Danny Baker says he has been 'fired' over royal baby chimp tweet

You have completely misunderstood the meaning of racism. It is not to do with intent! One can be an unintentional racist! One racist act makes you a racist!.

Paragraphs I beg you

If Baker is a racist (which no one familiar with his work could claim) and the cartoon was meant to be racially offensive - why was Markle portrayed as a white person?
Even the professionally offended should be expected to use at least a modicum of intelligence before hitting the outrage button.

So lets say...

You walk out to the street this afternoon and you say:

"I want to eat a sandwich"

A Mongolian person walking past, stops you and says 'mate, did you know, that sandwich is a racist term against mongolian people?'

... now your a racist. simple as that, congratulations you can join the club with all the other racists.

---

Does that seem like a fair and just world that you want to live in?

Obviously that example is made up - but its the logical conclusion of the arguement you said. To be considered a racist you must only say something that someone else deems as racist, even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.. just by saying something, anything, that someone else considers racist - you are now a racist, done a dusted, case closed.

---

Its a ridiculous way to expect the world to function. Societies at large would collapse, if they functioned on such a poor set of ideas and judgements and extrapolated them out to wider issues not just racism. We have a moral and legal system that both take intent into account for a very important reason. There is a reason why us having a car crash, and you dying, won't get me in as much trouble as me actively looking for you, and running you over on the street. Both end up with you dead, but to any rational person one is significantly worse, and should be dealt with differently.

Perhaps because that would have made the racism completely overt and obvious and the idea was to attempt a subtly racist joke that could be defended as non-racist? Or am I being too cynical.

.".' even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.." You need to check your race discrimination law facts. "Intent " is not considered to be relevant- and quite rightly so! Otherwise the law should exonerate me if i drive at 110 miles per hour on the grounds that i say that i hsd no idea about speed limits on the motorway.

So ignorance is no defence and does not automatically exonerate people like Danny Baker from blatantly racist behaviour. It depends on whether you take racism seriously or not!

.".' even if there is no intent and you don't know what it means.." You need to check your race discrimination law facts. "Intent " is not considered to be relevant- and quite rightly so! Otherwise the law should exonerate me if i drive at 110 miles per hour on the grounds that i say that i hsd no idea about speed limits on the motorway. So ignorance is no defence and does not automatically exonerate people like Danny Baker from blatantly racist behaviour. It depends on whether you take racism seriously or not!

Have you read his latest comments today? You are just wasting time, defending obvious racism, playing games. It is difficult to deal with your comments because you are clearly not interested in being honest or objective. Read in detail the latest admissions that Danny Baker himself makes. He does not say that he shouldn't have been sacked. Worrying times when people try to defend the indefensible. Are you defending him because maybe his race and your race are the same?

No, I’m not defending him just because we are the same race, that would be racist

its also quite racist an accusation to make. To presume your intent just based on the color of your skin.

Otherwise the law should exonerate me if i drive at 110 miles per hour on the grounds that i say that i hsd no idea about speed limits on the motorway. So ignorance is no defence a

You are spouting nonsense. Intent is a very important element of criminak law. You are confusing intent with ignorance of the law, which are two entirely different matters.

its also quite racist an accusation to make. To presume your intent just based on the color of your skin.

You are spouting nonsense. Intent is a very important element of criminak law. You are confusing intent with ignorance of the law, which are two entirely different matters.

hes not even right in the case of employment or other non-inter-personal discrimination. For example the law is very clear that indirect discrimination, the type often found in institutions, that discrimination laws only apply if: "'A' cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.". E.g. the intent of the action that caused the discrimination, may justify its purpose and make it legal.

Had he done it for William, it would not have mattered but chimps etc are affiliated with black people in insults, he's a big footie fan how can he not know this. ****

You are both in fact talking nonsense. Firstly, criminal law is not race discrimination law. Lets get that straight first. Second, the Danny Baker case is not about indirect race discrimation. It is about direct race discrimination . Check out the legal rules on direct race discrimination. " Intent" is not the test in this part of the law. And we are not talking about criminal law either which is a whole other branch of law outside of race discrimination law. Show me where intent fits into current race discrimination law without making up your own ideas about what racism in law actually means.

Those that are easily outraged by supposed racism are often extremely racist themselves.

And your empirical objective documented evidence for such a statement is what exactly?

It was a personal observation based on a lifetime of observing such people.