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

I think his argument would be that he could just as easily have done it for William and Kate and no one would have thought anything about it. But he made the mistake of doing it forMeghan and Harry instead.... not thinking of her racial heritage

Have you seen the picture? There are clear connotations of class and privilege, and performing animals. Those are the two things I assumed when I saw it. I also cringed because I knew that the professionally offended would claim it was racist.

Seriously, it might be a topic research question for a degree project: Are passionate anti-racism people such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther king actually racist themselves? Another interesting question might be: Can members of the lgbti communties actually contain white supremacists? Maybe i should start another post! People have such subjective views of race issues but often very little understanding of the the law,the Equality act, 2010 and human rights issues relating to such matters for example. They seek to clear the ,often white, person's name with often just a cursory glance at the facts!

And despite working in the media, Baker claimed he didn't know which Royal had given birth. So he's not seen a news for 7 months and only seen an announcement that there is a Royal baby and not who has given birth? Yeah, right.

And despite working in the media, Baker claimed he didn't know which Royal had given birth. So he's not seen a news for 7 months and only seen an announcement that there is a Royal baby and not who has given birth? Yeah, right.

Obviously I've seen the photo, as I have described it. The people are no different to photos of my relatives and their friends, and there is no class or privilege about them, it's of the era.

I wasn't thinkling of people like Mandela, but, as I said, of the easily outraged.It is somehat ironic that you should now talk of people with little understanding of the law after what you have posted.

What does racism have to do with LGBT issues? Can a homosexual not be a racist? Is a lesbian necessarily not racist? Can a black person/Asian/Arab not be homophobic? Or are all the ills of the world to be laid to the account of heterosexual white people?

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.

of the era? what do you mean? What era? and the relevance?

Obviously I've seen the photo, as I have described it. The people are no different to photos of my relatives and their friends, and there is no class or privilege about them, it's of the era.

If your relatives, not being elderly, wore expensive coats, furs, bowlers and spats, carried walking canes and posed in front of mansion flats around that time they were certainly very privileged.

Yeah, my relatives looked more like the chimp

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.

And despite working in the media, Baker claimed he didn't know which Royal had given birth. So he's not seen a news for 7 months and only seen an announcement that there is a Royal baby and not who has given birth? Yeah, right.

Nobody is suggesting that Baker be arrested. The issue is should he have been sacked.

I am certainly not talking nonsense. a few points:

1, were a legal case to be brought against Danny, it would be a criminal law case based his tweets constituting hate speech, covered by the public order act which is criminal law, and does take intent into consideration.

2, Racial discrimination laws are usual civil matters, not criminal (though not always) but in this case that wouldn't be applicable, unless the mother or her family specifically felt like bringing it to a county court or the like and using the equality act to try and make a case. Given that (so far) the racism accusations and offense is not taken by anyone directly involved, it is no where close to being a civil matter.

3, you claimed that racial discrimination laws did not take account into consideration, I quoted (to the other poster) a direct area where they do take intent into consideration, to which you then moved the goal-posts saying that you only meant direct discrimination which this is (its not)

The only case that could be made about his tweet would be one under the public order act, by accusing it of hate-speech.

---

4, all of this is entirely irrelevant to deciding whether people, not laws, should take intent into consideration when making moral judgements about others actions.

The era in which the photo was taken.

You are clear about the differenxe in law between direct and indirect race discrimination right?

of no relevance to this discussion as i am sure you are aware.

Well, there are two issues around that. The first is whether one is allowed due process before being sacked. I put it to you that the Beeb did not afford Baker anything like that. The second is who is going to pay the enormous scoial security costs of sacking everyone in the workforce who has made an unfortunate joke (bearing in mind no other self-respecting organisation will want to be seen to be out of step by employing someone who committed such a heinous crime). I hope it will be those that call for the sacking, as I think it is completely disproportionate.