In other words, because you’re not personally offended by this, anyone who actually is, or who recognizes that others might be, are overly sensitive idiots right? Do grow up.
I didn’t call anybody “overly sensitive idiots” - you did that …
2 Likes
Obviously, nothing is racist about a monkey in itself.
However, anyone of a certain age who is a football supporter will remember the horrific monkey taunts that were aimed at non-white footballers many decades ago in this country, and which are still directed at black players in some countries in European football competitions.
Some may think that Danny Baker has simply been naïve. However, I do know that Danny Baker is an almost fanatical football fan, and so to suggest that he is not aware of the connotations of his post is in itself an act of complete naivety, and I really do find it hard to believe that he wasn’t aware of the fact that this latest Royal baby is of a mixed race heritage.
4 Likes
Are we all monkeys? Are we all descended from a woman from Africa?
1 Like
This does appear to be another display of people being offended on others’ behalf. Which is quite an insidious thing.
If it has come to the point that the publication of any picture of a monkey has to have racist connotations, then the situation is ridiculous. Monkeys are monkeys.
He was having a go at the royal family. Which is an institution worth having a go at.
Meanwhile, literally hundreds of actual, unapologetic, occasionally-avowed, racists are standing in the name of the UK for an election to the European Parliament, in which some of them will - inevitably - be representing us in the eyes of the people of dozens of other countries. That is far, far, far more lamentable than Danny Baker having pointed out that he is a bit of an unthinking twit.
Which was about as shocking as the static electricity from a escalator handrail.
2 Likes
You were almost making a solid point right up to ”unthinking twit”. There is simply too much information out there to suggest this was unthinking. He has a long history of exactly this sort of thing and legally it is simply racist.
I doubt anyone in here is taking offence on behalf of the royal family. Personally I can’t stand the royal family but I take offence because it’s overt racism and against the law. There’s nothing wrong with saying so and the “political correctness gone mad” lynch mob are far more guilty of taking offence on behalf of others when legally they clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.
Again though, look at his historic behaviour pattern; his dismissals and his reactions. If I did what he’d done I would expect instant dismissal. If I had invited journalists round ahead of the call because I knew it was happening I’d rightly be questioned as to my motivation and if I then publicly slaughtered my employer with a torrent of bad language I’d likely end up in court. Mr. Baker has the opportunity to take the BBC for wrongful dismissal. Do you think he will? He never has. He knows their threshold for dismissal as he’s lost jobs with them before. There’s nothing naive or stupid about this. It’s most revealing of who he really is. Bumptious and overbearing were words used elsewhere. A man who claimed previously that his employer shouldn’t have sacked him because he’d got cancer. What a pleasant human being.
I do wonder what it is the “political correctness gone mad” brigade think it is they’re defending here. Legally there’s no issue. It is racism writ large. Morally he has no high ground at all. He’s a recidivist and it’s good to see the tone of articles changing today with numerous commentators basically saying he’s exhausted a lot of people’s good will and his time is now up.
3 Likes
Yet again, a case of the BBC displaying double-standards.
Danny Baker was a long-standing employee who made an in-joke at the wrong time, it wasn’t racist but could have been described as distateful.
Frankie Boyle however is openly offensive, deliberately sets out to offend anyone and anything and is on record for taking pot shots at the Royal Family which are bordering on Treason. Not only does the BBC employ him, it’s given him his own show on BBC2.
It’s a bloody disgrace.
2 Likes
Have to agree with all your comments re Frankie Boyle - a thoroughly offensive, unpleasant individual. Although I too would like to see the Beeb get rid of him, I personally believe they were right to dispense with Danny Baker.
1 Like
Perhaps if Danny Baker had actually been deliberately outrageous and hadn’t apologised he may have got a promotion. Maybe that’s what you have to do at the BBC to get a prime time slot in this day and age.
2 Likes
Racist, sexist, ageist and discrimination (positive and negative) of all types. It’s all out there. Legislation will not get rid of it. You cannot legislate on what people think. The simplest solution is to just ignore it and not let yourself get whipped into a frenzy by those who have an agenda.
4 Likes
Seriously? You might want to read my previous posts on this thread and the links. If you can find an example of Frankie Boyle being overtly racist in the manner of Danny Baker please post the link. Offensive is a subjective term. Racist is a legal term.
Are the BBC hypocrites? Yes of course. It doesn’t make him any less of a lying racist.
No - you wouldn’t. An entirely different context, and in the context in which you have used a derogatory reference to ‘monkeys’ - not racist. Unlike some others here, I think that Danny Baker’s attempted humour was not naïve and innocent but quite the opposite and coldly calculated. Of course this is just my opinion, and yours may be very different.
To set the record straight, I have always had mixed feelings about Danny Baker. He can be very witty and entertaining, but he can also sail too close to the wind with some of his comments. On this occasion he went too far - the criticism he has received for this offensive post is nothing whatsoever to do with ‘political correctness’.
How long has he been in broadcasting?
If he didn’t have the foresight and sensitivity to anticipate the possible consequences of such a post, he has not only ambushed himself but offered his own evidence that he is not fit to work in this sector.
This doesn’t smell right. Do something controversial, get a ton of publicity in the wake of it, including multiple opportunities to state how much of a racist you are not, use a “yeah but…” defence to get everyone arguing off topic, and maybe sign a bigger contract with a competitor. Oh, hang on, that was Clarkson…
There’s no business like show business…
2 Likes
I’m struggling here. Can anyone direct me to a definitive legal definition of the term ‘racist’.
I have tried for over an hour and all I can find are descriptions that are so vague and open to interpretation that, in law, I would consider them absolutely useless.
2 Likes
FWIW, I don’t think that whether it is racist or not is the main thing - though it does seem racist to me. However, it is incredibly insulting to the parents (whether they are members of the royal family or not). It is rude, pointless and unkind. Would anyone here send a photo like that to their sibling on the occasion of the birth of their child? Just because they are part of the royal family (through no fault of their own) doesn’t mean that you can be mean and unkind. He may dislike the institution - and he is not alone in that - but these are people, too.
I am not aware of his monkey ‘jokes’ so that aspect is lost on me. I am only aware of a few programs he has done on TV about blues music - which were interesting, though I got a little fed up with his occasional self-aggrandisement in them. But I am not impressed when people use their fame to do this sort of thing.
Some may not like having a monarchy - but it appears we must have some sort of head of state, and this one seems less harmful than some others (looking at you, Trump). But to me the fact that they are part of the monarchy is irrelevant in this. It is a mean-spirited thing for him to have done - to imply that their child is a chimpanzee. Not very gentlemanly.
Given the assertions about ‘racist’ being defined in law I had a search, and haven’t been able to find the word in any UK Acts of Parliament or subordinate Regulations, as far back as they have text-searchable copies online, let alone find a definition. There are, however, a small number of other pieces of secondary legislation that include the term, though I have found nothing among them that relates to publishing comments, caricatures, jokes, etc about people, but these give a flavour:
The Young Offender Institutions Rules 2000 state that for the purposes of one of its rules behaviour or material shall be racist if they demonstrate or are motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility to members of a racial group…[more detail follows]. Personally from what I have seen in the media I do not see the monkey picture as demonstrating or being motivated by hostility.
However a completely different approach is taken in the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators Order 2000, in which “Racist incident” is defined as any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person. And that leaves it ridiculously wide open - so if anyone at all picks on something done, or said, by someone else and says they perceive it as racist then it is. So you could say that you perceive the very fact that others are debating whether the photo is racist to be racist, and instantly it is.
So, no one definition, with what there is clearly differing depending on context. The question then is whether there is anything in case law, but that would require someone with the appropriate access and search tools.
2 Likes
OK rumpole, what legally constitutes racism?
A picture of a chimp in a bowler hat?
2 Likes
You may well be right, this is the most he’s been talked about in years…
“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.”
His own admission today!
As a general rule I tend to not post on topics where I don’t know the basics of the topic. In discussions about racism it would be both intelligent and sensitive to acquaint oneself with the basics of what the law says without pontificating. So, no, I won’t be resorting to personal insults and provocation such as “Rumpole” and no I won’t be educating you on racism. If people are sufficiently intelligent enough to master a forum account they can try a search engine too.
What these two dumbos did was not illegal, but was utterly distasteful and completely unforgivable. You don’t do what they did without being aware of the potential consequence of their actions - all in the name of a so called ‘comedy’.
1 Like