regmcfly wrote:monkey wrote:He didn’t take care when posting something on the world’s most racist and simultaneously the world’s most oversensitive website. A toxic mix that cost him his job. He’ll be picked up by one of the other stations, won’t go near twitter again and that will be that.
Monkey has actually nailed it.
Kara_Jane_Adams wrote:The BBC sacking is over the top.
Hopefully they can ask Nigel Farage about it on his 33rd appearance on Question Time tonight.
Tempy wrote:The BBC sacking is ridiculous, but I don't feel like the stuff i've seen him say about him taking it down are self censorship. More like he realised what it looked like and thought "ah, maybe that does look bad and wasn't what I was going for?"
regmcfly wrote:A man from the 80s not knowing what monkey connotes? Hmm .. I show my S1 pupils the Show Racism The Red Card documentary on which Les Ferdinand described monkey chants pl and bananas on the pitch in detail. As does Shaun Wright Phillips circa 2006. I don't buy the ignorance.
Lord_Griff wrote:"Live by the Monkey pic, die by the Monkey pic" is the family moto of the Bakers of Dagenham.
LivDiv wrote:People reacted, he apologised and removed the picture. To me that is perfectly reasonable given his explanation and lack of any history of racism. If people want their pound of flesh that is on them but I dont think stringing up Baker for this does anything to help race relations.
Andy wrote:Tuppenceworth: it’s not only entirely possible, but entirely human to get so wrapped up in a certain thing that you forget the tangential link it has to a bad thing. His apology tweet makes it quite clear that while he is well aware of Meghan Markle’s ethnicity, and thus the baby’s ethnicity, he wasn’t thinking about them at the time. While he would also be well aware of monkey chants and bananas thrown at football matches, for example, he has probably also never, ever made the link between that type of racism and funny pictures of chimpanzees dressed in human clothes.
cockbeard wrote:Actually fuck it, the issue argues with itself and requires a judgement call every time, that is the problem, and the funny (? not funny) thing is that everytime we let something innocuous make the pages we are ignoring something that wsa actually hateful
dynamiteReady wrote:
b0r1s wrote:Not sure his comments about white people, wine and rugby are any better than the Jewish comment but guessing you can lead a headline with that.
dynamiteReady wrote:It's pretty much the same case, with the colours inverted.
Andy wrote:dynamiteReady wrote:It's pretty much the same case, with the colours inverted.
It really isn’t.
Facewon wrote:1. The EXACT same defense is used for ACTUALLY HATEFUL stuff, every freakin time.
2. Those defending the act in question ALWAYS argue this current act isn't the "real" issue.
3. Those attacking people who disagree or mob up are virtually never on "the right side of history" when it comes to what folks would agree are ACTUAL issues.
Don't slip into bothsidism because a dude got sacked who shouldn't have.
dynamiteReady wrote:Andy wrote:dynamiteReady wrote:It's pretty much the same case, with the colours inverted.
It really isn’t.
I'm always up for exploring an alternative view. Hate having to challenge cryptic allusions to get at them though...
Please enlighten me.
If you're talking about outcomes, I can possibly agree with that.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!