FWIW a search engine like Google will not give you definitive U.K. law without then a lot of subsequent reading -and then not all relevant fact is necessarily searchable online. I know because part of my job involves accessing and interpreting law.
I think Thelad’s response to you was because you kept making reference to what legally constitutes racism. Perhaps for the benefit of those of us genuinely interested you could point to where this is formally defined - in what Act of Parliament or what subordinates are leguslation, as I have been unable to find as you’ll note from my last post, or where it has been established in case law.
In the absence of a legal definition of a word, courts will take it to be what it means in the English Langusge A dictionary definition prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. is somewhat different from your indicated understanding, which seems to be that given in the performance indicators Order I quoted, a limited area of law. It would be nice to have a definitive understanding, which is why I for one am interested in learning what and where is the definitive meaning you ckearly believe exists.
Do you deem monkey chants being directed at black players to be ‘just a joke’ or just a bit of fun, or like most people are you of the opinion that actions of this nature are utterly distasteful and completely unacceptable in modern day society?
Do you think that Danny Baker with his football background was unaware of the context in which his post would be perceived by many people?
Personally, I don’t really care whether or not what he posted could be deemed to be literally ‘racist’ in a legal sense. It was plain and simple distasteful and in my opinion calculated to be so.
You’re still assuming that he did it from a position of knowing that young Archie isn’t as white as the royal family traditionally are. That’s the simple start point, not your position.
I also work daily with law, caselaw and guidance and I honestly don’t think it’s that hard. Racial discrimination is legally defined and racism flows from that.
Given that he’s spoken on the topic repeatedly since she became pregnant I am bewildered you’re still trying to make an issue of this. He knew. Seem to recall him on a talk show where it was actively discussed too. I’ll see if I can find a link. That would end this nonsense once and for all.
That aside. His knowledge, as has already been done to death, is not relevant when it comes to considering whether his actions were racism writ large. Don’t know how many times we have to keep going over the same points.
Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on air (on I think a pre-recorded episode of Russel Brand’s radio show) made a number of attempts to phone Andrew Sachs (the actor who played Manuel in “Fawlty Towers”. I don’t know why they were attempting to phone him, but when he didn’t answer, they left a number of very lewd messages on Sach’s answer phone relating to Sach’s grand-daughter who had apparently had a brief relationship with Russell Brand.
Ross was heard shouting down the phone line “he has f*&?$d your grand-daughter”, and then joking with Brand that Andrew Sachs might kill himself as a result of the call.
I believe Ross quite correctly lost his show on the BBC as a result of the episode. I don’t know what happened to whoever cleared the episode to be broadcast, but that person should also have been fired.
How anyone could deem this behaviour to be even remotely funny is beyond me.
Go on then - put a link up that shows him actively discussing the mixed race element of Harry & Meghan, as opposed to the dismissve tone of referrring to another royal baby on Twitter. Given that apparently I worship the ground he walks on I’d have expected to have heard that, but unless he’s doing a sneaky show somewhere else that’s not on 5L and isn’t his podcast with Lineker and isn’t on his Twitter feed, I’d be keen to see this exciting new evidence.
As for the legality of it; it’s possible to kill someone without intending to. The charge is manslaughter in place of murder. The law recognises the absence of intent even though the outcome is the same. It seems we have arrived at the joyous position where a thoughtcrime exists, and DB is as guilty of racism as a skinhead draped in a union flag shouting at Muslims, because some people think he meant it. He can be guilty of commiting a racially aggravated act, but that doesn’t make him a racist.
And I’ll ask again, knowing full well that no-one will answer satisfactorily. Why would he suddenly choose to out himself as racist on Wednesday night? Why discard 30+ years of media success by tweeting something that the dimmest Ukipper would have second thoughts about? That’s what doesn’t fit.
This, absolutely, though I fear that “absence of intent” won’t cut it with the perennially morally outraged, who appear to have a more “black and white” view of our world … with apologies, no pun intended, nor, indeed, even obliquely hinted at.
I find this horrific… not what Danny Baker did, which was childish and rude, but the reaction. George Orwell had it so right… there are some very disturbed people out there and I am not thinking of Danny Baker…
Really really frightening, it’s the mob instinct in the guise of PC… and the BBC gave in to it…
This is the way I see it: Danny knew exactly what he was getting at and the consequences of it all. I would also guess he anticipated the aftermath arguments over how to characterize what he posted.
Danny will get another job, probably very easily.
So, to me, its actually quite irrelevant whether its ‘racist’ or whatever other description you care to use.
My view is that there are some deeper issues here.
Why hasn’t somebody, who regards DB’s actions as unlawful, made a formal complaint to the police about his alleged offence(s). There seems to enough angst and moral indignation on here to warrant such an action …
The BBC “gave in “ to what?
They quite rightly sacked an employee who made a racist tweet.
Even DB acknowledges that this was the correct course of action, though he maintains it was unintentionally racists and was not happy with the way in which the BBC communicated his dismissal.
Ah, that is different. Being a racist may follow from racial discrimination, but you had stated that racist is a legal term, and that was what flumoxed me
People agreeing with the BBC is horrific. Really?
People who agree with the BBC are disturbed. REALLY?
How could the BBC have given into the mob, the first the public heard of the matter, was when the BBC sacked him. There was no mob, it was a figment of your imagination. You’ve no reason to be really really frightened. Really.