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

I'm not saying every offensive action or gesture is equally easily explainable as a mistake
Unlike Baker's tweet I don't think it's plausible that people throwing bananas at black players or monkey chanting when they get the ball are doing it by accident. I'm saying in the particular instance of Bakers tweet there's a very strong chance he didn't know there was going to be a racial way of looking at it when he hit the button.

And that's the difficulty with Baker in my view. How would he at his age apparently not know the racial origins of Meghan from since the time that Harry started dating her. He didn't know- even after the wedding- that Meghan's mum is black. Really? Honestly?
And would you say the banana throwers are racists or just ignorant? There are actually some people in Britain who are still unable to say the word racist even in this example as well.

I didn't know till I heard someone talking on the radio about the gospel choir that sang at the wedding the day before ...
You hear a prince is getting married to an american actress - investigating her precise racial background like isn't something that occurs to normies.
I think it'd have been prevented if the mainstream media had made more of a thing about it... but that would have been a weird thing for the media to do - if the news media draws attention to something it can make it look as if the mainstream media thinks there's something wrong about it.

Don't think you'd get a unskewed answer to a survey now since Baker's monkey tweet blew up on the news, but I think you'd be surprised at the proportion of white people of Bakers age & background who didn't think Meghan was black or just hadn't thought about her racial origins... otoh probably everyone who's heard of her would know that she was an American Actress and had a difficult relationship with her father - because that's what the media has been talking about.

And that's the difficulty with Baker in my view. How would he at his age apparently not know the racial origins of Meghan from since the time that Harry started dating her. He didn't know- even after the wedding- that Meghan's mum is black. Really? Honestly?
And would you say the banana throwers are racists or just ignorant? There are actually some people in Britain who are still unable to say the word racist even in this example as well.

Yes. I am franklyamazed that a well known media man who tweets never ,apparently, heard of a black gospel preacher, black gospel choir, a black mother , a prince a mixed race royal marriage and the obviously sky high interest from the American and British media from a very wide range of cultures. Baker put the BBC in a very awkward position especially in multicultural Britain. What could they say to their viewers?- he is our very ignorant employee?, he is racist but not ignorant?, he is ignorant but not racist? Ignore it all and apparently endorse the behaviour? say how terrible it is but no punishment? what to do?

Yes. I am franklyamazed that a well known media man who tweets never ,apparently, heard of a black gospel preacher, black gospel choir, a black mother , a prince a mixed race royal marriage and the obviously sky high interest from the American and British media from a very wide range of cultures. Baker put the BBC in a very awkward position especially in multicultural Britain. What could they say to their viewers?- he is our very ignorant employee?, he is racist but not ignorant?, he is ignorant but not racist? Ignore it all and apparently endorse the behaviour? say how terrible it is but no punishment? what to do?

So like Wired, your argument essentially rests on your personal incredulity that someone else isn't aware of something you are aware of.
And on those flimsy grounds you are screeching "RACIST!" from the rooftops.
Well done you.

The response is very simple. As it was a genuine mistake due to Baker not being aware of the baby's ethnicity, with no racist intent, Baker and BBC apologise, Baker is reprimanded, the world moves on. Kinda like what happened with Aggers and the BBC recently (his Twitstorm was far more blatantly offensive and unequivocally intentional, yet he only received a reprimand)
However some people aren't happy until there is a head on a spike somewhere.

So like Wired, your argument essentially rests on your personal incredulity that someone else isn't aware of something you are aware of.
And on those flimsy grounds you are screeching "RACIST!" from the rooftops.
Well done you.

The response is very simple. As it was a genuine mistake due to Baker not being aware of the baby's ethnicity, with no racist intent, Baker and BBC apologise, Baker is reprimanded, the world moves on. Kinda like what happened with Aggers and the BBC recently (his Twitstorm was far more blatantly offensive and unequivocally intentional, yet he only received a reprimand)
However some people aren't happy until there is a head on a spike somewhere.

you seem to argue that people should not be held responsible for their utterances or actions. It is simply ridiculous IMO.

The person who commits the offence has no right to determine whether it was offensive. It is the recipient that determines that fact. Also, there is something called objective reasoning. People are using subjective reasoning based on their own moral compass.

For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or Jew the Jewish slur, the person can say that he did not intend it to be offensive. However, that does not matter because there is objective reasoning. If we go down the road of people deciding whether what they say or do should be considered offensive, then we descend to chaos.

As a society, we have collective responsibility and socially acceptable ways of engaging with one another. That is why it was okay to call a black person the N word, 60 years ago but it is not okay today. Or the idea that women should remain in the kitchen was a 1950s idea, but ridiculous today.

I have told you my position on Danny’s particular case, but I am quite surprised how you seem to argue that people should not be held responsible for their utterances or actions. It is simply ridiculous IMO.

the idea that women should remain in the kitchen was a 1950s idea, but ridiculous today.

To be clear, you think it ridiculous that anyone should argue that people should not be sacked when people take offence to what they say, with the person taking offence being the arbiter? You aren't a believer in free speech and due process, are you?

No, I don't believe in free speech but “regulated speech”. There is no such thing as free speech.

*sigh*
Let me try and explain. Again.
Baker did not "commit an offence". He posted a tweet with content that could be interpreted, given certain conditions, as racist.
Those conditions have not been established before the fact, only after. You call him racist because you see a picture of a monkey and think "he must mean the black person". That is mere speculation (as we have already established). You are using subjective rather than objective reasoning.


My mother is a professional chef. She remains in the kitchen most of the day. You have been deliberately insulting, not only to my mother and her chosen career but to all women who strive against misogyny and patriarchy to fashion a career of their own, without having to put up with the kind ignorant and prejudiced comments that you have just made. Your intent was clear. I demand an apology, as does my mother and perhaps you should withdraw from TSR.

Oh, and please don't try and use the excuse that "it wasn't what you meant". I know what you meant and any attempt by you to deny it is both disappointingly expected and ridiculous.

Speech is regulated by the law. You are proposing that punishments are meted out for entirely legal publication.

The person who commits the offence has no right to determine whether it was offensive. It is the recipient that determines that fact. Also, there is something called objective reasoning. People are using subjective reasoning based on their own moral compass.

For example, if a person calls a black person the N word or Jew the Jewish slur, the person can say that he did not intend it to be offensive. However, that does not matter because there is objective reasoning. If we go down the road of people deciding whether what they say or do should be considered offensive, then we descend to chaos.

As a society, we have collective responsibility and socially acceptable ways of engaging with one another. That is why it was okay to call a black person the N word, 60 years ago but it is not okay today. Or the idea that women should remain in the kitchen was a 1950s idea, but ridiculous today.

I have told you my position on Danny’s particular case, but I am quite surprised how you seem to argue that people should not be held responsible for their utterances or actions. It is simply ridiculous IMO.

we are civilised society and are governed by both legal and moral structures that evolve with time.

What should be the punishment if you think women belong in the kitchen?

Ah! You think it is civilised for the mob to lynch people!

There is no mob lynching anyone.

There is no mob lynching anyone.