Regardless of the man's intentions, he slipped up on Twitter in the  pr departement despite being a famous bbc radio host. That'll cost you your job, especially if the offended one is a royal. Sop methinks.

^

Kara_Jane_Adams wrote:

The offended one wasn’t a royal though.

It was just twitter twats.

The BBC wanted to be seen to do something, as opposed to actually doing something, so they will continue to give a platform to actual racists, but now they have something to point to if people complain.

It's all about perception. If the royals feel they've been slighted and lost face (or rather if it looks like the aforementioned) the BBC will feel pressured to fire him. Twitter is apparently the new public opinion.

Not saying I agree with proceedings as most older folk are clueless on twitter not to mention public perception but...there you go.

Don't disagree with anything you've said there.

We  seem to be faced with a self-feeding problem too. The annoyance built up by the austerity era is a case in point. 

The crunch was created by untampered capitalism in financial markets that require a certain degree of regulation because the complexity of the products arising from their level of abstraction. Since they aren't tangible goods that aren't understood then the market theory which relies on wisdom of crowds which itself requires market participants to be competent and well informed - fails.  That regulation was deliberately removed.

It was also caused by the marketing function goading and enabling people to get mortgages they couldn't afford. Of course that's where the extreme right places the blame - those "greedy"/"stupid" people who willingly signed up to loans.

Then when it went pear shaped, the government steps in. Then there is a programme of austerity to claw back the money - making the population make up the shortfall as opposed to using a programme of reparations pressed upon organisations in the financial markets.

Then those nasty elements who are always around are goaded into action by influencers pointing the finger of blame for the pain being suffered on minority groups. Immigrants have always been here - NHS queues got longer because of cutbacks not immigration. This is aided by a media either directly or indirectly by allowing such actions to go unchallenged.

A continuation of austerity , with enormous cutbacks on local services ensures that more reasonable folk join in the general feeling of anger that has been created. It snowballs with no reasonable challenge to the lies.

It's too easy to draw parallels with Germany in the 20s and 30s - but that's because it is the same phenomenon. In the UK pre Brexit ref, it probably got out of control.

Those same slimeballs who cheered on the Brexit campaign , using that anger as fuel, will scoop up whatever profit can be made by an EU exit (well managed or not it will present opportunities) and then longer term feed off an unregulated market.

Whilst profit may be the main focus, there is no doubt in my mind that minorities are a necessary casualty of the process in the eyes of those who are in influence.

Everything we see now are the symptoms of this approach.

But we have to hang onto the fact that there are a lot of good people - but we have no leadership.

Roujin wrote:

You can't be that short sighted about racist connotations when you're a football guy who knows all about monkey chants from the stands...

Knowing about monkey chants doesn’t mean he’s ever linked it with chimpanzees in human clothes. Not everything monkey/ape related is anti-black, just as not every pig joke is anti-Police or anti-Muslim. You especially lose sight of any link if you routinely use said joke for other purposes.

Example: A group of my colleagues and I used to say to each other, in mockney accents, “shut it you slaaaaag.” It got repeated so often, it lost any of its original meaning. It was not used to tell anyone to shut up, or to mock London accents, or to cast aspersions about their sexual proclivities. It was just a thing that was said. As mindless and dumb as a Budweiser ‘wassap’ or whatever. But if used with someone who hadn’t been part of the group through all that (and it was) then there’s scope for real upset.

Now, in that example, there’s an actual direct line between what was said and a potentially offensive remark, and yet all concerned had lost all sight of that. If you then make the links to anything offensive even more oblique, then of course it’s possible for there to be no thought that it could be misread until it’s pointed out.

Mind you, I don’t see a problem with reducing Nazis to a fancy dress costume, and I think it’s funnier when a prince with German ancestry does it. I find the faux-outrage more depressing than a ginger prince acting like a teenager.

I'm no royalist btw, I'd abolish them.

nick_md wrote:

He put a picture on a monkey in a suit in a tweet about a mixed race royal. He had to go imo, although I don't think he's racist. Just, what the fuck was he thinking.

I don't get all the discussion. It was a massive fuck up.

I genuinely don’t get the chat around this either. A bit like the recent story about Wayne Hennessy, Baker either knew what he was doing (which would have been stupid), or he didn't (which is also pretty stupid). So he’s guilty of being stupid and therefore had to go. That’s how it goes.

I am, and will never be, of the stature of Baker. But every time I tweet something, I stop and think about it from all angles. I do the same when I’m at work and messaging my staff, or other teams. You should always be thinking about how you come across - especially if you are committing something to publication.

How is it ridiculous? What's the nuance? I can believe he was misguided in his judgement, but the fact is he tweeted a chimp in human clothes about a mixed race person.

tigersgogrrr wrote:

I mean, the real problem was that Logan Sama wore pink Timberlands.

Loll

And yet the BBC have done in the past.
How many chances did Clarkson get?

GooberTheHat wrote:

They used to show minstrel shows too.

Quite, but that is hardly recent like Clarkson.

He went much further given that he always intended it.

Either way if you think this is about the BBC's high standards you are barking up the wrong tree. They have none.

LivDiv wrote:

He went much further given that he always intended it. Either way if you think this is about the BBC's high standards you are barking up the wrong tree. They have none.

I didn't say it was about high standards, it's people at the BBC not wanting what about Danny Baker thrown at them all the time.

They don't change at all if they don't change.

GooberTheHat wrote:

They don't change at all if they don't change.

Sure, but I dont believe for a second that is what has happened here.

Even going off that logic.
Why can an institution be forgiven and a man not? Surely a man is more falable.