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

mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#141
Report 2 months ago
#141
(Original post by QE2)
No. People assumed he wasn't racist because of the evidence of this many years in the media never having made any racist comments.
Which is an argiment that doea not make sense. Imagine someone saying it was the first time they ever robbed a bank so theu couldn't possibly be guilty of being a thief based on past record. Ridiculous!
1
reply
Retired_Messiah
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#142
Report 2 months ago
#142
(Original post by YaliaV)
Danny is 61 and he’s been in the media for a long time. I don’t believe he’s that naive.
Seeing as twitter's not been around for all those 61 years, and with intensive twitter outrage over literally any reference to monkeys being an even younger thing, it's quite reasonable to assume he might not have saw this one coming.
(Original post by AJ126)
He's now being investigated by the police.Police state anyone?
Wasting-their-sodding-time state.
(Original post by AJ126)
The baby is white.At least in all the photos I've seen he is.
Markle's mixed, Harry's white, so what you've got is a mixed race kid who prolly just looks a bit paler than the average. White passing, one might say.
0
reply
Zskittlez
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#143
Report 2 months ago
#143
Nah. Black people have been portrayed as chimps and monkeys since jim crow and blackface times. He knew exactly what he was doing. Look at advertising and the fashion industry, it is disgusting!. Everyone can see it yet some people choose to ignore it because it does not affect you directly and, in my opinion, that is the same as supporting racism.

(Original post by limetang)
There are many different reasons he thought posting it was funny. It could have been with racist intent, it could have been because he thought the baby looked ugly (not nice but not racist), it could be him playing on the idea of a mixup in there being a mixup in the hospital ... without actually being mind readers we don’t know.

If he’d said something along the lines of “Prince William and Megan Markle leave hospital with their quadroon n***** abomination” then yeh I think racism is a safe bet, but not here.

*Prince Harry
Last edited by Zskittlez; 2 months ago
2
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#144
Report 2 months ago
#144
(Original post by mgi)
Which is an argiment that doea not make sense. Imagine someone saying it was the first time they ever robbed a bank so theu couldn't possibly be guilty of being a thief based on past record. Ridiculous!
Comparison doesn't hold up - you can't really rob a bank by accident... but you can offend someone by accident.

When you offend someone by accident you apologise and then traditionally you both move on with your lives... but that doesn't seem to work anymore and it appears you've got to be hounded out of your job and have the police set on you.
2
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#145
Report 2 months ago
#145
(Original post by Zskittlez)
Nah. Black people have been portrayed as chimps and monkeys since jim crow and blackface times. He knew exactly what he was doing. Look at advertising and the fashion industry, it is disgusting!. Everyone can see it yet some people choose to ignore it because it does not affect you directly and, in my opinion, that is the same as supporting racism.
Frankly, you haven’t a clue WHY he did it. How exactly do you KNOW he had any racist intent with this? Can you tell me which model of crystal ball/brand of tea leaves you are using to divine that with such certainty his intent. People have also referred to children as monkeys since year dot. Could his statement have been meant with racist intent? Possibly, but neither of us actually has evidence this is what was meant.
1
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#146
Report 2 months ago
#146
(Original post by Joinedup)
Comparison doesn't hold up - you can't really rob a bank by accident... but you can offend someone by accident.

When you offend someone by accident you apologise and then traditionally you both move on with your lives... but that doesn't seem to work anymore and it appears you've got to be hounded out of your job and have the police set on you.
Offending someone by accident is not a legal term. Also, i don't believe that he was so unaware of the racial origins of Meghan and therefore her child or how racist it would be to compare the child with a chimp. He got what he deserved as a result. And yes the police should investigate him. Do you really think that if anything is done'" accidentally" then the solution always to just apologise and move on. That is ridiculous. Otherwise road accidents and many other ' " accidents" would be solved by simply saying sorry and moving on. That is ridiculous and has never been the case in any society in the world.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#147
Report 2 months ago
#147
(Original post by limetang)
Frankly, you haven’t a clue WHY he did it. How exactly do you KNOW he had any racist intent with this? Can you tell me which model of crystal ball/brand of tea leaves you are using to divine that with such certainty his intent. People have also referred to children as monkeys since year dot. Could his statement have been meant with racist intent? Possibly, but neither of us actually has evidence this is what was meant.
"intent" has nothing to do with racial discrimination law.! It is irrelevant what he intended. The law is well aware that every racist ,when things get hot, would just simply say they never intended to behave in a racist way. That argument is irrelevant.
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#148
Report 2 months ago
#148
(Original post by AJ126)
The baby is white.At least in all the photos I've seen he is.
And his precise level of whiteness matters because....? :rolleyes:

Perhaps every baby needs checking against a colour chart to be assigned to their correct position in life and the level of acceptibility for allow racist jokes to be told about them?
0
reply
limetang
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#149
Report 2 months ago
#149
(Original post by mgi)
"intent" has nothing to do with racial discrimination law.! It is irrelevant what he intended. The law is well aware that every racist ,when things get hot, would just simply say they never intended to behave in a racist way. That argument is irrelevant.
Of course intent matters. If I fire an employee it matters whether my reason was because they were bad at their job or whether it was because they were black and I didn’t like black people.

If you call a child a monkey your intent matters. Are you calling them that because they’re mischievous, energetic, like climbing things or are you calling them that because of their African heritage?

Intent is the only thing that matters.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#150
Report 2 months ago
#150
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
And his precise level of whiteness matters because....? :rolleyes:

Perhaps every baby needs checking against a colour chart to be assigned to their correct position in life and the level of acceptibility for allow racist jokes to be told about them?
Because in the minds of racists, if the child is white or looks white then everything is fine! The Uk still has problems with racism and many are bending over backwards to make excuses for the perpetrators. You can even see racist thinking from some of the posters on this thread who are doing there best to demonstrate how great Danny Baker and so he couldn't possibly be a racist even if his actions are racist because they were also not "intentional "; completely making up their own versions of race discrimination law.
2
reply
username4499936
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#151
Report 2 months ago
#151
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
And his precise level of whiteness matters because....? :rolleyes:

Perhaps every baby needs checking against a colour chart to be assigned to their correct position in life and the level of acceptibility for allow racist jokes to be told about them?
Well if he's white then it's not a racist joke is it? The joke only applies if the baby is in fact black because of the historic connotations between black people and monkeys.If the baby is white then those connotations don't apply and there is no racism.So yes it does matter.

And that was actually in response to the other poster who said "if" the baby were white.I was just pointing out that the baby is in fact pretty damn white in all the photos I've seen.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#152
Report 2 months ago
#152
I don't see how the police can sensibly investigate it unless they're the thought police.

The reference is from the book 1984 for non literary types
Last edited by harrysbar; 2 months ago
0
reply
watershower
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#153
Report 2 months ago
#153
Ngl...I’m black and I didn’t understand what was offensive until I read the whole news article.
Because Meghan is mixed race and Harry is white so the picture didn’t even add up to me.
I do think he should have been sacked though, because it was so stupid. Being investigated over it however? That’s pointless, what are they even looking for? His life is ruined already.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#154
Report 2 months ago
#154
(Original post by watershower)
Ngl...I’m black and I didn’t understand what was offensive until I read the whole news article.
Because Meghan is mixed race and Harry is white so the picture didn’t even add up to me.
I do think he should have been sacked though, because it was so stupid. Being investigated over it however? That’s pointless, what are they even looking for? His life is ruined already.
That's interesting that you didn't see it as offensive until the whole media circus got going. I agree it was stupid of him but I don't think you should get sacked for being stupid or I'm going back to a half empty staffroom tomorrow
0
reply
watershower
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#155
Report 2 months ago
#155
I say sacked because the BBC couldn’t have dealt with it any other way. Everyone was so mad over the issue, that if they only gave him a warning or suspension, the public would suspect the BBC has ‘racist intentions’ as well.
At this point, I don’t even know what counts as racism anymore, the lines are so blurred to me
(Original post by harrysbar)
That's interesting that you didn't see it as offensive until the whole media circus got going. I agree it was stupid of him but I don't think you should get sacked for being stupid or I'm going back to a half empty staffroom tomorrow
1
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#156
Report 2 months ago
#156
(Original post by watershower)
At this point, I don’t even know what counts as racism anymore, the lines are so blurred to me
Me too ....but I do think some people are a bit too quick to judge and we should all be more tolerant
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#157
Report 2 months ago
#157
(Original post by watershower)
I say sacked because the BBC couldn’t have dealt with it any other way. Everyone was so mad over the issue...
That may be the problem, too many people get mad over everything on a very superficial and sometimes thoughtless manner and end up earning out of it. The BBC didn't have to cave in to that mentality, they could at least have spoken to him about it. The problem may also be that the BBC are fine purveyors of that mentality themselves and for that reason it didn't occur to them that there might be a choice after all.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#158
Report 2 months ago
#158
(Original post by Joinedup)
When you offend someone by accident you apologise and then traditionally you both move on with your lives... but that doesn't seem to work anymore and it appears you've got to be hounded out of your job and have the police set on you.
This is exactly right. I don't know when it was when we became so intolerant of other people's shortcomings and mistakes that the moment someone makes a step out-of-line there's immediately a baying mob with pitchforks and torches demanding that he be burnt at the stake. It's very worrying.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#159
Report 2 months ago
#159
(Original post by Reality Check)
This is exactly right. I don't know when it was when we became so intolerant of other people's shortcomings and mistakes that the moment someone makes a step out-of-line there's immediately a baying mob with pitchforks and torches demanding that he be burnt at the stake. It's very worrying.
Yeah, to see the BBC act the way you describe and assume it as their ethos and core values. Make a mistake and you're out without a squeak. Worrying indeed, particularly for employees outside the sphere of protected and promoted sociological groups. Double worrying for them, actually. Oh, they do set the agenda for all this alright.
Last edited by z-hog; 2 months ago
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#160
Report 2 months ago
#160
(Original post by z-hog)
Yeah, to see the BBC act the way you describe and assume it as their ethos and core values. Make a mistake and you're out without a squeak. Worrying indeed, particularly for employees outside the sphere of protected and promoted sociological groups. Double worrying for them, actually.
It so hysterical and social-media led. How many people now have been hung out to dry because of one mistake; a mistake which in previous years could have been easily forgiven for a sincere and fast public apology to the wounded party.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you tempted to change your firm university choice now or on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (132)
18.67%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (72)
10.18%
No I am happy with my course choice (402)
56.86%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (101)
14.29%

Watched Threads

View All