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

z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#181
Report 2 months ago
#181
(Original post by mgi)
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!
They should just leave it to you for a decision, shouldn't they? You fascists are all the same.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#182
Report 2 months ago
#182
(Original post by z-hog)
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.
So Nazi racial cartoons in Nazi newspapers wouldn't have counted as racist in your book because they didn't 'say' them?
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#183
Report 2 months ago
#183
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
So Nazi racial cartoons in Nazi newspapers wouldn't have counted as racist in your book because they didn't 'say' them?
So you think Baker meant it, we've been here before. Some of us don't think he meant it the same way Nazis did with your cartoons. Are you subscribing to the view that intent doesn't matter at all? Besides, I haven't seen the Royals complain about anything. It''s mostly people who don't know Baker, as if it was anything to do with them.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#184
Report 2 months ago
#184
(Original post by mgi)
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!
It is incredible how people act when something like this comes up.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#185
Report 2 months ago
#185
(Original post by z-hog)
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.
No offence but this is an incredibly stupid post. That is not how racism works. You cannot do something then argue you did not mean it.

Many people intentionally do foolish things, when they get caught, they claim it was a joke or the recipient is too sensitive or it is PC gone mad.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#186
Report 2 months ago
#186
(Original post by mgi)
at least a glance at the Equality Act 2010 would be very useful for a lot of people on this thread.
Especially you, as it does not apply to this situation at all, as I have previously told you. It would apply only if Danny Baker had been providing services or premises to, educating, or employing the people being discriminated against. It does not legislate against making jokes.

Harrassment and expressions of hatred are forbidden, by other legislation, but not jokes. This was clearly a joke, and it matters not one jot whether it was a joke about race, class, apes, babies, religion or bowler hats. No crime has been committed. Making racists jokes is not illegal. Being racist is not illegal.
Last edited by Good bloke; 2 months ago
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#187
Report 2 months ago
#187
(Original post by z-hog)
You're drunk on all this racialism and I get the feeling that you don't like white people either.
Do you see the issue? You have now resorted to making false accusations and insults instead of trying to objectively look at the issues of racism that this country faces. So you now conclude for some reason " that i get the feeling that you don't like white people either".So, in your view, in order for you to get to grips with my comments on race it is important for you to speculate on whether I " like white people ". But why? Do i need to speculate with you about whether or not you " like black people " before I debate your views on Danny Baker's conduct? So you are questioning the motives behind my argument but you are apparently ok with the so called good intentions/motives of Danny Baker. Your phrase " drunk on all this racialism" insult is a classic comment similar to the "playing the race card" one. This, in my opinion, are the classic dismissive techniques for attempting to shut down the serious debate or concerns about racism in our society; it is the elephant in the room! Other avoidance techniques are to blame the victim, switch the conversation to something irrelevant , evade the point being made or even ignore it or find a, usually implausible, excuse for the behaviour of the alleged racist or the old classic chestnut" my best friend is black" (proving what i have no clue)The majority racial group (in this case, whites, need to make more effort to engage in intelligent debate about racism and its effects rather than worry about being called racist or quickly defending the alleged perpetrator! So, for example, suppose Danny Baker was black, would that have made a difference to how you or the BBC viewed or treated this matter? If so, why? If not, why not?
The reason why these debates are sidelined is ,i think, because it, deliberately or otherwise, "benefits "' the majority white population in terms of getting an unfair economic advantage via successsful job applications, promotions, leadership positions, better pay etc. It is called the phenomenon of whiteness/ white privilege!
Last edited by mgi; 2 months ago
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#188
Report 2 months ago
#188
(Original post by Good bloke)
Especially you, as it does not apply to this situation at all, as I have previously told you. It would apply only if Danny Baker had been providing services or premises to, educating, or employing the people being discriminated against. It does not legislate against making jokes.

Harrassment and expressions of hatred are forbidden, by other legislation, but not jokes. This was clearly a joke, and it matters not one jot whether it was a joke about race, class, apes, babies, religion or bowler hats. No crime has been committed. Making racists jokes is not illegal. Being racist is not illegal.
Exactly.

Being tasteless and having a penchant for offensive jokes isn't (yet) illegal - or did I miss that memo?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#189
Report 2 months ago
#189
(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!
Poor analogy.
The picture itself is not racist. People are merely claiming that there was racist intent behind it.
A better analogy would be someone who killed another person in a fight by them falling and hitting their head and the defence using their previous clean record and never having been in a fight before as evidence that it was accidental self-defence and not pre-meditated murder.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#190
Report 2 months ago
#190
(Original post by mgi)
i don't believe that he was so unaware of the racial origins of Meghan
So you believe he was intentionally racist in the ground of personal incredulity. Fair enough.

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.
So you think that people involved in accidents are always prosecuted. Crikey!
0
reply
username4606994
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#191
Report 2 months ago
#191
ffs its a joke get over it gosh its just words on a screen, its not like he attacked anyone. God people these days have turned into little pussies
(Original post by BlueIndigoViolet)
Glad the BBC is taking action on his blatant prejudice and racism masquerading as humour


The now deleted tweet, which has been circulated on social media, showed an image of a couple holding hands with a chimpanzee dressed in clothes with the caption: "Royal Baby leaves hospital".
The 5 live presenter was accused of mocking the duchess's racial heritage.
.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48212693
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#192
Report 2 months ago
#192
(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'.
I suggest you take a look at the Public Order Act 1986, as later amended (especially part 3, section 18 and part 3A). It makes it very clear that intent (to incite racial hatred, or to harrass) is crucial to there being a crime. The Equality Act 2010 does not apply, for the reasons I stated a few posts ago.

All these wowsers reporting tweets and other postings are just wasting police time as there is pretty well never any indication (and certainly no proof) that there is any intent to incite hatred.
Last edited by Good bloke; 2 months ago
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#193
Report 2 months ago
#193
(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.
Here's another analogy to have a go at...
You are running a team-building course that includes a session called "the human toolshed" where every participant is designated as a garden tool. The person you have designated to be the "spade" turns out to be black. Are you a racist?
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#194
Report 2 months ago
#194
(Original post by Jebedee)
Whether it is racist or not depends on the intention. Something only Baker himself can clarify and no one else.
No. According to mgi, if you ask at B&Q if they have any spades, and there is a black employee working there, you are a racist.
Last edited by QE2; 2 months ago
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#195
Report 2 months ago
#195
(Original post by QE2)
So you believe he was intentionally racist in the ground of personal incredulity. Fair enough.


So you think that people involved in accidents are always prosecuted. Crikey!
Clearly, that is not what i have suggested in my post. Did you read it? Accident or not there would be an investigation probably wouldn't there?. Then the discussion would turn to what should be done next obviously and hopefully based on the facts . Making out that Baker's actions were ' accidental ' proves what? that he couldn't/ shouldn't be held accountable for his actions? that he couldn't be racist? that people have to be "intentional "before there actions can be called racist? So if i unintentionally cause an accident while driving under the influence then there would be according to the logic of some people no need to do anything further except to ask the driver whether he "intended "to cause an accident which injured someone. If the driver says no then we all pack up and go home! Ridiculous argument frequently posted on this thread. It is a good job that most judges in this country do not confuse " intent" with culpability and taking responsibility for one's own actions or ignorance. Otherwise we would all be in a sorry mess. You could even pretend that you didn't know what a zebra crossing or red light on roads were for when apprehended by a police officer for causing an accident. What is worrying as well is the fact that some posters, apparently uni students on degree courses, can't see the basic fallacy , apparently of these extraordinary arguments. Danny Baker ,fortunately ,did not get to avoid the consequences of his "accidental " racist behaviour .
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#196
Report 2 months ago
#196
(Original post by mgi)
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!
Yes, Baker decided whether the post was racist or not when he composed it. You do not get to decide what he meant after the event.
It really is that simple.

Baker is just as entitled to claim that it was not racist as you are to claim that it was. And given that he knows what he intended and you don't, it is reasonable to give his claim more credence.
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#197
Report 2 months ago
#197
(Original post by Wired_1800)
It is incredible how people act when something like this comes up.
Indeed it is. It's like all critical analysis goes out of the window. I'm not sure whether it is because people are genuinely a bit dim or because they are terrified of being denounced themselves. Probably a combination.
0
reply
LeoKisia
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#198
Report 2 months ago
#198
Being a Black person is one of the hardest thing in the world.....
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#199
Report 2 months ago
#199
(Original post by Reality Check)
Exactly.

Being tasteless and having a penchant for offensive jokes isn't (yet) illegal - or did I miss that memo?
This, as i hope you realise is not about joking! You have drifted off the point. It is about racist behaviour." Being racist is not illegal?" a poster says; So clearly, some people on this thread have not heard of race discrimination tribunals or the Equality Act 2010? Notice now how the conversation has now foolishly and pointlessly being shifted to a conversation about what comedy is or isn't? Danny Baker's chimp nonsense was in no way a comedy routine. Racism somehow always bends over backwards to try to divert attention away from the racism that is still found in British society. We have laws on racism in this country precisely so that we can deal with people who think that comparing the Royal to a chimp is acceptable and not racism and also that racism is not really racism if its " accidental " Absurd. Accidental, unintentional- not really relevant
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#200
Report 2 months ago
#200
(Original post by mgi)
So if i unintentionally cause an accident while driving under the influence then there would be according to the logic of some people no need to do anything further except to ask the driver whether he "intended "to cause an accident which injured someone.
Another addition to your collection of poor analogies. If a person intentionally drives while under the influence, then they are already committing an offence. That constitutes the intent. The same accident where the driver had not been drinking could easily involve no action against the driver.
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 on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (133)
18.6%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (72)
10.07%
No I am happy with my course choice (407)
56.92%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (103)
14.41%

Watched Threads

View All