 2019
In reply to stevieb:

> Massively tone deaf joke from Danny Baker. I'd be surprised if he's racist, but he is a Millwall fan who grew up in the 60s so you never know.

> But can we stop trying to get people sacked whenever they (presumably inadvertently) say the wrong thing. I think the overreaction to the smallest mistake actually builds support for far more unpleasant viewpoints.

I don't think the BBC had a choice. 

There has been plenty of racist comments about a royal marrying a person of mixed race.

To post that picture was totally tone death and could not in anyway be accepted. It wasn't a comment that was a joke gone wrong. 

I'm genuinely amazed to see 'its PC gone mad' type comments. He's a public figure. He should have known better and was rightly sacked. 

5
Roadrunner6 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

There's a long history of racially equating black people to apes/monkeys etc.

There is no possible the way the BBC could say this was a joke gone wrong or an innocent comment.

I find it incredulous there's a lot of white people walking around saying there's no racism anymore and that's it's all just PC madness. Even in the medical field today if a black person and a white person go to the emergency department, the black patient gets less pain management. 

2
WaterMonkey 09 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I find it incredulous there's a lot of white people walking around saying there's no racism anymore and that's it's all just PC madness. 

Could you quote the post above that says that please, or even slightly implies it.

1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Nope, because when JJ tells his stories there's usually a bit of a twist where the joke ends up being on us. This and he's not running for public office. 

Perhaps you need to tell johncoxmysteriously that then, because apparently there is context where a rape joke is fine.  

2
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> There is no possible the way the BBC could say this was a joke gone wrong or an innocent comment.

There are lots of ways.

> I find it incredulous there's a lot of white people walking around saying there's no racism anymore

You would be right to be....if anyone was actually saying that.  

You should also be incredulous at a load of white people being offended for black people - who are probably not offended themselves.  I'm outraged...because someone somewhere might be hurt....and therefore someone should lose their job.  What happened to the black voice?

And how many people need to be outraged for jobs to be slashed?  Because someone, somewhere, on Twitter, can claim to be harmed, that is sufficient?  And because people feel the urge to register an opinion and therefore contribute to the topic-traffic, "commercial considerations" demand action has to be taken?  Since when has Twitter become the news itself?  

> Even in the medical field today if a black person and a white person go to the emergency department, the black patient gets less pain management. 

Black person?  Or black American person?

1
TobyA 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

>The royal baby, is quite literally, not black and probably about as African as Nancy Pelosi is native American.

Do you mean Elisabeth Warren? I don't think Pelosi claims native American heritage does she?

But look at the front page of the Mail today, the photo is of the baby, his parents (a white British bloke and an American mixed raced woman, and the baby's great gran - a white woman of British and German heritage, and his maternal gran - a black woman of African heritage. That seems a pretty good definition of mixed race!

1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to TobyA:

Yep, thats the one.  My mistake.  All commies look the same ;-)

Still, hard pushed to say the baby is black really. 1/4 mixed race, looks white as a sheet.  

2
Eric9Points 09 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> There's a long history of racially equating black people to apes/monkeys etc.

Well yes but it didn't occur to me either until it was pointed out. I'm not a racist si it doesn't naturally occur to me to equate black people with monkeys and anyway, the royal sprog isn't black.

If DB were a racist and thought that said sprog resembled a monkey fo you think he would have said so on Twitter?

He did something stupid. Someone pointed out why it was stupid. He said he was sorry. He deleted the post.

We all do stupid things sometimes.

1
Roadrunner6 09 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Could you quote the post above that says that please, or even slightly implies it.

Can you find where I said it was in a post above?

Dave Garnett 09 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> There's a long history of racially equating black people to apes/monkeys etc.

Yes, although there's also a long history of metaphors using apes and monkeys to mean no such thing (the organ-grinder and his monkey, aping meaning copying, ape just meaning a brute, monkeying around etc).

It's sad.  This use of ape imagery in what is undoubtedly a racist  way used to be common in playgrounds and football terraces back in the early 70s but had, I thought, long since died out.  Now it seems to be back (did it re-emerge from Eastern bloc football hooligans?).  I can accept Baker's explanation that he doesn't make the racist connection himself, but surely, as a football fan, he can't have missed the whole Danny Rose story and must be aware of the issue?      

MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Shows how easy it is to use a term that some will find offensive though doesn't it? Even if you never intended to be homophobic. It would be unfair to start a witch hunt against you though wouldn't it?

I invite you to try. Let's call it an experiment. Please. Twitter, Facebook, wherever, let's blow this f*cker up. Try and get me fired.

I'm pretty sure that the context of my posts on here would make it clear that the comment was chucking someone else's statement back at them in a slightly exaggerated form. If someone came back and told me that they'd actually taken upset at my comment, that it had reopened old wounds, then I would apologise without huffing and rolling my eyes and complaining about political correctness gone mad.

4
Stuart (aka brt) 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Perhaps you need to tell johncoxmysteriously that then, because apparently there is context where a rape joke is fine.  

John's words - "There is no context which makes ‘there isn’t enough beer in the world for me to rape you’ acceptable." - are correct. A despicable thing to say. And a million miles away from Jim Jeffries material ("Jefferies’s jokes often have shocking punchlines. He has a maxim: “If it’s really, really offensive it has to be really, really funny.” - Guardian article). 

One is subtly funny, the other just obnoxious.

Roadrunner6 09 May 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

I don't know if he is racist. 

We all do stupid things, Chaudhury (plays for Leicester) has just been charged by the FA for racist jokes on twitter from 5-6 years ago when he was 15-16 years old. Should he be sacked? Not for me, he was a kid making a stupid joke. 

However a 50+ year old male presenter making jokes like that was unacceptable. The BBC just could not turn around and let it go.

I'm surprised you didn't see the link but maybe it's because I live in the US. There has been several high profile incidences of GOP candidates or republican supporters making chimp jokes about the obamas. But in UK football banana's were thrown on to the pitch at black players, this still happens in European countries. Do remember the famous John Barnes back heel at Everton?

I don't think anyone is calling Archie black, but the term mixed race for Archie has been in several headlines in the UK press. 

Post edited at 15:37
Stuart (aka brt) 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> You should also be incredulous at a load of white people being offended for black people - who are probably not offended themselves.  I'm outraged...because someone somewhere might be hurt....and therefore someone should lose their job.  What happened to the black voice? 

Try this little experiment. Get a screen grab of the Tweet, download it to your phone. Go out, find a black person. Show it to them. See what they say. I dare you. While you're at it do some monkey chants and throw a banana at them too (happens to black football players in case you want context). 

Let me know the responses. 

8
Roadrunner6 09 May 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Exactly, it certainly still happens in European soccer. I lived in Rostock and Hansa Rostock fans were infamous for throwing bananas onto the pitch at opposing black players.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/dec/04/viv-anderson-banana-skin-arsenal-tottenham-derby

That happened only last year in the UK. Danny Baker is a huge football fan. He knew.

Post edited at 15:42
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> If someone came back and told me that they'd actually taken upset at my comment, that it had reopened old wounds, then I would apologise

>

  So a bit like Danny Baker then?

3
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

So one guy's "A dry vagina is an impotent vagina… you’re not a complete woman and you should be ashamed of yourself!" (one of his lighter moments) gets a pass because you are willing to contextualise it.  Sargon of Arkad on the other hand....well I'm sure most people outraged by him haven't got past reading the headline. 

We're back in the territory that subjected Tim Hunt, Richard Lebow and Count Dunkula to mob justice.  It just happens with increasing frequency and less surprise every time.

5
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>> If someone came back and told me that they'd actually taken upset at my comment, that it had reopened old wounds, then I would apologise

>   So a bit like Danny Baker then?

You've missed a bit off what I wrote there haven't you?

Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Try this little experiment. Get a screen grab of the Tweet, download it to your phone. Go out, find a black person. Show it to them. See what they say. I dare you. While you're at it do some monkey chants and throw a banana at them too (happens to black football players in case you want context). 

Wife saw it.  A shrug of the shoulders.  I guess she's not with the programme.  Could probably show it to any or all of the inlaws, our friends, and I doubt they would give a toss.  

Why I should go and be overtly racist, doing monkey chants and throwing bananas at them at the same time is beyond me.  

But I do know a few people, black and white, who I can guarantee will be outraged.  They're politically programmed to.  I tend to find them quite bigoted as it happens.

4
WaterMonkey 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I'm pretty sure that the context of my posts on here would make it clear

So you admit context is important? Yet the context of DB's tweet has been completely ignored and incorrectly turned into a racist context which has lost him his job and probably damaged his reputation. All because of those too lazy or stupid to understand where his attempt at humour was coming from.

1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I think you're missing the point.  You expect people to live by different standards than you.  For you, context and character gets taken into account.  Other's don't get the same luxury.

3
EarlyBird 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

"If someone came back and told me that they'd actually taken upset at my comment, that it had reopened old wounds, then I would apologise..."

continues:

"...without huffing and rolling my eyes and complaining about political correctness gone mad."

Stuart (aka brt) 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> So one guy's "A dry vagina is an impotent vagina… you’re not a complete woman and you should be ashamed of yourself!" (one of his lighter moments) gets a pass because you are willing to contextualise it. 

It's a reversal of male impotency. That's the problem with Jim Jeffries. Requires a bit of intelligence and scratching beneath the surface. 

> Sargon of Arkad on the other hand....well I'm sure most people outraged by him haven't got past reading the headline. 

> We're back in the territory that subjected Tim Hunt, Richard Lebow and Count Dunkula to mob justice.  It just happens with increasing frequency and less surprise every time.

Because, thankfully, there is space to call these people out.

"Jewish people, unfortunately for them, have got to drop the identity politics. I'm sorry about the Holocaust but I don't give a s***. I'm sorry." - Carl Benjamin 2018

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> >> If someone came back and told me that they'd actually taken upset at my comment, that it had reopened old wounds, then I would apologise

> You've missed a bit off what I wrote there haven't you?

Yes, as per the guidelines on UKC.

  Baker apologised and acknowledged he should be fired. He took a pop at the pompousity of the BBC's delivery of his sacking but said nothing about political correctness gone mad etc

What is your point caller?

Post edited at 15:46
5
Stuart (aka brt) 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Wife saw it.  A shrug of the shoulders.  I guess she's not with the programme.  Could probably show it to any or all of the inlaws, our friends, and I doubt they would give a toss.  

> Why I should go and be overtly racist, doing monkey chants and throwing bananas at them at the same time is beyond me.  

Because I guess that'd be a line crossed. 

> But I do know a few people, black and white, who I can guarantee will be outraged.  They're politically programmed to.  I tend to find them quite bigoted as it happens.

So their outrage is faux because they're "with the programme"? Nice. 

1
In reply to Eric9Points:

> We all do stupid things sometimes.

Except we don’t, do we? Most of us manage to go through life without posting jokes about how one-day-old children are monkeys.

Anyway, as it happens I can just about see how this could happen through stupidity. The guy’s subsequent petulance makes his true colours pretty clear though.

jcm

5
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Anyway, as it happens I can just about see how this could happen through stupidity. The guy’s subsequent petulance makes his true colours pretty clear though.

>

  On the back of your forensic legal brain's analysis?

  You never answered my first question. What is your answer?

Post edited at 15:55
2
In reply to Postmanpat:

What was your question?

jcm

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Can you elaborate on why (he should be fired)? Is it because

1) You think he must be a racist?

2) You think he must be thick not to have seen how people would interpret it?

3) Another reason? If so, what?

1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> So their outrage is faux because they're "with the programme"? Nice. 

The programme is, in this regard, the need to express outrage over innocuous comments because there are points to be scored in appearing "switched on" to racism (like the kid in class being first to put their hand up).  Even where it patently doesn't exist and wasn't intended.  

It reminds me of the same mindset and mob mentality, everyone falling over themselves to be outraged (because if you aren't, you're with the other side), that has blasphemy allegations thrown at innocent individuals in places like Pakistan. 

9
Blue Straggler 09 May 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> I'm not sure why celebs even go on Twitter, I've yet to read a headline saying "Celebrity X today massively increased their popularity and secured massive role in new film because of Tweet"

A single Tweet wouldn’t do it and you never see headlines in general about how such and such person snagged a role, but don’t underestimate the power of social media in increasing celebrity “presence”. Studio executives look at such numbers when considering casting choices.

I barely look at Twitter but I’m aware of its power. An example of a single Tweet that I found positive, was Ariana Grande’s in the immediate aftermath of the Manchester bombing. Somehow, just hearing a newsreader quote her words after reporting the event, almost moved me to tears. Which was very strange and actually made me think what a wonderful and thoughtful person she was, just from some simple words (this was in the immediate aftermath, well before any talk of the memorial concert etc) 

2
Wanderer100 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, as per the guidelines on UKC.

>   Baker apologised and acknowledged he should be fired. He took a pop at the pompousity of the BBC's delivery of his sacking but said nothing about political correctness gone mad etc

> What is your point caller?

That's quite an understatement.

He said he was the next fish in the barrel and he also stated that the BBCs decision was a masterclass of pompous faux gravity before going on to say that "the BBC took a tone that said I actually meant that ridiculous tweet and the BBC must uphold blah blah blah.  Literally threw me under the bus".( no they didn't) "Could hear the suits knees knocking".

All of which is to say, poor little me what did I do that deserved this harsh treatment. Like I said earlier. The blokes a prick. 

3
In reply to Postmanpat:

I don’t necessarily think he’s a racist. I do think he must be quite thick not to have realised this wasn’t sensible.

Our public discourse is better off without this stuff. I think people who think this stuff is OK once are likely to think it’s OK again and are thus not well suited to jobs where they have to make jokes in real time in public.

That help?

jcm

4
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Wanderer100:

> All of which is to say, poor little me what did I do that deserved this harsh treatment. Like I said earlier. The blokes a prick. 

>

  You mean apart from the bit where he said it was right that he was fired and he understood why?

Post edited at 16:13
3
Stuart (aka brt) 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The programme is, in this regard, the need to express outrage over innocuous comments because there are points to be scored in appearing "switched on" to racism (like the kid in class being first to put their hand up).  Even where it patently doesn't exist and wasn't intended.  

I have a certain degree of tolerance, if that's the right word, for this argument. What I often come back to though is if stuff like this is just shrugged off with a "I was only joking" defence, then it can can lead to fertile soil for those that really do think obnoxious stuff. That doesn't mean humour can't be found at the edge, but that goes back to the Jim Jeffries thing - it'd better be really funny. If he'd posted the 'joke' at one of William's kids then I'd have laughed along. 

Stuart (aka brt) 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   You mean apart from the bit where he said it was right that he was fired and he understood why?

Didn't that come quite a while after the initial backtracking? 

2
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, as per the guidelines on UKC.

That it's fine to edit what you quote to make it easier to argue with? Must have missed that bit.

>   Baker apologised and acknowledged he should be fired. He took a pop at the pompousity of the BBC's delivery of his sacking but said nothing about political correctness gone mad etc

> What is your point caller?

You again selectively quote me above, it's becoming a habit, but don't worry, I'll do it myself. I said "then I would apologise without huffing and rolling my eyes and complaining about political correctness gone mad". Both Baker's apologies on Twitter are pretty petulant, with the second one including "...guessing it was my turn in the barrel", which could be easily construed as "political correctness gone mad". If I was into keeping my job, I'd have just made the apology without sounding like Kevin the teenager.

1
Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Listening to Joe Rogan the other day, talking about himself in his youth, he described himself as being "a chimp".  His point was, he was dumb, practically swinging from the trees, banging rocks, incapable of stringing sentences together.

And practicality no different to him now. 

> Seemed like a self-effacing, somewhat humorous, statement.

He isn't black. 

> It struck me though, he could just as easily have been describing his guests.  Which would have been amusing too. 

Unless they were black. 

> But if his guest had been black, you can guarantee he would have been accused of racism;  even though skin-colour, or race, almost certainly wouldn't have been in his mind.  Only in the mind of the accuser.

How do you know? 

> We live in weird times, when it is accepted to point fingers and cry "Racist!"....when the racist thought or connection exists only in the mind of the accuser and not the accused.

How do you know? 

Black folks have been called monkeys until a few years ago, black folks were called monkeys and lynched for fun until the 60s, black folks were treated as animals by whites and Arabs for 300 years.... Oh and called and treated like monkeys. 

Now we have the first EVER royal that is not a part of the black oppressing group but is a part of the group treated and called monkeys and some drunken football cretin who is an excuse for an entertainer shows this Royal child - and not any of Kate and Wills's Royal children - as a monkey and all the old white men rush to his defence saying he is just an innocent that made a silly mistake. 

No, his action was racist full stop. 

Post edited at 16:24
6
MonkeyPuzzle 09 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> So you admit context is important? Yet the context of DB's tweet has been completely ignored and incorrectly turned into a racist context which has lost him his job and probably damaged his reputation. All because of those too lazy or stupid to understand where his attempt at humour was coming from.

You think anyone but Danny Baker are the stupid ones here? It takes a couple of seconds' thought to see the racist connotations of comparing the first mixed race royal (the subject of overt racism before even being born I might add) to a chimpanzee. If it takes longer to figure out what he was trying to say than it takes to see racist connotations then I'd say it was an imbecilic things to post. We do have to accept consequences of the stupid things we do, as well as the out-and-out malicious.

If he'd been less snarky when apologising (although I'm not sure Danny Baker can do anything but snarky) he might have just kept his job

1
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

>And practicality no different to him now. 

Strange.  He strikes me as far more thoughtful and intelligent that the average knee-jerk reactionary who claims to be fighting oppression while doing the opposite.  The popularity of his shows tends to reinforce that.

>> It struck me though, he could just as easily have been describing his guests.  Which would have been amusing too. 

> Unless they were black. 

Maybe.  Most of his guests seem smart enough to know Rogan is not racist.  And therefore if something can be interpreted as racist or not racist, they'd go with the later.

> > But if his guest had been black, you can guarantee he would have been accused of racism;  even though skin-colour, or race, almost certainly wouldn't have been in his mind.  Only in the mind of the accuser.

> How do you know? 

Because, you just said so. 

> No, his action was racist full stop. 

Yeah, nah.

5
birdie num num 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I’m amazed at the number of apologists for Danny Baker in this thread.

He works in the media, he knows the score.

Pissed or not, whether he meant it or not, the tweet was offensive and the interpretation could be nothing other than racist. 

Even if by some stretch of the imagination he did think it was innocent and acceptable, why should the BBC continue to employ a dickhead?

5
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

They employ dickheads because being a dickhead isn't a sackable offence, and is highly subjective.

In his defense, he claims not to have known it was Markle's baby.  Not giving a toss about royals, I had to look that one up myself a few days ago as I didn't know which royal couple where expecting a child either. 

Don't you think its interesting that if he posted the same photo, a white woman and a white man with a baby chimp between them, but if it hadn't be Harry but William instead, then no one would be assuming him to be racist?  Surely if he was a racist then Megan Markle would be blacked up or something? 

Who here has even seen the infamous tweet?  Sensitive souls, blacks, or people not wishing to witness racism should avert their eyes or not click here.  Baker is clearly a monster:

https://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/the_telegraph_818/6c6a3293ed35debcd556233ec8cb3491

Post edited at 16:59
5
Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I bet he thought he could slip it in as a casual dog whistle racist tweet that could be seen in two ways and use the old it's  "just a joke" get out like all good racists do.

Trouble is he is too intellectually challenged to see how he couldn't get away with it. 

This is what you get when you poison the msm with Clarksons, Hopkins and tons more and make what was once the rhetoric of the far right normal discourse in the msm. 

9
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> If I was into keeping my job, I'd have just made the apology without sounding like Kevin the teenager.

But the mob had already spoken.  You were shown to be a racist (or in your context, a homophobe).  

Apologies are meaningless.  The actual difference is you don't think the rules you readily apply to others should apply to you.  You are a special category, others are not.  You *know* you are not guilty so its fine. 

4
Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> >And practicality no different to him now. 

> Strange.  He strikes me as far more thoughtful and intelligent that the average knee-jerk reactionary who claims to be fighting oppression while doing the opposite.  The popularity of his shows tends to reinforce that.

The guy is an idiot. 

> >> It struck me though, he could just as easily have been describing his guests.  Which would have been amusing too. 

> Maybe.  Most of his guests seem smart enough to know Rogan is not racist.  And therefore if something can be interpreted as racist or not racist, they'd go with the later.

So if he called a black guest a monkey the black guest would just laugh and say " don't worry it's OK that you call me a name that has been used against my race for centuries and justified 300 years of racist slavery and brutal exploitation". 

> Because, you just said so. 

No I said how do you know he wouldn't mean it in a racist way? 

> Yeah, nah.

How "nah"? 

4
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> That it's fine to edit what you quote to make it easier to argue with? Must have missed that bit.

> You again selectively quote me above,

>

  "etcetera": used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included.

4
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> The guy is an idiot. 

Of course.  Because he doesn't agree with your left-wing politics and does not support communism as you do.  Interestingly, I think he'd be happy to sit and debate issues with people like you and would probably refrain from calling you an idiot.

> So if he called a black guest a monkey the black guest would just laugh and say " don't worry it's OK that you call me a name that has been used against my race for centuries and justified 300 years of racist slavery and brutal exploitation". 

Knowing how relaxed his guests are, and knowing that his guests know him, and wouldn't assume (against all available evidence) that he something that he is not, no, they wouldn't.

We've all been kept as slaves and exploited.  Blacks have no monopoly on that one, especially as most British-born blacks have no greater history of slavery than your or I....not unless you consider a black from Kenya the same as a black from Ghana...which would make you kind of racist. 

> No I said how do you know he wouldn't mean it in a racist way? 

Oh, you're saying Joe Rogan is a racist?

> How "nah"? 

Very.  Look at the tweet.  

6
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Our public discourse is better off without this stuff. I think people who think this stuff is OK once are likely to think it’s OK again and are thus not well suited to jobs where they have to make jokes in real time in public.

> That help?

>

  No, because his interviews make it quite clear that he doesn't think this is OK.

1
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Apologies are meaningless.  The actual difference is you don't think the rules you readily apply to others should apply to you.  You are a special category, others are not.  You *know* you are not guilty so its fine. 

>

  As the original puritans used to say "To the Godly all things are Godly...."

1
In reply to Postmanpat:

He thought it was OK when he did it.

jcm

1
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> I bet he thought he could slip it in as a casual dog whistle racist tweet that could be seen in two ways and use the old it's  "just a joke" get out like all good racists do.

>

  Which of course may be a reflection on your prejudices rather than his. I thought you loved the working class. Have you forsaken them?

4
wbo 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: haven't there been a number of race based threats made by right wing nut jobs in the past year or so.  Plenty of context there Mr Baker should have thought of.

No doubt (sarcastically) it's just a bit of banter and she should man up and see the joke.  Or knock out a few rape jokes to cheer us up.

That's the real program here isn't it

1
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> He thought it was OK when he did it.

>

   So, as you've acknowledged he's "probably not a racist" so his mistake was to take 8 minutes (at which point he was prompted) to realise the likely interpretation of the tweet and that it was not at all OK and delete it?

  That 8 minute innocent (on the basis he is "probably not a racist") f*ck up should cost a career without any due process?

I guess....

Post edited at 17:30
2
john arran 09 May 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

> Pissed or not, whether he meant it or not, the tweet was offensive and the interpretation could be nothing other than racist. 

This seems to be a common opinion on this thread but it's the bit I don't agree with, not least because if I'd seen the tweet before the hoohah I'd probably not have twigged any racist interpretation, shielded as I am by utter indifference to royalty stories that I was barely even aware of a racial element to the baby's birth. Baker seems to have a long history of using monkey images to humorously highlight social issues, a kind of catchphrase theme if you like. The monkeys, to my knowledge, have never before been taken as representing people of colour in those cases;. This time he made a similar joke and failed to spot the (one would have thought glaring) potential for a racist interpretation. As far as I can tell there was nothing notably different about this one than about the others, except for the potential for a racist interpretation.

I'm not apologising for him - it was a monumentally stupid oversight. And his apology didn't really cast him in a great light (although I struggle to see the relevance in terms of racism, only in terms of poor judgement). But was there really a clear racist intent, when he'd made similar gags many times before about monkeys and white people?

When interpreting written text, in case of genuine ambiguity the law will generally prefer the interpretation intended by the author over any interpretation inferred by a reader. While he may have been bloody stupid not to have realised that a racist interpretation was possible, even likely, I fail to see how his actions before and since the tweet give any suggestion that any racism was involved, and certainly not intended.

1
TobyA 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> especially as most British-born blacks have no greater history of slavery than your or I....

Hang on ... What? People who's families come from the Caribbean don't have a history of slavery?

Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

Interesting, so where is this history of monkey jokes if this is a constantly recurring theme of his.

I'm making an effort to give him a chance. 

Post edited at 18:02
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> This time he made a similar joke and failed to spot the (one would have thought glaring) potential for a racist interpretation.

I'd dispute the "glaring".  You have to be reasonably up with the royal family and pop-culture to know which royal was pregnant, and more so to know that Megan is counted as black (I've learnt today she doesn't even consider herself black).  If you even ventured a look at the baby picture I'd challenge anyone to say the baby is black.

I agree that he'd be stupid, given he works in media, not to know all that.  But its comforting to know that people in the media don't necessarily have their finger on the pulse or either royal weddings or outrage culture and sanitizing speech.

2
Pan Ron 09 May 2019
In reply to TobyA:

Ok, that was fast and loose.  But barely a quarter of blacks in the UK can trace their ancestry back to the Atlantic slave trade and that is going back hundreds of years.  The automatic assumption of a history tarnished by slavery, simply on account of being black, is ridiculous and wouldn't be granted to Irish or Asian migrants.   Trying to attach the slave trade to Baker's comments is going waaay over the top.

3
birdie num num 09 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

It’s no use bleating at me. You should write a stiff letter to Points Of View.

if you want to be gratuitously offensive on social media, then you take your chances.

1
Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>    So, as you've acknowledged he's "probably not a racist" so his mistake was to take 8 minutes (at which point he was prompted) to realise the likely interpretation of the tweet and that it was not at all OK and delete it?

>   That 8 minute innocent (on the basis he is "probably not a racist") f*ck up should cost a career without any due process?

> I guess....

Or pushed it out like Clarkson, Hopkins style right wing dog whistle racist tweet/comment. 

Then faced a torrent of backlash/threat to his job and quickly realized /was told he better remove it pronto, so did.

> Which of course may be a reflection on your prejudices rather than his. 

What prejudices are they?

4
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Or pushed it out like Clarkson, Hopkins style right wing dog whistle racist tweet/comment. 

>

  Not impossible but goes against all the circumstantial evidence. But that aside, my post was to JCM who had already acknowledged that this was likely not the case and was afollow up to that

> What prejudices are they?

  Gosh, where do we start?   I'll go for that middle aged prosperous white men are likely to be racist.

3
Deadeye 09 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

O o o o o oo o o

In reply to Postmanpat:

If your career is representing an inclusive organisation on social media, you’ll probably lose that career if this is how you do it, yes.

It’s an unfortunate coincidence, to say the least, that the first time this joke occurs to him is the first mixed race royal baby rather than, say, any of his three slightly older cousins.

I think someone posted a link to the Hate’s comment section here about the time of the marriage. It was an eye-opener; literally yards of gammons outraged by the sullying of the royal bloodline, and not afraid to say so.

jcm

1
Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Gosh, where do we start?   I'll go for that middle aged prosperous white men are likely to be racist.

Not at all! most are absolute sweethearts like you. 

No no I have no prejudices against them it's just that SOME of the older generation of white men and women are from a time when racism etc and generally nasty attitudes toward those who are not like them was normal. Since new generations have made that completely unacceptable this underlying conditioning is suppressed or cured. Ones who are not cured are struggling to protect their fellow racist fools these days without being exposed as sympathisers themselves and can be seen in columns and Internets making increasingly desperate and convoluted excuses for them. Incidentally most but not all are very well written and can fool the unwary as being almost credible and convincing. 

And prosperity? Nah, isn't a factor.

3
WaterMonkey 09 May 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

> O o o o o oo o o

Sorry, wtf is that supposed to mean?

1
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> If your career is representing an inclusive organisation on social media, you’ll probably lose that career if this is how you do it, yes.

>

   Yes.

> It’s an unfortunate coincidence, to say the least, that the first time this joke occurs to him is the first mixed race royal baby rather than, say, any of his three slightly older cousins.

>

 Are you saying he is lying when he says "My go-to photo when any posh people have a baby is this absurd chimpanzee in a top hat leaving the hospital", or James O'Brien (liberal pin up) claims "He (Baker) often talks about chimpanzees dressed as famous people without any racial subtext whatsoever."

Should be easily provable. Go ahead.

> I think someone posted a link to the Hate’s comment section here about the time of the marriage. It was an eye-opener; literally yards of gammons outraged by the sullying of the royal bloodline, and not afraid to say so.

>

  Which has precisely what to do with Mr.Baker?

2
Darron 09 May 2019
In reply to felt:

....and Trump for that matter.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I didn’t suggest he was lying. I’m sure he thinks it is a coincidence.

The point of the Hate reference was that you have to be pretty reclusive not to realise that MM’s race is a big thing in certain circles.

jcm

1
marsbar 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Generally speaking, being a dickhead will lead to some sort of sackable behaviour sooner or later.

1
marsbar 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm pretty sure that being a BBC presenter requires being aware of the news.  

1
john arran 09 May 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

What be the name of that ship over there?

> O o o o o oo o o

Them be the port holes you're looking at.

TobyA 09 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

I know that immigration in recent years means that many newer black immigrants to the UK come directly from Africa, but  I still think that by far the majority of British black people have there family origins in the Caribbean. And surely all black people in the Caribbean are in the Caribbean and not in Africa because of the slave trade? Where does less than a quarter figure come from?

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I didn’t suggest he was lying. I’m sure he thinks it is a coincidence.

>

What is the coincidence? That he has been using this photo for years and used it this time?

> The point of the Hate reference was that you have to be pretty reclusive not to realise that MM’s race is a big thing in certain circles.

>

   Yes, so what do you infer from that?

1
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> I know that immigration in recent years means that many newer black immigrants to the UK come directly from Africa, but  I still think that by far the majority of British black people have there family origins in the Caribbean.

>

  You'd be wrong. At the last (2011) black Caribbean represented 1.1% of the population , black Africans 1.8%. "Other black" is 0.5%. Mixed white/ black Caribbean 0.8% and mixed white/black African 0.3%.

  If it's changed much I would suspect there would have been more black African than black Caribbean immigration since then.

  Having said that, the one quarter figure seems very unlikely.

Post edited at 19:56
Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Not at all! most are absolute sweethearts like you.

>

  Oh darling, you make my heart tremble....x

> No no I have no prejudices against them it's just that SOME of the older generation of white men and women are from a time when racism etc> And prosperity? Nah, isn't a factor.

>

  Ah so you're prejudice is not generalised it's personal against certain people like Mr.Baker. What are the tell tale signs? Mr.O'Brien clearly needs to be advised of them before he keeps befriending the wrong sort of older people.

To make it easier maybe we could lend him a stool which could be ducked in the water with suspects seated on it? I've heard it's pretty foolproof.

2
Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> often talks about chimpanzees dressed as famous people without any racial subtext whatsoever."

Ye that joke is just so funny and you can keep applying it over and over endlessly without it getting weary. 

I've never heard so much BS for a long time. 

Post edited at 20:20
1
Deadeye 09 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> Sorry, wtf is that supposed to mean?

Easy now.

It was just how I imagined a water monkey would sound. No offense intended. The joke was more about the water than the monkey... and it is,well, you know, your username

Dave the Rave 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I’ve never forgiven him and that other famous presenter for being the ruination of Gazza.

Deadeye 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I didn’t suggest he was lying. I’m sure he thinks it is a coincidence.

> The point of the Hate reference was that you have to be pretty reclusive not to realise that MM’s race is a big thing in certain circles.

> jcm

To be fair, I thought she was Canadian but turns out she's American.

wercat 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Yes, and nobody is denying that this was at the very least "bad manners" and would certainly give racial offense.

>   Are you saying that intent is irrelevant ?


Certainly.  He is paid a lot of money NOT to do stupid things like this and has just shown he is not worth the pay

QED

(As a licence payer of some years standing I don't want another penny paying to someone with such an inflated idea of his own worth in monetary terms)

Post edited at 20:54
1
Deadeye 09 May 2019
In reply to Dave the Rave:

I thought Gazza was the ruination if Gazza. Have I got that upside down too?

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Ye that joke is just so funny and you can keep applying it over and over endlessly without it getting weary. 

> I've never heard so much BS for a long time. 

  I don't think even the BBC fires people peremptorily for tired jokes. Indeed they usually put them on the News Quiz.

  Do you have to know anything about somebody to detect their hidden racism and bullshit or is it just a gift from God?

3
bouldery bits 09 May 2019
In reply to Rog Wilko:

> I may be a bit slow but I can only see one possible way to interpret it. This society still has a way to go. I think the BBC should never employ him again. And can I suggest that use of the phrase "political correctness" be not used on this thread?

It's political correctness gone mad.

WaterMonkey 09 May 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

> It was just how I imagined a water monkey would sound. No offense intended. The joke was more about the water than the monkey... and it is,well, you know, your username

Haha fair enough, I’d never have guessed that from your post though! I didn’t recognize that as a noise I make when I windsurf or climb!

Dave the Rave 09 May 2019
In reply to Deadeye:

> I thought Gazza was the ruination if Gazza. Have I got that upside down too?

Yes. Are you in Aussie?

Pursued by a bear 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I've had some respect for Danny Baker since, following the death of Edgar Froese, he revealed that the most listened to album on his iPod was Ricochet by Tangerine Dream.

I have somewhat less respect for him now.

T.

john arran 09 May 2019
In reply to bouldery bits:

> It's political correctness gone mad.

or, as I saw from some wag on twitter: It's PG gone mad.

Yanis Nayu 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Slightly irritating that the BBC sack DB without, it appears, even interviewing him, on the same day they have Farage on QT for the 400th time. 

1
In reply to wintertree:

I listened to Heart FM once for half an hour and it literally gave me a migraine!

In reply to Postmanpat:

>    So, as you've acknowledged he's "probably not a racist" so his mistake was to take 8 minutes (at which point he was prompted) to realise the likely interpretation of the tweet and that it was not at all OK and delete it?

I also don't think his tweet had racist intent.

I do however think it was a mindbendingly idiotic thing to post given the racist abuse Megan Markle has faced. Either Baker is so far eve from the concept of racism he has never heard the black person/chimp comparison, or he forgot that it existed. The former is unlikely. The latter is a mistake of the order of forgetting the term 'chocolate face' is offensive. If he genuinely overlooked the fact that Megan Markle and Prince Harry are a mixed race couple and genuinely accidentally represented their baby as a chimpanzee ... then I'd absolutely sack him. I would not want someone that stupid representing my company.

Post edited at 21:45
3
Deadeye 09 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

It's that oh oh chattering... But glubbed. Possibly this thread wasn't the place for it. Do I lose my job?

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

. then I'd absolutely sack him. I would not want someone that stupid representing my company.

>

  If radio presenters got fired for being stupid the airwaves would be silent most of the day.  Which I guess may not be a bad thing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>   If radio presenters got fired for being stupid the airwaves would be silent most of the day.  Which I guess may not be a bad thing.

There's harmless idiocy and then there is accidentally aiming one of the most historically racist comparisons from under the umbrella of a publicly funded state broadcaster at the baby of a mixed race royal couple. If I were his boss... his judgement would be extreme cause for concern.

Post edited at 22:33
1
Philip 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Danny Baker should sue.

He's being reported as a comedian, but he's never done anything comical!

2
Jack 09 May 2019
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> I’ve never forgiven him and that other famous presenter for being the ruination of Gazza.

Don't bring the middle east into this. The thread will never end.

gravy 09 May 2019

On the bright side this is the only bit of the entire royal breeding program news cycle that I've had the remotest interest in...

1
Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   I don't think even the BBC fires people peremptorily for tired jokes. Indeed they usually put them on the News Quiz.

>   Do you have to know anything about somebody to detect their hidden racism and bullshit or is it just a gift from God?

It's nonsense made up by a pal to try and dig him out of a hole. Of course no one makes a joke like that repeatedly and no one would believe such a preposterous story. 

FactorXXX 09 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Hope Archie never goes to Hartlepool! 

Postmanpat 09 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> It's nonsense made up by a pal to try and dig him out of a hole. Of course no one makes a joke like that repeatedly and no one would believe such a preposterous story. 

>

  So you’re sticking with “God told me”?

   

1
aln 09 May 2019
In reply to abr1966:

What phrase did he use?

Pefa 09 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   So you’re sticking with “God told me”?

What do you mean by "God"?

I go by all the usual means in determining why someone would do something. 

Post edited at 23:55
Timmd 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The programme is, in this regard, the need to express outrage over innocuous comments because there are points to be scored in appearing "switched on" to racism (like the kid in class being first to put their hand up).  Even where it patently doesn't exist and wasn't intended.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-48093032

So,, in a country in which children playing football, in 2019, can have monkey chants aimed at them as a form of racist abuse and ridicule, you're saying that any outrage over a tweet by a public figure likening a mixed race Royal baby to a chimpanzee, is people wanting to be seen to be the first to say it's wrong, rather than people genuinely seeing it as a being a bad thing, given the abuse children simply wanting to play football can receive, and the long and historical precedent of back/brown people being seen by racists as less than human compared to white people, and likened to primates of various kinds as a form of ridicule and abuse?

I'm not normally as blunt, but you seem to be being so obtuse about this - it verges on the incomprehensible. You're intelligent enough to understand it I'm sure.

Post edited at 00:28
3
Yanis Nayu 10 May 2019
In reply to Timmd:

I think he’s making a valid point, just with the wrong example. 

Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to Timmd:

What is gained by firing non-racists for racism?

How is a real racist, throwing bananas on to a football pitch, cured by firing Baker?

Do you really think that, seeing someone vilified for posting on Twitter a picture, that would be completely acceptable if the baby being made fun of was less black, a real racist is going to rethink their attitude? And not instead, have their prejudice reinforced?  "One rule for them, one rule for us, innit?".

Someone like Sargon of Akkad will be able to make a perfectly reasonable observation that this is absurd. Do you think that will stir more or less sympathy for him?

Still astounds me that people are surprised by the rise of the right and Brexit's popularity - when the opposing side of the political fence champion witch hunts and such extreme reactions to minor offenses.

11
marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

He posted an unacceptable racist message on social media.  He got fired. It's refreshing to see that there isn't one rule for us and one for the famous.  

2
Yanis Nayu 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

Given the BBC’s red carpet treatment of Nigel Farage, I can’t help but wonder whether he got sacked for offended the Royals rather than any racial aspect. 

1
marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I wasn't familiar with his work either. 

But I found out today that he has in fact at times been employed to talk about football. 

I fail to see how anyone of his age who knows anything about football could claim to be unaware of black players being subjected to racism in a similar way to the comparison he made.  His excuse is up there with my dog ate my homework from a kid who doesn't actually have a dog. 

3
marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Nigel isn't quite as stupid.  He walks the line too carefully.  

summo 10 May 2019
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

>  on the same day they have Farage on QT for the 400th time. 

Unsurprisingly yesterday when Labour announced their eu manifesto, the Today programme said "once again Jeremy Corbyn is unavailable for comment or interview".

I've no doubt they've lost count how many times qt, aq  have asked if he'll.attend. Diane abbot gets no shortage of air time, Tom Watson does quite well and is about their most coherent voice. 

Farage, understands the media and will just make sure he is always available for comment, interviews, appearances.. the lib dems and Labour could learn something here. 

1
teh_mark 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No mate. Gag pic. Posh baby chimp. Alerted to circs. Appalled. Deleted. Apologised..."Would have used same stupid pic for any other Royal birth or Boris Johnson kid or even one of my own...It's a funny image. (Though not of course in that context.) Enormous mistake, for sure. Grotesque. Anyway, here's to ya Archie, Sorry mate."

Assuming his remarks above are genuine (and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt), I can't help but sympathise. If you made such a gross error you'd be absolutely mortified even without being publicly sacked from your job and vilified in national media.

1
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I wasn't familiar with his work either. 

>

  Funny how most of his critics on this thread acknowledge knowing sweet FA about him but purport to know the motivation of his tweet and therefore the penalty he should pay.

  A little chilling actually.

8
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Funny how most of his critics on this thread acknowledge knowing sweet FA about him but purport to know the motivation of his tweet and therefore the penalty he should pay.

>   A little chilling actually.

I doubt your assumed witch hunt is what got him sacked. Fairly sure in his contract with the BBC that there will be a line along the lines of 'organisation into disrepute'.

Danny Baker has been involved with the media long enough to have known better. There was a way to play this and he mis-judged it badly.  Only got himself to blame.

(I'm aware of his work for many a year and as much as you can know a 'TV/radio personality' - who knew David Icke had such strange thoughts! - I don't think DB is racist. Was his post racist? Probably not but in the times we're living in there has to be strong objection to stuff like that). 

1
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I doubt your assumed witch hunt is what got him sacked. Fairly sure in his contract with the BBC that there will be a line along the lines of 'organisation into disrepute'.

>

   The BBC is dysfunctional (especially post Savile)

   Perfectly possible to have a face to face meeting to hear his side of the story and explain the BBC's , bollock him, and suspend him for an appropriate period or find other sanctions. They just went into panic mode.

Post edited at 09:36
4
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   The BBC is dysfunctional (especially post Savile 

You dysfunctional is their ensuring that there can never again be the sort of collusion and cover up that led to his crimes. You wouldn't want that to happen again would you? 

2
MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think you'll find most of his critics agree his intentions probably weren't racist, but that his Tweet was so easily read as racism that it was a gigantically stupid thing to post, even as a private citizen, nevermind for a prominent voice on an inclusive national broadcaster. Can no one else here get fired for a massive error of judgement or is it just me and Danny Baker?

4
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> >   The BBC is dysfunctional (especially post Savile 

> You dysfunctional is their ensuring that there can never again be the sort of collusion and cover up that led to his crimes. You wouldn't want that to happen again would you? 

  Obviously not. Do you think that the best way to avoid this is to conduct summary executions within hours without even examining the background or allowing a defence?

3
skog 10 May 2019
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Obviously not. Do you think that the best way to avoid this is to conduct summary executions within hours without even examining the background or allowing a defence?

Calm down, he was fired, not executed and will probably end up on TalkSport. Do you know that he wasn't asked to explain? I've not seen anything to suggest one way or another. I've definitely had contracts with inclusions that are hair-trigger sackable and I presume this is one.

1
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Calm down, he was fired, not executed and will probably end up on TalkSport. Do you know that he wasn't asked to explain? I've not seen anything to suggest one way or another. I've definitely had contracts with inclusions that are hair-trigger sackable and I presume this is one.


  His version is that a pompous flunky called up and told him in "portentous tones" that he was fired. As he said, even if they'd just said something along the lines of "sorry mate, we know you didn't mean it like that but it looks awful so we have to let you go" he'd have accepted it as necessary.

He'll be fine. The BBC meanwhile....

Post edited at 10:06
1
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Funny how most of his critics on this thread purport to know the motivation of his tweet

Strange thing to say. I’d have thought ‘what the hell was he thinking?’ was the dominant feeling among his critics.

jcm

1
Duncan Bourne 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

1. The mixed race connection combined with an outdated chimpanzee comparison. It doesn't necessarily label him racist but it does demonstrate a lack of awareness.

2. See above lack of awareness which surely must be a prime requesit of someone in a public job.

3. That comment would easily have got me sacked from my last job, don't see why Mr Baker should be treated any different

1
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   His version is that a pompous flunky called up and told him in "portentous tones" that he was fired. As he said, even if they'd just said something along the lines of "sorry mate, we know you didn't mean it like that but it looks awful so we have to let you go" he'd have accepted it as necessary.

> He'll be fine. The BBC meanwhile....

Interesting that you're willing to take the word of a recently sacked (and publicly humiliated) man's word as gospel. And although the BBC (as far as I'm aware) has made no statement other than confirming his sacking, you're somehow painting them as the villain (with your intentionally blank 'BBC meanwhile...').

You're a man who usually thrives on facts. 

1
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Interesting that you're willing to take the word of a recently sacked

>

  When you read the words "his version is" what do you think the point of using it is as opposed , for example, to just saying "the BBC called him....?

 I realise that the written word lacks the benefits of inflexion and visual signs but it seems that people are sometime wilfully obtuse on here.

Post edited at 10:19
3
summo 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   but it looks awful so ...

It's not that it looks awful, it's blatant racism to anyone over the age of 3 who hasn't just been beamed in from the planet zog. 

5
Lusk 10 May 2019
In reply to summo:

> It's not that it looks awful, it's blatant racism to anyone over the age of 3 who hasn't just been beamed in from the planet zog. 


I'd bet you my house you wouldn't be saying that if it were the love child of Jeremy and Diane.

2
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   When you read the words "his version is" what do you think the point of using it is as opposed , for example, to just saying "the BBC called him....?

>  I realise that the written word lacks the benefits of inflexion and visual signs but it seems that people are sometime wilfully obtuse on here.

The written word works really well if used correctly. Many an author makes a living without the benefit of inflexion and visual signs. No wilfully being obtuse here. 

summo 10 May 2019
In reply to Lusk:

> I'd bet you my house you wouldn't be saying that if it were the love child of Jeremy and Diane.

I would, even though i don't like their political stances, it would never excuse that kind of racism or hatred. 

I can't exactly say I'm a fan of Megan m, it is likely to turn into another Hollywood movie plot that ends in tears. 

Ps. Is it a nice house? 

Post edited at 10:49
1
john arran 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

From the horse's mouth:

https://twitter.com/prodnose/status/1126782940590088192

Gordon Stainforth 10 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

What a very admirable reply he has given. It is now surely time to draw a line under the whole incident.

Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> He posted an unacceptable racist message on social media.  He got fired. It's refreshing to see that there isn't one rule for us and one for the famous.  

To quote Spiked:

"The question of Baker’s intention is really important. Racism is a way of thinking, an ideology, a consciously held dislike of a particular group of people. The post-Macpherson idea of ‘unwitting racism’ is a nonsense, primarily because it drains racism of its genuinely anti-human element – its knowing hatred for ‘lesser’ peoples – and instead treats racism as little more than a social faux pas. [...] it means that someone like Baker can be ‘cancelled’ despite not having any intention to be racist – which is another way of saying without having been racist. "

Such is the modern time, where there doesn't need to be actual racism.  Just someone, somewhere, needs to perceive that it might be racist.  And even if they are completely wrong in that judgement, a job must be lost, and you find that "refreshing".

4
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> What a very admirable reply he has given. It is now surely time to draw a line under the whole incident.

No.  It has been decided he's an obvious racist.  His comment was racist.  An apology isn't enough if you're a racist.  He's just trying to save his job.  He's an idiot and idiots don't deserve to be employed.  Etc. etc. etc.

The mob has spoken.  They have passed judgement.  Through their responses, we know who can see racism (and therefore aren't themselves racist) and those who deny it was racist (and are therefore part of the problem).  

Christ, we live in disturbing times.  Its something Jordan Peterson bangs on about; if you think, when the Nazis came to power, you'd be one of the very few who didn't act in despotic fashion, think again (bucko).  The odds are you/we would.  Having sufficient self-doubt to question your own virtuousness, the capacity to put yourself in the shoes of others, and see their innocent mistakes for what they are, rather than joining in with the lynch mob, seems extraordinarily lacking.  Twitter hysteria has people screaming for scalps.  Fecking sickening.

EDIT: Not aimed at yourself Gordon, but "you" in a general sense.

Post edited at 12:28
5
Ava Adore 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

At the centre of this is a young couple who've just had their first child.  A joyous event for them and their family.  Now tainted by an idiot.

1
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to Ava Adore:

Tainted by a Twitter storm more like it. 

The tweet itself was online for all of 8 minutes or something.  The couple would be completely unaware it ever existed if people had been able to restrain themselves, from feeling it necessary, to register their knee-jerk responses of damnation towards the person who posted it.  

2
WaterMonkey 10 May 2019
In reply to Ava Adore:

> At the centre of this is a young couple who've just had their first child.  A joyous event for them and their family.  Now tainted by an idiot.


Oh come on I doubt they've given it a second thought!

They are sensible, mature, intelligent, open minded people. I don't suppose for one minute they thought it was aimed with racist intentions.

I'm amazed by the people on here who are criticising a man who genuinely doesn't associate black people with the noun Monkey. My wife is a school teacher and she calls all her kids in the class her monkeys, cheeky monkey etc. Some are black. It really isn't a racist issue so stop making it one. (Edit: Not aimed at you per se Ava but the more verbose people above)

Post edited at 12:47
TobyA 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> To quote Spiked:

Oh. Please. Don't.

You know they're all a bunch of commies who have tried to rebrand themselves as free speech fundamentalists or some such for money making reasons but seem to have just ended up at alt-right-lite.

2
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> The written word works really well if used correctly. Many an author makes a living without the benefit of inflexion and visual signs. No wilfully being obtuse here. 

So which bit of “his version is” do you think means “the fact is” ie. I take his word for it, as opposed to implying that there may be other versions?

Sheesh, the words were carefully and correctly chosen. I despair that you can’t actually see that.

marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

Couldn't give a tiny little rats ass about his motivation.  

His tweet was utterly out of order.  His excuse is pathetic.  

Totally unacceptable.  

12
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to TobyA:

> You know they're all a bunch of commies who have tried to rebrand themselves as free speech fundamentalists or some such for money making reasons but seem to have just ended up at alt-right-lite.

I do.  And can't stomach Brendan O'Neill on Brexit.  But when it comes to social issues he's a hell of a lot more on the money than supposedly reputable sources.

Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> So which bit of “his version is” do you think means “the fact is” ie. I take his word for it, as opposed to implying that there may be other versions?

> Sheesh, the words were carefully and correctly chosen. I despair that you can’t actually see that.

Perfectly aware of the meaning of what you wrote, thank you. Nice to see you're back to your usual condescension, I was missing it. 

The point I was making was that there appeared to be some hypocrisy on your part in that you are willing to side with Danny Baker (as in it was all an innocent mistake - which I actually think it was, but one with racist undertones) based on nothing more than what he'd messaged/posted. And yet your remark about "The BBC meanwhile..." hinted that they are somehow wrong in all this. 

I realise that the written word lacks the benefits of inflexion and visual signs but it seems that people are sometime wilfully obtuse on here....

All this talk of "executions" and "despair". Maybe you should have a lie down. 

Post edited at 13:03
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

"No.  It has been decided he's an obvious racist.  His comment was racist. "

That's not true. He's an idiot. At best he made a stupid mistake, at worst he's a racist. The comment certainly had racial connotations, and anyone of his generation connected to football should know that.

Either way he's rightly been fired, again. He has a history of going too far and paying the price.

Duncan Bourne 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

I've found a witch can we burn her?

Trangia 10 May 2019
In reply to The Lemming:

> Yes I think the joke was racist as it does not take a rocket scientist to work this one out. However I feel that the punishment is vastly disproportionate to the act. Should Danny have been summarily sacked so quickly?

Yes. He is a mature adult, who should know better, and there needs to be zero tolerance for such behaviour, be it racist or just plain insulting, in our society. The fact that Harry and Megan are Royals is irrelevant, they are human beings with feelings just like anyone else.

Lack of understanding and contempt for the feelings of others is a growing malaise in modern society. 

3
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

>

> I'm amazed by the people on here who are criticising a man who genuinely doesn't associate black people with the noun Monkey. My wife is a school teacher and she calls all her kids in the class her monkeys, cheeky monkey etc. Some are black. It really isn't a racist issue so stop making it one. (Edit: Not aimed at you per se Ava but the more verbose people above)

Really? I teach, and my sister in law teaches. She once called a black kid a little monkey and was instantly appalled at herself. You do call kids little monkeys, you don't call black kids little monkeys because of the association. That's just the way it is.

Of course it has racial connotations. The Ape in heels comments at Michelle Obama? The throwing bananas at black soccer players. Of course there is an association. To pretend there isn't is preposterous. Yes it could have been a mistake, like my sister in law, but as soon as it came out she realized and apologised. 

Any reporter/comedian as closely involved with football as he is knows the association. 

4
marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Only if she doesn't drown.  

Difficult to set fire to when soggy though.  

Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Can't he just be sacked? That seems an appropriate measure. He's been sacked repeatedly. He'll be fine.

The New NickB 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Why are you quoting Trotskyists?

birdie num num 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> No.  It has been decided he's an obvious racist.  His comment was racist.  An apology isn't enough if you're a racist.  He's just trying to save his job.  He's an idiot and idiots don't deserve to be employed.  Etc. etc. etc.

> The mob has spoken.  They have passed judgement.  

Actually, the BBC passed judgment.

It’s about the wider interpretation of his comment, not what may lie within his heart.

He’s a celebrity tweeter with a big following, and a long career in the media. He will have seen others crash and burn for similar indiscretion in social media. The ‘I’m just a buffoon, who doesn’t really follow royalty’ routine is just a bit lame really. An unreserved apology without any attempt at excuses may have been more becoming.

He’s a fool...that much at least is true. And if he didn’t realise his tweet was bound to cause offence, then he’s a fool to the power two.

Personally I didn’t see his tweet, but I doubt I’d have been offended, but neither would I have been amused. Or surprised by the reaction. 

Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

I saw the tweet. My first thought was "you idiot". I wasn't offended but I knew it would cause offence. Whether he meant it or not, its a mixed race baby, there have been lots of racist comments about the couple, there's a long history of associating black people and monkeys/chimps etc. But I live in the US and follow football closely so remember the John Barnes incident and the comments directed at the Obamas.

Post edited at 13:33
WaterMonkey 10 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

>  You do call kids little monkeys, you don't call black kids little monkeys because of the association.

So you treat the black kids differently because they are black? We need to fight back against racism and that isn't the way to do it.

8
MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> To quote Spiked:

> "The question of Baker’s intention is really important. Racism is a way of thinking, an ideology, a consciously held dislike of a particular group of people. The post-Macpherson idea of ‘unwitting racism’ is a nonsense, primarily because it drains racism of its genuinely anti-human element – its knowing hatred for ‘lesser’ peoples – and instead treats racism as little more than a social faux pas. [...] it means that someone like Baker can be ‘cancelled’ despite not having any intention to be racist – which is another way of saying without having been racist. "

> Such is the modern time, where there doesn't need to be actual racism.  Just someone, somewhere, needs to perceive that it might be racist.  And even if they are completely wrong in that judgement, a job must be lost, and you find that "refreshing".

Intent is important. That's why he's just been sacked as opposed to sacked and charged with malicious communication or incitement of racial hatred. No one gets a free pass from consequences just because they didn't "mean it". See: manslaughter; driving without due care and attention; general incompetence; and many more.

In reply to WaterMonkey:

The BBC statement in full - 

"Current policy means we had no alternative but to sack Danny Baker for racial abuse. If only he had just sexually interfered with the baby then we could have turned a blind eye for years and years"

6
earlsdonwhu 10 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

" I teach, and my sister in law teaches. She once called a black kid a little monkey and was instantly appalled at herself."

It is a linguistic minefield. My friend said one of his pupils had earned some Brownie points. Of course, he was promptly accused  of racism by the Indian child who had assumed the reference was to his skin colour rather than small Girl Guides and their uniforms.

2
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Perfectly aware of the meaning of what you wrote, thank you. Nice to see you're back to your usual condescension, I was missing it. 

> The point I was making was that there appeared to be some hypocrisy on your part in that you are willing to side with Danny Baker (as in it was all an innocent mistake - which I actually think it was, but one with racist undertones) based on nothing more than what he'd messaged/posted.

>

  So "perfectly aware of the meaning of what (I) wrote" but perfectly happy to pretend not to in order to to make your point? You're not Rom are you?

  Why do you think it was"based on nothing more than what he'd messaged/posted." Unlike, it would seem, many of his critics, I have actually listened to his show, heard him interviewed previously and read articles about him in the media (the Graniad and the Indie amongst others I think). I therefore have some context in which to place his action. (He dislikes "the establishment" and pompousity.)

  I'm not so much "siding with Baker" as siding against those who either presume racist intent with no evidence or think that  intent is irrelevant or that a foolish mistake is unforgiveable, or that people should be fired over the phone with no discussion or defence.

  The BBC is not, of course, responsible for the problem. Baker, not the BBC tweeted the photo. They are responsible for the reaction , amongst a million other things....But that's for another thread.

2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Time for some Samuel Beckett:

'Every word is like an unnecessary stain on silence and nothingness.'

Or how about

'My life is my mistakes'

Twitter, royalty and race. Toxic mixture. 

Sir Chasm 10 May 2019
In reply to Trangia:

> Yes. He is a mature adult, who should know better, and there needs to be zero tolerance for such behaviour, be it racist or just plain insulting, in our society. The fact that Harry and Megan are Royals is irrelevant, they are human beings with feelings just like anyone else.

> Lack of understanding and contempt for the feelings of others is a growing malaise in modern society. 

You want zero tolerance for insulting behaviour? Really? Do you want that applied across the board, no comedians insulting politicians for instance? 

1
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> >  You do call kids little monkeys, you don't call black kids little monkeys because of the association.

> So you treat the black kids differently because they are black? We need to fight back against racism and that isn't the way to do it.

I don't think that's treating them differently. TBH I avoid the term monkey, but if I use it at a white kid I wouldn't be concerned. And I don't teach that age. But generally avoid it. If it slipped out with a white kid climbing on a play ground I'd not feel guilty or worried. With a black kid I would because of historic associations.

Post edited at 14:23
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> Couldn't give a tiny little rats ass about his motivation.  

> His tweet was utterly out of order.  His excuse is pathetic.  

>

    When you say "his excuse is pathetic" what do you mean? That you don't believe it is true? In which case do you therefore believe he is trying to hide his long hidden racism? Or what?

1
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

It is, but most schools I have worked at are fine and understand its a minefield.

We've just had a teacher sacked for a stupid joke, but when challenged he doubled down and down and refused to apologize, in the current climate it was a very risky joke to make. He hadn't meant offence but it was a risky joke that back fired. I'd sympathy with him because we all use humour but sometimes, whether we like it or not we upset students. That's why teaching is so hard. 200 days a year with dealing with hormonal kids who don't want to be here and spend time on their phones. It's hard to strike a balance with humor and being seen mocking students.

I've a senior girl who's smart and I'm always laughing with her that she cheats to pass and she's not going to college. She's going to a good college. She's doing pre-med. She laughs at me for having a Doctorate in lobsters. But how I laugh with her I'd not do with most students in the class.

MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2019
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> It is a linguistic minefield. My friend said one of his pupils had earned some Brownie points. Of course, he was promptly accused  of racism by the Indian child who had assumed the reference was to his skin colour rather than small Girl Guides and their uniforms.

That's actually very funny.

MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> You want zero tolerance for insulting behaviour? Really? Do you want that applied across the board, no comedians insulting politicians for instance? 

Plus what would we all do when UKC Forums gets closed?

Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   So "perfectly aware of the meaning of what (I) wrote" but perfectly happy to pretend not to in order to to make your point? You're not Rom are you?

No and no.

>   Why do you think it was"based on nothing more than what he'd messaged/posted." Unlike, it would seem, many of his critics, I have actually listened to his show, heard him interviewed previously and read articles about him in the media (the Graniad and the Indie amongst others I think). I therefore have some context in which to place his action. (He dislikes "the establishment" and pompousity.)

You're generalising, stop it ('many of his critics'). Besides, it doesn't matter really whether you have an insight into his prior work or not. I, like you, do. He's a very clever and articulate bloke. Actually knowing this, for me, makes it worse. He really should have known better. 

>   I'm not so much "siding with Baker" as siding against those who either presume racist intent with no evidence or think that  intent is irrelevant or that a foolish mistake is unforgiveable, or that people should be fired over the phone with no discussion or defence.

He's been sacked as per his contract for tweeting something which had racist connotations. That much is blatantly obvious. Context or intent unfortunately doesn't come into it. And we're back to guessing what was actually said in the telephone call because we really don't know unless you've seen a transcript.

>   The BBC is not, of course, responsible for the problem. Baker, not the BBC tweeted the photo. They are responsible for the reaction , amongst a million other things....But that's for another thread.

Interesting how bias works isn't it?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I wonder had Danny Baker tweeted a picture of the Royal couple when they presented Archie to the world with the comments "Harry earning some Brownie points carrying the baby there..." if there would have been any furore?

Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>     When you say "his excuse is pathetic" what do you mean? That you don't believe it is true? In which case do you therefore believe he is trying to hide his long hidden racism? Or what?

He came out fighting and trying to bat it off with the 'not a diseased mind' comment. 

Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> He came out fighting and trying to bat it off with the 'not a diseased mind' comment. 


  Actually, are you as bored as me with this now? It's already tomorrow's chip paper, until the next fish and the next barrel.

  Shall we call it quits and look forward to the weekend?  

1
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

>   Actually, are you as bored as me with this now? It's already tomorrow's chip paper, until the next fish and the next barrel.

I do hope this story is filed away quickly to be honest. The fight is bigger than a mis-judged comment and he's paying for it. (The real pain in the arse for me is he got me having to side with the Royal family!)

>   Shall we call it quits and look forward to the weekend?  

Sorry has someone taken control of your account?! That is without doubt one of the most magnanimous things I've seen you post. I'm working but thanks, and I hope you have a grand one.

Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I do hope this story is filed away quickly to be honest. The fight is bigger than a mis-judged comment and he's paying for it. (The real pain in the arse for me is he got me having to side with the Royal family!)

>

   It's kind of ironical that it's not so long ago that he'd have been fired on the grounds of insulting the royal family, regardless of the race of the baby.

> Sorry has someone taken control of your account?! That is without doubt one of the most magnanimous things I've seen you post. I'm working but thanks, and I hope you have a grand one.

  I'm afraid I'm mellowing And you!

1
Trangia 10 May 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

A mature person should know the difference between Micky taking and malicious hurtful comment. Do you think it is acceptable to insult a new born child and his parents, particularly where there are racist undertones as in this case?

However you make an interesting point, but maybe politicians accept this is a possibility by becoming politicians? A jibe at a politician is probably deemed acceptable, but a jibe against a new born child? Isn't a question of context?

Post edited at 15:03
1
Lusk 10 May 2019
In reply to Trangia:

I just feel sorry for poor Megan, lured into the never ending royal baby production line.

In reply to Trangia:

Well, yes - frankly it would be a better world if people didn’t tweet any jokes about any children of any race.

jcm

climbercool 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I think the only thing that is important in this discussion is whether or not there was a racist intent in that tweet.  

imo if the tweet even had the smallest inkling of a racist motive than he should be sacked on the spot, no due process and never allowed to work for the bbc again. 

However when considering the context how many people really believe someone with no history of even slightly racist comments would suddenly knowingly post a picture of a monkey to represent a black child.  This is one of the most overtly racist things you can possibly do, anyone who saw the racist connection would know for 100% that this would cost them there career.

Even the most overtly racist and vile people on our tv today (whoever you think that is) wouldn't be so stupid as to post a picture of a chimp to represent a black baby, they would know that this would be a disastrous way to make their point and would guarantee them never getting put on air again.   Basically if someone were really racist this is not the sort of thing they would do.

Now the other option is that he posted this with 0 thought between the connection between monkeys and black people.   It seems utterly incredible that someone who works on radio in this day and age could miss that link and make such a poor decision, but to me  it seems much much more likely than someone doing it to make a racist remark

I mean the truth is even the most openly racist and vile people on our tv today (whoever you think that is) wouldn't be so stupid as to post a picture of a chimp to represent a black baby, they would know that this would be a disastrous way to make their point and would guarantee them never getting put on air again.   Basically if someone were really racist this is not the sort of thing you would do.   

both examples are hard to believe but i think the idea that he was just a freaking idiot who massively missed the point is so much more believable.

Now i believe that there would be a strong case for the bbc sacking him anyway, imo anyone stupid enough not to see the link between a baby with black heritage and a chimp should arguably be sacked for their sheer stupidity and lack of thought.  But if that is why the bbc sacked him than they should say that. Ben

sorry i rambled a lot!

Sir Chasm 10 May 2019
In reply to Trangia:

> A mature person should know the difference between Micky taking and malicious hurtful comment. Do you think it is acceptable to insult a new born child and his parents, particularly where there are racist undertones as in this case?

I'd leave the racist element out (because you did explicitly say there should be zero tolerance for insulting behaviour), but otherwise it goes with the territory and the child couldn't care less in this case. Would it be ok to say "oh great, another royal parasite"?

> However you make an interesting point, but maybe politicians accept this is a possibility by becoming politicians? A jibe at a politician is probably deemed acceptable, but a jibe against a new born child? Isn't a question of context?

Zero tolerance of insulting behaviour based on context is going to be difficult to police.

climbercool 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

So hypothetically if somehow new evidence came to light that proved 100% that Mr Baker did make this tweet with no racist intent and that he just has a thing with monkeys and genuinely just thought it was funny because watching the royals is like watching monkeys at the zoo, would you still want him sacked?

Oceanrower 10 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I don't think that's treating them differently. TBH I avoid the term monkey, but if I use it at a white kid I wouldn't be concerned. And I don't teach that age. But generally avoid it. If it slipped out with a white kid climbing on a play ground I'd not feel guilty or worried. With a black kid I would because of historic associations.


But you don't think that's treating them differently? Hmmm...

1
Oceanrower 10 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

>  That's why teaching is so hard. 200 days a year with dealing with hormonal kids who don't want to be here and spend time on their phones. It's hard to strike a balance with humor and being seen mocking students.

That must be terrible. Working a bit over half the days in the year? I don't know how you manage!

8
DaveHK 10 May 2019
In reply to Lusk:

> I just feel sorry for poor Megan, lured into the never ending royal baby production line.

It's like one of those puppy farms you read about from time to time.

john arran 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

At the risk of running short of popcorn, were the actions of Danny Baker that got him sacked -

a) worse than

b) not as bad as

the actions that got Ant McPartlin fired from a broadly similar job?

Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> >  That's why teaching is so hard. 200 days a year with dealing with hormonal kids who don't want to be here and spend time on their phones. It's hard to strike a balance with humor and being seen mocking students.

> That must be terrible. Working a bit over half the days in the year? I don't know how you manage!

Then do it. 

I like it for the day length and holidays and have fun with the students and find it rewarding most days. But the fact is its a shortage area. We lose about 10-20% of teachers in our science department.

We just lost our physics teacher, he's gone to do CAD beer bottle holders, less stress more money but only 15 days a year vacation time. For me, the length of a school year is a huge plus of teaching. the salary is terrible. But I leave the house at 6:30 am and get back at 3:30 pm. I can run and then get my daughter from daycare. Teaching fits with my life well and most days I enjoy it. But abuse, physical and verbal from students, threats of shootings, lock downs are the negative side of that equation. I've taught for 5 years and have been in one potential school shooting (student was prowling the hallways with a gun) and two student/[parent stabbings.

There's pros and cons. But estimates say around 40-50% of teachers quit in the first 5 years. I'm not complaining, just saying what's difficult. A well liked colleague lost his job yesterday for a joke that would have been OK 10-20 years ago. He's an older guy and doubled down and ultimately lost his job. 

Thinking how your words can be taken is hard, that's just modern life.

Obviously all careers have pros and cons. It's a bit lazy to assume teaching is easy because its a relatively short year. 

Post edited at 16:11
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

> But you don't think that's treating them differently? Hmmm...

Yes it probably is, which is why I avoid the term in general. Its sad that I should feel that way. But that's because of the misuse of the term historically.

Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to john arran:

> At the risk of running short of popcorn, were the actions of Danny Baker that got him sacked -

> a) worse than

> b) not as bad as

> the actions that got Ant McPartlin fired from a broadly similar job?

I think his response got him fired. He was always facing disciplinary action but think he may have saved his job had he acted differently. But he also has a history of being outspoken and difficult.

Rob Exile Ward 10 May 2019
In reply to climbercool:

I think JCWs original comment was spot on. Call me a snowflake but I'm embarrassed that that 'joke' is out there - I guess Meghan and her family are used to racism by now but it must be heart breaking that her new born child has the same battles to look forward to, almost certainly exacerbated by their royal status. Heart breaking to know that image will continue to reappear throughout their lives. Who would like to bet that it won't appear on banners at some far right gathering? It's probably being tattooed on someone's a*rse as we speak.

And there are plenty of actions in life where we have to pay the consequences even if there was absolutely no malicious intent. If I get in my car this evening and accidentally kill some pedestrians, then I will be prosecuted and I may well do time for manslaughter. I think that's the case here; the 'joke' and potential consequences were so heinous he had to go. 

Post edited at 16:08
4
marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Postman Pat:

>  His excuse is up there with my dog ate my homework from a kid who doesn't actually have a dog. 

5
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to climbercool:

You can never prove that.

But even he admits it was his later responses which were also foolish. 

Personally if seconds later  he had deleted and offered a groveling apology saying basically what he said today?

"“F**k, what had I done? I needed no lessons on the centuries slurs equating simians and people of colour. Racism at it’s basest."

he could have possibly saved his job.

I find it hard to believe he didn't have any inkling but we can never know either way. Personally I think he isn't racist but was looking for a response and got it badly wrong. But we'll never know his true motive. But I think it was his response later which ultimately cost him his job.

Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

His excuse is up there with my dog ate my homework from a kid who doesn't actually have a dog. >>

So  you don't believe it is true? In which case do you therefore believe he is trying to hide his long hidden racism? Or what?

marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

No, I don't believe that a football commentator of his age could possibly be unaware that a monkey or chimp picture of a black or mixed race person is a racial slur.

As I've said already I don't care why he posted it, he shouldn't have, and he shouldn't be surprised that the BBC have policies about that kind of thing which are part of his terms and conditions.  

If he thinks it's funny to get a reaction from racism then he is racist. 

Post edited at 16:52
6
earlsdonwhu 10 May 2019

Noone so far seems to have spotted the irony that Archie's own great grandad himself has history of some unfortunate comments with racist overtones or sentiment. 

If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes.” Said to a British student in China in 1986.

“You managed not to get eaten then?” Said to someone who had just hiked across Papua New Guinea.

“How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?” Said to a Scottish driving instructor in 1995.

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh attends the Order of Merit service at Chapel Royal in St James's Palace, in London.

“It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.” Description of a fuse box at a Scottish factory in 1999. Later he claimed: “I meant to say cowboys. I just got my cowboys and Indians mixed up.”

“There's a lot of your family in tonight.” Said in 2009 to an Indian businessman at an event for British Indians to meet the Queen.

“If it has four legs and it is not a chair, if it has got two wings and it flies, but is not an aeroplane, and if it swims and it is not a submarine, the Cantonese will eat it.” World Wildlife Fund meeting, 1986.

“You ARE a woman, aren't you?” Said to a Kenyan woman in 1994 at an award ceremony.

“And what exotic part of the world do you come from?” The question asked in 1999 of British politician Lord Taylor, who is of Jamaican ancestry. Taylor responded with: “Birmingham.”

“Oh no, I might catch some ghastly disease.” When asked in 1992 if he wanted to pat a koala.

“Do you still throw spears at each other?” The Prince to Aboriginal Elder William Brin in Queensland, 2002.

 “So who's on drugs here?... HE looks as if he's on drugs.” At Bangladeshi youth club, 2002.

"I don't know how they are going to integrate in places like Glasgow and Sheffield.” Said about a group of students from Brunei.

“Reichskanzler.” Calling German chancellor Helmut Kohl by Hitler's title during a speech in 1997.

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip watch as Warren Clements of the makes fire by rubbing sticks in Cairns, Australia, Friday, March 1, 2002.

“It looks like the kind of thing my daughter would bring back from her school art lessons." Said about traditional Ethiopian art.

“Are you all one family?” Said to a mixed race dance group at a Royal Variety Performance.

“Who do you sponge off?” Said to a group of Asian women who were volunteers at a London community centre.

“You look like you’re ready for bed!” Said to the President of Nigeria who was wearing traditional garb.

Post edited at 16:59
1
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> No, I don't believe that a football commentator of his age could possibly be unaware that a monkey or chimp picture of a black or mixed race person is a racial slur.


He's not a football commentator but never mind that.

You appear to be avoiding my question so I'll repeat it (again): do you believe he is trying to hide his long hidden racism? Or what?

2
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I think there is a third option, that he was trying to get close to the line and went over by mistake.

I don't think it needs to be an innocent mistake or outright racism.

marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know or care.   

4
Siward 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

The crucial words in your post are "of a black or mixed race person"

Don't you believe that Baker had no idea that anyone in the Royal Family was of mixed race? If he did, he wouldn't be so stupid would he? As you say he couldn't possibly be unaware that a monkey/chimp picture of a black or mixed race person is a racial slur.

I, genuinely, have such little interest in them that I couldn't tell you which ones got married recently, had babies, indeed done anything- except the Duke of Edinburgh's car crash. I vaguely remember the Meghan Markle marriage but, like all things Royal, promptly erased it from my mind (along with everything I've ever seen or heard of Danny Baker it must be said).

On the evidence we have. I cannot believe he was racially motivated.

1
marsbar 10 May 2019
marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Siward:

He worked for the BBC ffs.

A mixed marriage in the royal family was a pretty big and very  extensively  covered news story.  

You seriously think someone who worked for BBC radio didn't hear the news?  

1
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Siward:

He was tweeting about the birth so he was obviously following royal news.

Lusk 10 May 2019
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> I think there is a third option, that he was trying to get close to the line and went over by mistake.

> I don't think it needs to be an innocent mistake or outright racism.


I'm thinking that a lot of people are crediting Danny B with great intelligence and that he should've known better.
Indubitably, he has the gift of the gab, it's got him to where he is.
But being gobby doesn't equate with intelligence.  By his own admission, he made a mistake.

He's been hard done by imo, and I'll leave you lot with your pitchforks.
I wonder how many people on this thread have any Afro-Carib roots?  Bugger all, I suspect.  Keep filling your boots on being offended on the behalf of others.

4
Pefa 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> He'll be fine. The BBC meanwhile....

I cannot stand the BBC and would rather punch myself repeatedly in the face than give those lying b*stardos one penny. 

 I like how you shift the debate onto them and some "pompous flunky" though, good diversionary tactic. 

So over several years Wills and Kate have 3 children, Baker? Not a peep, nothing, nada, niet. 

New and first ever mixed race Royal kid comes along and he shows it as a monkey. 

Football is his big thing, football has lots of racist problems - monkey chants, bananas thrown etc - and always has, you just recently had a campaign by footballers highlighting racism. 

You and others now want to tell us he could not have seen this? 

A child could see this. The guy is guilty as hell. His excuses are lamentable and pathetic. 

BTW if as his cringing pal says " they were always using the monkey dressed up joke haha", why didn't they use it on any of Wills 3 kids? Why only do it for the mixed race kid?

BTW you put up a very good defence council for him under the circumstances. 

Post edited at 17:36
7
Postmanpat 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> I don't know or care.   

    Spending a lot of time stating a strong view for somebody who neither "knows or cares"

Have a good weekend!

Post edited at 17:20
3
Ridge 10 May 2019
In reply to Siward:

> Don't you believe that Baker had no idea that anyone in the Royal Family was of mixed race? If he did, he wouldn't be so stupid would he? As you say he couldn't possibly be unaware that a monkey/chimp picture of a black or mixed race person is a racial slur.

Sorry, I just can't believe he hadn't any idea that the kids mother was mixed race. I have no interest in the Royal family, but for me not to have heard of Meghan Markle or known about the birth would have meant:

A. I've been in a coma for the last few years;

B. I genuinely have the memory of a goldfish and all of the thousands of media broadcasts, stuff on social media or simply overheard snippets of conversations that I've been even subconsciously exposed to have been completely deleted from my memory.

The “I don't know who they are, I don't even have a mobile phone” (Although I have a social media presence and took the time to track down a monkey picture and post it to twitter after the birth) excuse is just bollocks.

I have even less interest in football or R5 than he claims to have of the royals, but I have heard of Danny Baker and been able to note he's incredibly arrogant, is nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is, and his choice of hats seems to be inspired by Aleister Crowley.

It's just been a spectacularly unsuccessful attempt at edgy humour on his part.

Post edited at 17:39
1
MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2019
In reply to Lusk:

> I'm thinking that a lot of people are crediting Danny B with great intelligence and that he should've known better.

> Indubitably, he has the gift of the gab, it's got him to where he is.

> I wonder how many people on this thread have any Afro-Carib roots?  Bugger all, I suspect.  Keep filling your boots on being offended on the behalf of others.

You a radio DJ on a national broadcaster? No? Shut up then.

1
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> but it must be heart breaking that her new born child has the same battles to look forward to, almost certainly exacerbated by their royal status.

As heartbreaking as being called a parasite by a lot of Republicans? 

You seem to be arguing here that a person who is only 1/4 black, who doesn't even appear visibly black, who hasn't actually been called a monkey, and for reasons that weren't even intended to be racist.....has been harmed to such a level that someone needs to lose their job.  Yet the kid can be called a parasite, a toff, a drain on resources, every day for the next million years, and that is ok.

4
Jim Hamilton 10 May 2019
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> Noone so far seems to have spotted the irony that Archie's own great grandad himself has history of some unfortunate comments with racist overtones or sentiment. 

or the irony that jokes about his other family members are endorsed by the BBC! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz001kTyGmU

1
marsbar 10 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

I don't know or care why. 

I have a strong view of what.  

In my (admittedly autistic) view what counts more than why in this case.  

He has done something wrong and has compounded it by lying, an initial not really sorry type of apology, and now he is whining about what a bad day he had.  

I'd have more sympathy if he had apologised properly immediately instead of brushing it off as nothing.  

Anyway I'm off camping, hope you have a good weekend too.  

3
Lusk 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> Anyway I'm off camping, hope you have a good weekend too.  

Well, I hope your forth coming Carbon pollution cancels out your self righteousness on this thread?

8
Stichtplate 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Why are you so dead against idiots being sacked for being idiotic? Comes with the territory if you’re an idiot, always has always will.

Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Lusk:

> I'm thinking that a lot of people are crediting Danny B with great intelligence and that he should've known better.

> Indubitably, he has the gift of the gab, it's got him to where he is.

> But being gobby doesn't equate with intelligence.  By his own admission, he made a mistake.

> He's been hard done by imo, and I'll leave you lot with your pitchforks.

> I wonder how many people on this thread have any Afro-Carib roots?  Bugger all, I suspect.  Keep filling your boots on being offended on the behalf of others.

Do you think its pitch forks?

I work with kids as a teacher and use humor. If I step over the line I get fired. 

I'll work elsewhere. 

He will too.

Lets not say his life is ruined.

But the idea one has to be from that minority to say something is rather odd. I'm not offended. When did I say I was. But as soon as I saw his tweet I knew he was in trouble. Then his response backed the BBC into a corner.

If anything the hysteria is coming from those who think this is just basically PC gone mad.

1
abr1966 10 May 2019
In reply to Lusk:

> Well, I hope your forth coming Carbon pollution cancels out your self righteousness on this thread?

Uncalled for.......

Marsbar has expressed an opinion, a fair and considered one in my view. It doesn't deserve that kind of comment.

1
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Ridge:

> > 

> It's just been a spectacularly unsuccessful attempt at edgy humour on his part.

Exactly.

And edgy humour does by definition sail close to the line. 

He went over by a long way, made worse by his responses which he admits. 

He's been sacked 4 times now? He'll be fine. He'll be back on national radio soon.

I don't think its like Big Ron's racist comments which finished his broad casting career.

1
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Why are you so dead against idiots being sacked for being idiotic? Comes with the territory if you’re an idiot, always has always will.

It would be quite nice to sack all idiots.  But if all it takes is someone in the general public to consider you "an idiot" to be rendered unemployed (and potentially unemployable), then few of us would have a job.  Everyone I've ever worked with is likely considered by someone, at some point, in some aspect of their work, to have been an idiot - including the very best, most impressive, employees. 

You seem remarkably content to sweep away all workplace protections, in the name of "racism!"....even if the person wasn't even being racist.  There is an ever growing list of innocent people, mobbed and sacked because of this kind of thing, and you cheer it on.

We've slid a long way in the last decade.  You seem oblivious to the fact that many of the things you probably decry about the current political environment are highly likely a direct result of exactly this authoritarian paternalism.     

But what I'm really against is the mob mentality.  Pitchforks and torches.  Punished for blasphemy.  No need for due process.  And companies feeling obligated to act, in the harshest possible terms, on account of a social media-fuelled outrage snowball.  Its certainly no longer the Daily Mail leading the charge in outrage culture.

5
88Dan 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Who gives a toss about the royal family. Everyone knows a family that don't work and still have more money than everyone else, but that lot take the piss. Why all the fuss anyway, Harry isn't even a royal. He isn't a prince, his wife isn't a princess and their son isn't a prince either.

Post edited at 19:30
6
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron: 

> It's certainly no longer the Daily Mail leading the charge in outrage culture.

Interesting that you mention the Daily Mail. The last few months have certainly been a fertile breeding ground for obnoxious, disgusting and racist comments on their Online section regarding Megan Markle. Everything she does and wears and her pregnancy and her ethnicity have all been commented on. So please, stop the pity for the Mail. They're still at the vanguard of the hate. 

MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

You have seen that Danny Baker himself says he's rightly been let go?

Oceanrower 10 May 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> Harry isn't even a royal. He isn't a prince, his wife isn't a princess and their son isn't a prince either.

You, however, are still a bell end.

Note to Alan James. Is that better? I didn't call him thick as pig shit this time...

1
Lusk 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> It would be quite nice to sack all idiots.  But if all it takes is someone in the general public to consider you "an idiot" to be rendered unemployed (and potentially unemployable), then few of us would have a job.  Everyone I've ever worked with is likely consi.........................................

This is where I'm with you all year long.
It seems to me that there is a huge number of offendees trawling the web just waiting for the slightest digression from their perceived 'correct' norm that they can pounce on and create a storm about, possibly with the additional benefit that it makes them look how 'right on' they are.

Does my f*cking head in.

3
88Dan 10 May 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

Note to Oceanrower, why is that?

Note to Alan James, you can let people call me what they like, it really doesn't bother me.

1
DerwentDiluted 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The clues were there all along. How white are your whites?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeO0AhKPW5Y

Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Lusk:

> This is where I'm with you all year long.

> It seems to me that there is a huge number of offendees trawling the web just waiting for the slightest digression from their perceived 'correct' norm that they can pounce on and create a storm about, possibly with the additional benefit that it makes them look how 'right on' they are.

> Does my f*cking head in.

I'm of an age where the early to mid 1980's were my formative years and I well remember the abuse that any person who was not white had to suffer. Until then it was the norm even on national TV for people like Jim Davidson and his ilk, to make jokes about 'other non-white' people.

Racism, for that is what is at the heart of the discussion, is about who does and who doesn't have the privilege. To make fun of people of colour and wave it off 'as a joke' was the base defence of racists. Still is.

So if centuries of oppression are having the tables turned, in what, the last thirty or so years, and that's putting your knicker's in a twist ("doing your f*cking head in), then tough shit. 

Post edited at 20:30
Oceanrower 10 May 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

You seem to enjoy making an argument out of something even more than I do.

> Note to Alan James, you can let people call me what they like, it really doesn't bother me.

But I did give you a "like" for that. Touché.

Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> You have seen that Danny Baker himself says he's rightly been let go?

What other option does he have?

According to the UKC gentry operating the witch-dunking crane, if he fights back and pleads injustice, then that proves he needs to be sacked.

He, probably foolishly, thinks redemption lies in a full confession and self criticism at the struggle session. Ha! Little does the lackey running-dog reactionary realise the futility!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Panchen_Lama_during_the_struggle_(thamzing)_session_1964.jpg

4
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> I'm of an age where the early to mid 1980's were my formative years and I well remember the abuse that any person who was not white had to suffer.

And those times are over.

My parents were of an era where the Germans were Nazis and Japanese were fascists. So fvck all Germans and Japanese?

Move on man! Take each act on its intent. Not what it meant 30 years ago.

> Racism, for that is what is at the heart of the discussion, is about who does and who doesn't have the privilege. 

Bollocks to that nonsense. It always comes with such a narrowly defined conception of privilege that it is meaningless.

> So if centuries of oppression are having the tables turned, in what, the last thirty or so years, and that's putting your knicker's in a twist ("doing your f*cking head in), then tough shit. 

"Tables turned" eh? A few innocents massacred. The cause is worth it. There needs to be retribution. You think that achieves MLKs aim of people being judged on the strength of their character rather than the colour of their skin?

Seriously, the modern Left simply does not understand it's own, well intentioned, and violent history.

6
MonkeyPuzzle 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> What other option does he have?

> According to the UKC gentry operating the witch-dunking crane, if he fights back and pleads injustice, then that proves he needs to be sacked.

> He, probably foolishly, thinks redemption lies in a full confession and self criticism at the struggle session. Ha! Little does the lackey running-dog reactionary realise the futility!

So *you* don't believe his explanation? Heh.

What the f*ck are you doing with your Friday evening?

1
wbo 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:Danny Baker is rather keen on football as I recall.  Perhaps when people throw bananas at black players it's because they're concerned for their nutrition?

Danny Baker would have seen that a few times.  Not sure everyone here has 

1
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> And those times are over.

Seriously? Go and check out the Mail Online. Please go in carefully though and have the mind bleach ready. Intolerance abounds Ron. 

> My parents were of an era where the Germans were Nazis and Japanese were fascists. So fvck all Germans and Japanese?

Except not all Germans are Nazis anymore. And the ones that are, the Holocaust deniers, those that revel in Hitler myth, are dealt with by the law. 

> Move on man! Take each act on its intent. Not what it meant 30 years ago.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to people like the Lawrence family. 

> Bollocks to that nonsense. It always comes with such a narrowly defined conception of privilege that it is meaningless.

I would have thought having your life choices limited by the colour of your skin pretty much very broadly defines where the privilege is and isn't. 

> "Tables turned" eh? A few innocents massacred. The cause is worth it. There needs to be retribution. You think that achieves MLKs aim of people being judged on the strength of their character rather than the colour of their skin?

Martin Luther King, as you undoubtedly know, had to be very cagey about his choice of words in case... UPDATE - this just in. Martin Luther King assaninated for speaking out about white oppression. 

4
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> So *you* don't believe his explanation? Heh.

You tell me: does the guy have s history of racism?

I'll base my judgement on that and assuming he isn't a racist, I'm not at all surprised that, caught up in public lynching that has cost him his job, hes stammering around trying to explain away what was likely an innocent, careless, spontaneous post of a meme that was completely in character with his social media presence.

> What the f*ck are you doing with your Friday evening?

Having fun. Sorry. What are you doing?

Post edited at 21:07
5
Pan Ron 10 May 2019
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):

> Seriously? Go and check out the Mail Online. Please go in carefully though and have the mind bleach ready. Intolerance abounds Ron. 

Yep. On both sides of the spectrum. If you're going to judge the world based on anonymous trolls and bots on a news site and use that as justification for witch hunts you'd have loved McCarthyism.

> Except not all Germans are Nazis anymore. And the ones that are, the Holocaust deniers, those that revel in Hitler myth, are dealt with by the law. 

And Baker appears not to be racist. But hang 'em all the same, eh?

> I'm sure that's a great comfort to people like the Lawrence family. 

Yep. And you should harbour all the hatred they might?

> I would have thought having your life choices limited by the colour of your skin pretty much very broadly defines where the privilege is and isn't. 

A black man, clearly suffering racism, life choices limited: https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1126411376069685253?s=09

> Martin Luther King, as you undoubtedly know, had to be very cagey about his choice of words in case... UPDATE - this just in. Martin Luther King assaninated for speaking out about white oppression. 

How long ago?

4
88Dan 10 May 2019
In reply to Oceanrower:

I am not making an argument, simply pointing out a fact.

Eric9Points 10 May 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> Couldn't give a tiny little rats ass about his motivation.  

> His tweet was utterly out of order.  His excuse is pathetic.  

> Totally unacceptable.  

What would be acceptable?

Maybe he could donate his life savings to a charity of the Windsor's choosing, give his house to a refugee charity, take out a full page apology in every national newspaper, never work on radio again, go down to the nearest petrol station and buy a gallon of unleaded ending his miserable racist existence in an act of self immolation outside the front doors of Broadcasting House.

Would that work for you?

Post edited at 21:41
7
Roadrunner6 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

Is it really pitch forks?

he was sacked. he has been called a fool and an idiot.

i think you could say it’s your side who are being snowflakes. He’s a controversial guy, repeatedly sacked, he’s still well supported. This won’t finish his career.

do we live in a snowflake world where people can no longer get sacked without huge offense from others.

1
Stuart (aka brt) 10 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Yep. On both sides of the spectrum. If you're going to judge the world based on anonymous trolls and bots on a news site and use that as justification for witch hunts you'd have loved McCarthyism.

Nice presumption. 

> And Baker appears not to be racist. But hang 'em all the same, eh?

Don't expect you to have read all the posts I've replied to but I agree, Danny Baker probably isn't a racist and didn't intend it to be. But again, nice presumption. 

> Yep. And you should harbour all the hatred they might?

So you're saying because of my ethnic background I shouldn't feel empathy? Right. 

> A black man, clearly suffering racism, life choices limited: https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1126411376069685253?s=09

I'll check him out but I'm running it through the Internet bullshit filter first. 

> How long ago?

No you're right. Civil rights leader gets assanitated and it was ages ago and nowadays it's not relevant because racism no longer exists. Because Ron says so... 

Jamie Wakeham 10 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

To my mind this is remarkably straightforward.  There are three scenarios.

1) Danny Baker knew that Meghan Markle and her child were of mixed race.  He knew that representing black and mixed race people as apes was a racist trope.  He did so.  He is therefore a racist sh1t and deserves to be sacked.

2) DB did not understand the implications of representing a black or mixed race person as an ape.  Such an utter lack of understanding is incompatible with being a high profile BBC broadcaster.  He deserves to be sacked.

3) DB did not know that Meghan and her child were of mixed race.  Such a fundamental lack of grasp of current affairs is, again, incompatible with his job and he deserves to be sacked.

He's made it perfectly clear that it's not 2).  His statement, "I was alerted by followers that this royal baby was of course mixed race", is his attempt to claim it's 3).

I could almost - almost- forgive him if he genuinely didn't know that the child was mixed race.  Except his immediate response was not to apologise, but to make that "well, mind not diseased" crack.  To say that in the face of making the most horrendous gaffe is not acceptable.  Any rational person, taking the ten seconds of googling it would need to work out what the situation was, and realising what they'd just said, would not have tried to fight back in that way.  So, again, not compatible with being a BBC broadcaster.

2
Stichtplate 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> It would be quite nice to sack all idiots.  But if all it takes is someone in the general public to consider you "an idiot" to be rendered unemployed (and potentially unemployable), then few of us would have a job.  Everyone I've ever worked with is likely considered by someone, at some point, in some aspect of their work, to have been an idiot - including the very best, most impressive, employees. 

Really? What have you ever done that would have a huge swathe of the general public labelling you an idiot? Personally speaking I could see loads of people labelling me an idiot for my actions when I was in my teens, a fair few in my twenties and a few in my thirties. In my forties? Not really.

Baker is in his 60s. He's been working in radio and in the public eye for thirty years. He's got no excuses. He was an arse and as a result he lost his job. Boo Hoo.

> You seem remarkably content to sweep away all workplace protections, in the name of "racism!"....even if the person wasn't even being racist.  There is an ever growing list of innocent people, mobbed and sacked because of this kind of thing, and you cheer it on.

Never mentioned racism. I said he was sacked for idiocy. Do you believe idiocy should represent a protected characteristic?

> We've slid a long way in the last decade.  You seem oblivious to the fact that many of the things you probably decry about the current political environment are highly likely a direct result of exactly this authoritarian paternalism. 

Authoritarian paternalism? I think our political system would be in much better shape if the major parties adopted a lower tolerance of idiots.   

> But what I'm really against is the mob mentality.  Pitchforks and torches.  Punished for blasphemy.  No need for due process.  And companies feeling obligated to act, in the harshest possible terms, on account of a social media-fuelled outrage snowball.  Its certainly no longer the Daily Mail leading the charge in outrage culture.

Pure hyperbole. Most of the outrage on this thread seems to be channeled through your keyboard, the rest of us are just a little weary of morons like Baker seeking to raise their public profiles with misjudged tweets and then pleading innocent intent when it bites them on the arse.

Post edited at 00:47
Pefa 11 May 2019
Stuart (aka brt) 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> A black man, clearly suffering racism, life choices limited: https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic/status/1126411376069685253?s=09

He appears to be a 'social media influencer'. So your example of a black person doing OK is someone whose raison d'etre is to Tweet something inflammatory/controversial and watch the likes/retweets roll in. And on the back of that sell some records and ebooks. Interesting example and good for him. 

Pete Pozman 11 May 2019
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > 

> Can you elaborate on why? Is it because

> 1) You think he must be a racist?

> 2) You think he must be thick not to have seen how people would interpret it?

> 3) Another reason? If so, what?

It doesn't matter whether he's a racist or a fool, or an idiot. It doesn't matter that it's a branch of the royal family. He is a famous man who has published a gross insult to a family and their new born child. If the BBC doesn't sack him it will look as if they agree with the insult. 

Pete Pozman 11 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron: We live in weird times, when it is accepted to point fingers and cry "Racist!"....when the racist thought or connection exists only in the mind of the accuser and not the accused.

What do you say about "football fans" who throw bananas at black players whilst going "Ooh ooh ooh!"

"Hey it's only fruit man. Are we going mad? It's just a piece of fruit!"

1
Pete Pozman 11 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Twelve angry men. That's a brilliant and very apposite movie clip. It would seem the best possible response to people who jump to the barricades in the name of free speech whenever some racist blurts out a gobbit of hate/stupidity. Free speech does not mean free from the consequences of saying whatever stupid or hateful thing is on your mind. Say it by all means, but only if you're prepared to take incoming. 

I would have lost my job for doing what Baker did.  

2
Trangia 11 May 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> I'd leave the racist element out (because you did explicitly say there should be zero tolerance for insulting behaviour), but otherwise it goes with the territory and the child couldn't care less in this case

You are ignoring the parent's feelings here.

> Would it be ok to say "oh great, another royal parasite"? 

I suppose you could say that all babies, royal or commoners, are parasites relying totally on their parents when they first come into the world

> Zero tolerance of insulting behaviour based on context is going to be difficult to police.

The police weren't involved. The employers made their own judgement. I suppose he could appeal to an employment tribunal, but I doubt that he would receive a sympathetic hearing.

Sir Chasm 11 May 2019
In reply to Trangia:

> You are ignoring the parent's feelings here.

No I'm not, I merely disagree with your contention that there should be zero tolerance for insulting behaviour.

> I suppose you could say that all babies, royal or commoners, are parasites relying totally on their parents when they first come into the world

But you're saying you want zero tolerance on that being expressed (assuming that you find it insultin).

> The police weren't involved. The employers made their own judgement. I suppose he could appeal to an employment tribunal, but I doubt that he would receive a sympathetic hearing.

Not the police, police. As in I don't know how you intend to enforce your zero tolerance on insulting behaviour.

1
Trangia 11 May 2019
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> No I'm not, I merely disagree with your contention that there should be zero tolerance for insulting behaviour.

You actually said the child couldn't care less in this case. I was pointing out that you are ignoring the parent's feelings.

> But you're saying you want zero tolerance on that being expressed (assuming that you find it insultin).

To call a new born baby a parasite is highly offensive to any parents, and rather pointless, and it's not a description I would use. I actually find it quite extraordinary that you would even consider publically calling any newborn a parasite.

> Not the police, police. As in I don't know how you intend to enforce your zero tolerance on insulting behaviour.

Employers are perfectly capable of enforcing zero tolerance, and did so in this case. It's not rocket science for any employer to make such a judgement and if they are wrong there is always an employment tribunal. As a former employer I wouldn't have hesitated to sack any employee acting in this way under the auspices of my firm, and would have been prepared to present my reasoning to an employment tribunal if needed. 

3
Coel Hellier 11 May 2019
In reply to Trangia:

> The police weren't involved.

Well they are now.

"A Met police statement read: “An allegation has been received by the Metropolitan police service on Thursday 9 May in relation to a tweet published on 8 May. As is routine, the allegation will be reviewed and assessed by specialist officers.”"

Which is utterly ridiculous.  Whatever the merits or demerits of the tweet and the sacking, it is ludicrous that anyone considers it a police matter. 

1
Stichtplate 11 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'd agree.

2
Roadrunner6 11 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Agree, idiotic.

Archy Styrigg 11 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Oh, how I laughed when I heard this on the radio tonight ...

Monkey man by the Maytals.

Pan Ron 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Which is utterly ridiculous.  Whatever the merits or demerits of the tweet and the sacking, it is ludicrous that anyone considers it a police matter. 

It's not really surprising though, given the positivity accorded to being outraged and the conflation of "offence" with "harm".  

Claiming this was the thin end of the wedge and warning of the risks of an increasingly casual disregard for the fundamental importance of free speech resulted in howls of derision from the usual suspects...yet here we are, just months after Count Dunkula, after the Grenfell effigy...first they came for Baker and I said nothing....

Just knowing that a police investigation is now a possibility if you say the wrong thing is utterly toxic.

7
Stichtplate 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Just knowing that a police investigation is now a possibility if you say the wrong thing is utterly toxic.

Now a possibility? How are you unaware that this has been the case in English law for almost a millennia? From blasphemy laws to treasonous utterances, hate preaching to threats against the person, words likely to endanger (“FIRE” in a theatre), to inciting criminality.

saying the wrong thing has always carried the risk of legal sanction. Nowt new mate.

1
MonkeyPuzzle 12 May 2019
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well they are now.

> "A Met police statement read: “An allegation has been received by the Metropolitan police service on Thursday 9 May in relation to a tweet published on 8 May. As is routine, the allegation will be reviewed and assessed by specialist officers.”"

> Which is utterly ridiculous.  Whatever the merits or demerits of the tweet and the sacking, it is ludicrous that anyone considers it a police matter. 

Sure, but there's always one dickhead, isn't there?

Pan Ron 12 May 2019
In reply to Stichtplate:

It was also the case in English law that homosexuality and a whole host of other "crimes" were notionally illegal but increasingly seldom enforced.  When it comes to speech, we appear to be going in the other direction and its an ever more common refrain from the left that freedom of speech is either dangerous, or that those who are proponents of it have ulterior motives.  This is a bad bad direction to be going in. 

12
elsewhere 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

As usual in your world the left is to blame for everything which can only be the case if in your world the right are ineffective victims entirely free of responsibility for anything.

Have you forgotten the Conservative instinct to ban dangerous ideas such as Sinn Fein on TV? Or more recently, see below.

Http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/terror-laws-bill-human-rights-free-speech-designated-areas-viewing-propaganda-a8581751.html

Post edited at 16:57
Stichtplate 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> It was also the case in English law that homosexuality and a whole host of other "crimes" were notionally illegal but increasingly seldom enforced.  When it comes to speech, we appear to be going in the other direction and its an ever more common refrain from the left that freedom of speech is either dangerous, or that those who are proponents of it have ulterior motives.  This is a bad bad direction to be going in. 

Not quite. Blasphemy is off the books, you can make the case for a republic without fear of losing your head and I very much doubt that Baker is going to end up in court. The law is adaptive and usually trails changing public opinion, as it should.

1
Pefa 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> It's not really surprising though, given the positivity accorded to being outraged and the conflation of "offence" with "harm".  

If people start allowing the n word, monkey chants and all the other abusive name calling that you probably pine for from the 70s then do you really think this causes no "harm",? Can you not see the consequences? 

> Claiming this was the thin end of the wedge and warning of the risks of an increasingly casual disregard for the fundamental importance of free speech resulted in howls of derision from the usual suspects...yet here we are, just months after Count Dunkula, after the Grenfell effigy...first they came for Baker and I said nothing....

Are you Jewish/Russian? Ethnic minority? If not try and imagine how they feel to see some people joke about the victims of Grenfell and salute the perpetrators of the holocaust. 

> Just knowing that a police investigation is now a possibility if you say the wrong thing is utterly toxic.

No, spreading racist hate is what is toxic and needs stopped.

Post edited at 19:45
6
captain paranoia 12 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> first they came for Baker and I said nothing....

Given the rise in right and far right, populist, nationalist, divisive politics throughout Europe, we need to take care with that sort of talk. There appears to me to be a regressive trend, with people feeling 'empowered' to spout stuff that would have, until recently, been considered unacceptable. It strikes me that 'first they came for...' is still mostly applicable to the threat from the rise of the far right. We need to be vigilant against the slow swing to acceptability of comments like those from the ukip candidate talking about whether he would, or would not rape a female MP.

krikoman 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Just knowing that a police investigation is now a possibility if you say the wrong thing is utterly toxic.

Weren't you one of those baying for Corbyn's and others heads, regarding some oblique anti-Semitic accusations?

Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I just read an article in which Baker held a show in Nottingham the other night and it went well for him. I am surprised anyone would attend that after his racist tweet but I suppose its some of the Roy chubby Brown crowd. 

14
Pan Ron 13 May 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> Have you forgotten the Conservative instinct to ban dangerous ideas such as Sinn Fein on TV? Or more recently, see below.

Nope, not forgotten.  But this thread started about 6 days ago, not 6 months ago.  Besides, there's a difference between proposing stuff that either doesn't happen or gets written out, and concrete cases of folks losing jobs...for not even actually being racist.

I'm no fan of the conservatives.  But relative to where the Left finds itself these days, I see no daylight between the two.  Isn't the left supposed to hold the moral high ground here?

1
Pan Ron 13 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

> Weren't you one of those baying for Corbyn's and others heads, regarding some oblique anti-Semitic accusations?

Not me.  I've no real view on Corbyn and anti-semitism and I think the only thing I said about it was it might be worth thinking about the different ways anti-semitism could be expressed.

Pan Ron 13 May 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Given the rise in right and far right, populist, nationalist, divisive politics throughout Europe,

Just how big is the right though?  For the level of concern it elicits, electorally it is still extremely weak.  That's in a context of severe economic uncertainty, unprecedented levels of immigration, a cultural narrative that sidelines talk of a social contract in favour of it being incumbent on host communities to adapt to migrants, and an active and present Islamic terror threat that has produced how many mass attacks on European soil?

I would have thought, in the circumstances, things are a hell of a lot more relaxed than they might otherwise be and this rise of the right is more a case of fringe parties stumbling to power and tending not to last long.

Perhaps if the left was willing to acknowledge that not all people with "concerns" about immigration and cultural change are not "anti" immigration or racist, if freedom of speech wasn't being actively attacked in the name of social justice, and if 50% of the electorate weren't being written off as Nazis for being pro-Brexit or conservative, there might not be a rise-of-the-right.

5
elsewhere 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Nope, not forgotten.  But this thread started about 6 days ago, not 6 months ago.  Besides, there's a difference between proposing stuff that either doesn't happen or gets written out, and concrete cases of folks losing jobs...for not even actually being racist.

OK, so some free speech doesn't matter.

> Isn't the left supposed to hold the moral high ground here?

Not really, all groups think they hold he moral high ground. 

Pan Ron 13 May 2019
In reply to elsewhere:

> OK, so some free speech doesn't matter.

Not at all, by all means raise it.  I'm not here defending them and I'm certainly not the one asking for heads on poles.  Like I said, I'm no fan of the Tories.  But its pretty clear to me who is reliably more likely to be telling what I can and cannot say.  That used to be conservatives.  It isn't any more.

But I guess if people are being stopped from saying things you don't like, then its all ok.

> Not really, all groups think they hold he moral high ground. 

The left seems far better at excusing despotism.  Communism's failings get much more a free ride than Nazism. Fly a hammer and sickle, wear your Che t-shirt, or set up a stall outside a university promoting communism...few people are going to start screaming at you in memory of millions starved, tortured, murdered or imprisoned.  Nazism, garden variety white-racists, or even simply right-wingers on the other hand.

3
krikoman 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Not me.  I've no real view on Corbyn and anti-semitism and I think the only thing I said about it was it might be worth thinking about the different ways anti-semitism could be expressed.


I do beg your pardon then, as you were

krikoman 13 May 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

A little off topic, but here's an example of what get reported and reality.

This is from "Campaign Against Anti-Semitism" - a group Rachael Riley retweets proving how anti-Semitic our country is.

It involves some "volunteers" who supposedly need to go undercover to gather evidence.


"These unseen volunteers are brave and dedicated. They spent their day in driving rain amongst antisemites so that we would have evidence. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. Today’s scenes were sickening and where possible, thanks to these volunteers, we can seek prosecutions."

They can't even be honest about the weather, there were two light showers, I put my jacket on for one of them!! Admittedly I got there a little after the noon kick off, by about 30 minutes, but I was there until 4 pm

Considering the march goes along public roads, they hardly need to be James f*cking Bond to "infiltrate" the crowds of murderous anti-Semites.

Fear-mongering and blatant lies, this is why real anti-Semitism gets diluted and in the end the problem gets polarised into those that believe it doesn't exist, and those that think it's everywhere, these people (CAA) do a massive disservice to Jewish people in the UK.

There were many Jewish groups on this march, so I'm at a loss of where these fit in with the anti-Semitic accusations.

They had a montage of photographs of a few anti-Semitic symbols, none of which I saw during the day, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. The thing is out of 6,000 - 10,000 people there's always a few dickheads, but the CAA and Rachel Riley is happy to paint the whole lot as anti-Semitic.

It takes about five minutes looking at the CAA web site, to give the impression the UK is over run by anti-Semites, who are all out to get them. It must be terrifying.

Edit: Part of the above is from the CAA web site, and my post on there.

Post edited at 15:08
1
Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The left seems far better at excusing despotism.  Communism's failings get much more a free ride than Nazism. Fly a hammer and sickle, wear your Che t-shirt, or set up a stall outside a university promoting communism...few people are going to start screaming at you in memory of millions starved, tortured, murdered or imprisoned.  Nazism, garden variety white-racists, or even simply right-wingers on the other hand.

Yes the only ones who attack socialist stalls are actual fascists bitter that their heros were defeated by Communists. You do get the occasional Tory making an idiotic comment but they never hang around to debate. Socialism is the next stage from capitalism and is born out of its contradictions. 

4
Pan Ron 13 May 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Socialism is the next stage from capitalism and is born out of its contradictions. 

Sounds wonderful.  I imagine it will be you and those who think like you who get to call the shots in this glorious new Utopia.  Or would you allow elections?

What would you do with people who disagree with your wonderful system?  Especially those who might want to replace it with something fairer, and offering more opportunity.  Something like capitalism for example?

2
Pefa 13 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Sounds wonderful.  I imagine it will be you and those who think like you who get to call the shots in this glorious new Utopia.

Thanks, nice of you to offer. 

> Or would you allow elections?

Of course! you can vote for me. 

> What would you do with people who disagree with your wonderful system? 

Don't worry you will be fine. 

> Especially those who might want to replace it with something fairer, and offering more opportunity.  Something like capitalism for example?

Nothing fairer than worker control. 

krikoman 14 May 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

>  Especially those who might want to replace it with something fairer, and offering more opportunity.  Something like capitalism for example?

Something fairer? where you can pay to give you children ahead start, in a school that's classes as a charity, so pays no tax, as long as you can afford it of course; that sort of fairer?

I don't see why socialism has to be feared, the NHS came out of socialism, and was fought against at every vote by the Tories.

Socialism isn't communism, and it's not 1950s Russia. We're getting to be the most divided country in the world when it comes to wealth, why shouldn't those who can afford it pay a bit more? Socialism doesn't have to prevent elections or stifle opportunity, in fact a better education system might benefit us all.

Gordon Stainforth 14 May 2019
In reply to krikoman:

A better system of state education is absolutely essential in UK, and why we are most handicapped and have the biggest gap between rich and poor in the western world (apart from America.)

In reply to krikoman:

"I don't see why socialism has to be feared, the NHS came out of socialism, and was fought against at every vote by the Tories."

Is that true? I was under the impression all the parties had NHS proposals in their 1945 manifestos based off the Beveridge report with Labours being particularly bland

https://www.libdemvoice.org/setting-the-record-straight-labour-and-the-nhs-15930.html

"These exaggerated claims that the NHS owes its whole creation to the Labour party are only possible through the most colossal ignorance and misrepresentation of the past, of what was a cross-party consensus. The NHS was Britain’s triumph, not Labour’s."

1
krikoman 14 May 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

No mention of Nye Bevan at all in the text of that post, and you really expect us to take this as the truth?

The Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading.

So regardless of what was in their manifestos, the Tories weren't "all for the NHS".

I probably don't need to remind you, but I will, the LibDems evolved out of the Labour party so maybe simply saying it wasn't the brainchild of one party doesn't really help.

You might do better than to read the "Labour Matters" reply in the comments section, than trying to rewrite history.

Either way though, it's the Tories who are now trying to privatise the NHS.

Robert Whatman's comment near the end, probably sums it up best.

every party might have had the idea, it was Labour that had to implement it, against fierce opposition.

Post edited at 11:26
1
In reply to krikoman:

OK, so the LabourMatters anonymous response is gospel...got it.

krikoman 15 May 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> OK, so the LabourMatters anonymous response is gospel...got it.


Not at all, but Seth's polemic isn't either, if you read other's comments it's clearly debunked in a number of cases, and it's quite easily proven to be incorrect.

And there's no disputing the fact the Tories fought a long and hard battle to prevent the legislation going though parliament.

Not that it's hardly worth arguing about, since it's the NHS now which we should be protecting, nevertheless it doesn't really matter that every other party had the idea, it was a socialist party who pushed it through and made it a reality, and socialism doesn't have to mean communism.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.