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

mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#101
Report 1 month ago
#101
(Original post by Good bloke)
It was a personal observation based on a lifetime of observing such people.
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!
0
reply
Surnia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#102
Report 1 month ago
#102
(Original post by harrysbar)
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
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.
2
reply
Surnia
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#103
Report 1 month ago
#103
(Original post by QE2)
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.
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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#104
Report 1 month ago
#104
(Original post by mgi)
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!
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?
2
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#105
Report 1 month ago
#105
(Original post by Surnia)
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.
I took that comment as tongue in cheek - like he hadn’t taken any notice of which Royal it was having a baby because he couldn’t care less about any of them
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#106
Report 1 month ago
#106
(Original post by Surnia)
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.
He also claims that he didnt know the baby was mixed race!! And so i presume from that he didn't know that Meghan is mixed race! Unbelievable! If thats true, where on earth has this media man been? I dont believe him tbh.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#107
Report 1 month ago
#107
(Original post by Surnia)
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.
of the era? what do you mean? What era? and the relevance?
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#108
Report 1 month ago
#108
(Original post by Good bloke)
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?
No. Exactly my point. We should not just simply assume that because of a person's background , job, sport, music skill etc or sexual preferences that they could not be racist. But people do! So , for example, Danny Baker couldnt be one because he is in the popular media and wouldn't be so stupid!?? why not?
Last edited by mgi; 1 month ago
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#109
Report 1 month ago
#109
(Original post by mgi)
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.
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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#110
Report 1 month ago
#110
(Original post by mgi)
of the era? what do you mean? What era? and the relevance?
The era in which the photo was taken.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#111
Report 1 month ago
#111
(Original post by Surnia)
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.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#112
Report 1 month ago
#112
(Original post by Good bloke)
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
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#113
Report 1 month ago
#113
(Original post by harrysbar)
Yeah, my relatives looked more like the chimp
Mine too, but not nearly as well dressed.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#114
Report 1 month ago
#114
(Original post by Good bloke)
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.
Nobody is suggesting that Baker be arrested. The issue is should he have been sacked.
(Original post by Surnia)
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.
:yep: Baker is being playing the naive fool here, but it was clearly a calculated piece of racist populism. I think the BBC were right to sack him.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#115
Report 1 month ago
#115
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Nobody is suggesting that Baker be arrested. The issue is should he have been sacked.
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.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#116
Report 1 month ago
#116
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
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.
You are clear about the differenxe in law between direct and indirect race discrimination right? We have laws in this country for a reason. Hopefully it deals with the idea of general members of the public deciding what intent is and whether it is relevant!.
Just because Meghan has not spoken does not mean she or he has not taken legal advice as to whether or not civil law action could be taken. She has no doubt had other racist actions directed at her for joining an almost completely white institution! Piers Morgan on ITV has made some fairly offensive remarks about Meghan and so have others. Wisely, Raheem Stirling refused to be interviewed by him. Maybe lots of people out there have another explanation, apart from the obvious, as to why bananas have been thrown onto the pitch to specifically black footballers but not white ones. Perhaps, the ones who threw them did not know what a banana is and just felt like throwing them at black players in ignorance!. lol. And where are the court cases for these 'hate crimes' then?
Last edited by mgi; 1 month ago
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#117
Report 1 month ago
#117
(Original post by Good bloke)
The era in which the photo was taken.
of no relevance to this discussion as i am sure you are aware.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#118
Report 1 month ago
#118
(Original post by mgi)
You are clear about the differenxe in law between direct and indirect race discrimination right?
You clearly don't understand that the laws on racial discrimination (and especially indirect racial discrimination) only apply in a very limited set of circumstances related to employment, supply of goods and services and so on. They do not apply to what has happened here.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#119
Report 1 month ago
#119
(Original post by mgi)
of no relevance to this discussion as i am sure you are aware.
Who said it was?
0
reply
twinklebear
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#120
Report 1 month ago
#120
Anyone who denies the racism is a racist themselves. Pathetic adults.
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

How did your AQA A-level Chemistry Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (43)
29.05%
The paper was reasonable (73)
49.32%
Not feeling great about that exam... (17)
11.49%
It was TERRIBLE (15)
10.14%

Watched Threads

View All