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

z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#161
Report 2 months ago
#161
(Original post by Reality Check)
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.
Yes but the problem is the caving in, the mobs can't be suppressed. Every time one of these lands, we see everybody do just that, rushing to appease the manufactured outrage for the sake of public relations. It's the media themselves that amplify the noise on Twitter, they have the power to make or break the latest social scandal. On top of that, there will be politicians trading the race card for a living jumping on any flash in the pan to add to the outrage. It's an industry, all this race game and it sucks for that. Nobody gives a damn about Baker as a human being.
5
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#162
Report 2 months ago
#162
It would be helpful if the people who kept mentioning the 'law' actually knew what the law on the matter is and possibly examined it for our benefit. Random references to 'law' make you sound like the young Tory kiddies who attempt to 'debunk' Corbyn using 'economics'.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#163
Report 2 months ago
#163
(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.
I do think that if the BBC are going to judge their employees as suitable for immediate dismissal based on something they said on social media, then it would be wise for them to advise all employees never to use social media. I'm surprised this isn't already in their contracts, given the legal implications.
2
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#164
Report 2 months ago
#164
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I do think that if the BBC are going to judge their employees as suitable for immediate dismissal based on something they said on social media, then it would be wise for them to advise all employees never to use social media. I'm surprised this isn't already in their contracts, given the legal implications.
How about people like you not calling for the sacking of everyone who says something they don't like? Would that be too awful? Do you do it at work as well, or just on the interweb?
1
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#165
Report 2 months ago
#165
(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.
I think it's probably an existing feature of 'human nature' that's been amplified and exploited by surveillance capitalist social media like twitter.

These twitter mobs remind me a bit of Orwell's 2 minute hate - which iirc was a popular feature of Oceanan society in 1984... but just because it's popular doesn't mean it is good for you.

for those who haven't read the book...



The impassive guys keeping an eye on everyone else... that's twitter
1
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#166
Report 2 months ago
#166
(Original post by Good bloke)
How about people like you not calling for the sacking of everyone who says something they don't like? Would that be too awful? Do you do it at work as well, or just on the interweb?
Not sure I'd be comfortable working with someone who thinks that racist depictions of colleague's children as monkeys are a good idea, but I wouldn't call for their dismissal. It's different when you are talking about public representatives of the state broadcaster, I can't help thinking.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#167
Report 2 months ago
#167
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Not sure I'd be comfortable working with someone who thinks that racist depictions of colleague's children as monkeys are a good idea, but I wouldn't call for their dismissal. It's different when you are talking about public representatives of the state broadcaster, I can't help thinking.
What if they said something that could be interpreted in an offensive way without realising it and when it was pointed out, they apologised and tried to explain that it wasn't what they meant at all and seemed sincere?

A lot of things seem obvious with the benefit of hindsight.

He's hardly 'doubling down' and insisting it was a good idea, he immediately backed down when the possible racist interpretation was pointed out... I don't know what was in his mind and neither do you but it seems possible it was just a mistake (& IMO this is the most likely thing)
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#168
Report 2 months ago
#168
(Original post by limetang)
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.
But that is not the law is it? Otherwise every racist in the country would say that they are not racist, or their actions weren't racist, because they never understood what they were doing, why it was racist and "intended" any harm. Ridiculous. And would you deal with a road traffic accident by assessing intent or ignorance of the law? So shoukd those racist throwers of bananas onto a pitch be excused as well? Perhaps they didn't understand the connotations of throwing them at black footballers? So let the perpetrators off??. So ridiculous. The uk still has a racism problem for. sure. People talk a lot of nonsense about race law and racism for a variety of reasons.
Last edited by mgi; 2 months ago
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#169
Report 2 months ago
#169
(Original post by Joinedup)
What if they said something that could be interpreted in an offensive way without realising it and when it was pointed out, they apologised and tried to explain that it wasn't what they meant at all and seemed sincere?
I just think it stretches credulity that depicting their baby as a simian is in some way plausibly evidence of a genuine mistake rather than the obvious racist intention.

I am less concerned though about what happened to him as a result than I am in the way this kind of thing serves as an immediate dog whistle for the hard Right, using it to throw around fake accusations of metropolitan elite liberal authoritarianism, etc. So perhaps simply to avoid all this hyped up nonsense it would be better if in future the BBC sent someone to diversity training rather than instant dismissal.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#170
Report 2 months ago
#170
(Original post by Joinedup)
I think it's probably an existing feature of 'human nature' that's been amplified and exploited by surveillance capitalist social media like twitter.

These twitter mobs remind me a bit of Orwell's 2 minute hate - which iirc was a popular feature of Oceanan society in 1984... but just because it's popular doesn't mean it is good for you.

for those who haven't read the book...



The impassive guys keeping an eye on everyone else... that's twitter
Just stick to the issue about racism.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#171
Report 2 months ago
#171
(Original post by Joinedup)
What if they said something that could be interpreted in an offensive way without realising it and when it was pointed out, they apologised and tried to explain that it wasn't what they meant at all and seemed sincere?

A lot of things seem obvious with the benefit of hindsight.

He's hardly 'doubling down' and insisting it was a good idea, he immediately backed down when the possible racist interpretation was pointed out... I don't know what was in his mind and neither do you but it seems possible it was just a mistake (& IMO this is the most likely thing)
In your opinion it was a mistake. But , so what? It was still an act of racism. Ignorance is not considered to be an excuse in direct race discrimination law.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#172
Report 2 months ago
#172
(Original post by mgi)
In your opinion it was a mistake. But , so what? It was still an act of racism. Ignorance is not considered to be an excuse in direct race discrimination law.
Whether it is racist or not depends on the intention. Something only Baker himself can clarify and no one else.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#173
Report 2 months ago
#173
(Original post by Good bloke)
How about people like you not calling for the sacking of everyone who says something they don't like? Would that be too awful? Do you do it at work as well, or just on the interweb?
"saying something they don't like " What exactly are you saying- that people can say what they like to you at work etc,? Really? And were we not talking about the obvious racist actions of Danny Baker ?
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#174
Report 2 months ago
#174
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I do think that if the BBC are going to judge their employees as suitable for immediate dismissal based on something they said on social media, then it would be wise for them to advise all employees never to use social media. I'm surprised this isn't already in their contracts, given the legal implications.
(Original post by JohanGRK)
It would be helpful if the people who kept mentioning the 'law' actually knew what the law on the matter is and possibly examined it for our benefit. Random references to 'law' make you sound like the young Tory kiddies who attempt to 'debunk' Corbyn using 'economics'.
Yes. That is part of the problem; people using completely illogical reasoning to try to suggest that what Danny Baker did was unintentional and therefore excusable. No such argument is accepted in race discrimination law. " less favourable treatment on the basis of a protected characteristic " and at least a glance at the Equality Act 2010 would be very useful for a lot of people on this thread. Plus a quick check of the hate crime laws wouldn't hurt either! Danny Baker being "nice" ignorant, unintentional is not really the point at all. I suspect racist white privilege attitudes are behind the clamour to "forgive" or excuse Danny Baker for his actions. By " white privilege " i mean the maintenance of the racism status quo of this country gives whites particular and sustained unfair advantages in society.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#175
Report 2 months ago
#175
(Original post by z-hog)
Yes but the problem is the caving in, the mobs can't be suppressed. Every time one of these lands, we see everybody do just that, rushing to appease the manufactured outrage for the sake of public relations. It's the media themselves that amplify the noise on Twitter, they have the power to make or break the latest social scandal. On top of that, there will be politicians trading the race card for a living jumping on any flash in the pan to add to the outrage. It's an industry, all this race game and it sucks for that. Nobody gives a damn about Baker as a human being.
Here we go again. Off the point completely! Should people really be let off the hook because their actions are believed to be unintentional? Look at the rhetoric you are using to down play acts of racism: " the mobs cant be suppressed " ,playing the "race card". This tired phrase is used by so many, often white, people to stifle the legitimate debate as to why multicultural Britain still has significant problems with racism. I think this tired phrase has ,rather ironically , elements of racism within it as well. Look at the situation: Baker sends a picture comparing a chimp to the royal baby knowing that its grandmother is black and that the mother is mixed race! Now you are trying to say that anyone who says that this is racist is playing the" race card". Ridiculous!
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#176
Report 2 months ago
#176
(Original post by Jebedee)
Whether it is racist or not depends on the intention. Something only Baker himself can clarify and no one else.
That is the point- it does not depend on his "intention". Racism is not about good intention versus bad intention!
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#177
Report 2 months ago
#177
(Original post by Jebedee)
Whether it is racist or not depends on the intention. Something only Baker himself can clarify and no one else.
What?? So the person decides whether what they said is racist or not. So a Nazi who says he wants all Jews to die, should decide whether he was anti-semitic? I don't agree with this.
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#178
Report 2 months ago
#178
(Original post by mgi)
Here we go again. Off the point completely! Should people really be let off the hook because their actions are believed to be unintentional? Look at the rhetoric you are using to down play acts of racism: " the mobs cant be suppressed " ,playing the "race card". This tired phrase is used by so many, often white, people to stifle the legitimate debate as to why multicultural Britain still has significant problems with racism. I think this tired phrase has ,rather ironically , elements of racism within it as well. Look at the situation: Baker sends a picture comparing a chimp to the royal baby knowing that its grandmother is black and that the mother is mixed race! Now you are trying to say that anyone who says that this is racist is playing the" race card". Ridiculous!
You're drunk on all this racialism and I get the feeling that you don't like white people either.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#179
Report 2 months ago
#179
(Original post by Wired_1800)
What?? So the person decides whether what they said is racist or not. So a Nazi who says he wants all Jews to die, should decide whether he was anti-semitic? I don't agree with this.
Well said. So many unbelievably poor posts of reasoning on this thread. Apparently people seem to think that Danny Baker gets to decide whether or not his actions are racist or not based on a range of excuses. Bizarre!
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#180
Report 2 months ago
#180
(Original post by Wired_1800)
What?? So the person decides whether what they said is racist or not. So a Nazi who says he wants all Jews to die, should decide whether he was anti-semitic? I don't agree with this.
Stop pestering us with such lazy stuff, your comparison is no good. Baker never said he regards Archie as a monkey, whereas a Nazi saying such things could only mean them. You guys insult people's intelligence with your racial bias big time.
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)
18.78%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (70)
9.96%
No I am happy with my course choice (401)
57.04%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (100)
14.22%

Watched Threads

View All