3Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
You'd have thought people would have something better to do than make an issue about such a trivial matter!Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence
This is a discussion on Whaddaya think of this? within the United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum forums, part of the United Kingdom Political Forums category; Carol Thatcher, professional daughter and celebrity reality show winner, is having her status as a contributer on nightly borefest The ...
World goin one way, people another
Carol Thatcher, professional daughter and celebrity reality show winner, is having her status as a contributer on nightly borefest The One Show 'considered' after she made a potentially racist comment in a private conversation in a BBC Green Room.
BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC reviewing Thatcher race jibe
Now personally, I find Carol's particular brand of toffery/inane musings about as worthy as hearing Sooty's views on the economic downturn. However, this remark was made in a private context, an off the cuff remark, and the racial element reported in the story seems to fairly non-existent. Another round of 'political correctness gone mad' or genuinely offensive?
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E. B. White
"To be honest, you think a/c jump the fence, I say the whole college jump the fence"
The wonder that is Angelcountry
"If we're going to have a police state, at least orgainise it properly!"
Guy Outside the Chilcott Enquiry as he was led away by police for causing a 'disturbance' (thanks to LA I now know his name is Michael Culver)
Chancellor
You'd have thought people would have something better to do than make an issue about such a trivial matter!
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
accidental genius!
I can just imagine her saying it in her nasal upper cut accent, anyone who still calls their Mother "Mummy" after the age of 10(ish) in any other way than a joke deserves to be shot (ooh 100 most hated Britons).
Personal hatred aside a private conversation should be just that and as long as she is not using her public platform to express racist sentiment then it should not effect the security of her job.
"The object of universities is not to make skilful lawyers, physicians or engineers. It is to make capable and cultivated human beings." John Stewart Mill
Senior MP
apparently , carol thatcher has been sacked for making a racist remark against a black tennis player. During a private conversation , she referred to the tennis player as a golliwog and was reported , now she has lost her job on the bbc`s one show. Is dismissal warranted or P.C gone mad again??
Senior MP
The poooorr golliwogs! http://www.stormfront.org/forum/imag...lies/frown.gif
http://nannasjourney.files.wordpress...7/11/golly.jpg
They would be insulted to be called an ugly black tennis player with an 'afro' for hair!
Why would they be insulted to be called black?
OT: Yes, she should be sacked. It's irrelevant to bandy about different interpretations of gollywogs - when someone calls a black person a gollywog they are being racist. We could argue forever about the origin of any swear word, but people would still find it offensive.
Conservative Member
If a black person takes offense to the term Golliwogg then they are either bloody stupid or need to see an optician.
This is just political correctness gone mad. Turning an innocent childrens book character into a racial symbol.
Greg Dyke said the BBC was "hideously white" ..... sack him,sack him
Conservative Member
Dougie, following your example then millions of black people should get punished for being racist to whites.
I hear racism towards white people so much more than I hear racism towards black people.
Banned
I agree 100% and have witnessed the same myself and been on the end of it whilst in London recently, from a traffic warden may I add. Reported this and was justdismissed as he said i was racist !!!!! What a Great Britton !!!!!
Senior MP
Can someone define racism and what it means in britain today?? I think it is fast becoming the most over used word in the english language. It seems to be banded about willy nilly by people who Only use it against those nasty horrible white people aginst the poor downtrodden blacks. Usually , if it comes up in converstion with me by some p.c idiot yapping on about slavery blah blah i normally say " my mums black" with a straight face ( when clearly she is not) proffessional victim syndrome i think.I would think all humans are racist in some way if they are honest in terms of prejudice for whatever reason but i have never ever met the stereotypical swastika tattooed skinhead. There are many forms of racism , not just white on black and i am sick of hearing apologies for what our ancestors did. Slavery and racism were practised in britain long before black people , they were just the latest victims . All prejudice is wrong , but it happens and i believe it is human nature and will not change and suppressing speech and innocent remarks is not the way to stop it.
Conservative Member
Racism: Derogatory terms aimed at people not of white skin.
Well, that is the British version anyway.
All humans are slightly racist whether it takes the form of caution or actual racism.
I will disagree with your comment on prejudice and discrimination. During certain times and for certain issues discrimination is a requirement. When this discrimination merely comes down to colour, then we have a problem.
What annoys me the most is the fact that white people in Britain are instantly racist when they bad mouth someone who is black. But when a black person is blatently racist to a white person, nothing is made of it.
The government advocate equality, all I see is direct racism towards majority-society. I advocate the removal of all race laws, that way we can start fresh and have laws that actually advocate equality.
Senior MP
I often wonder why we have this racist hysteria in this country compared to others who have similar immigration . Sometimes i wonder if it is a hangover from the days of the british empire , that is all gone now and the british are unsure of their place in this world and are struggling to come to terms with it. We seem to be apologising for every event in our history which is not the resposibility of the people of today. If we treat others as we expect to be treated then there would be no problem - i can handle a piss take( i think ) as well as dish it out , are people just thin skinned today and touchy. I cannot see the problem with golliwog but then i am not black , it`s a can of worms being made worse by organisations like the bbc.Instead of moaning about this particular instance , shouldn`t the bbc be a bit more tolerant of innocent ( however silly ) remarks. they took their time to act in the jonathan ross scenario , how much worse would it have been if andy sachs was black or asian.I think we are creating more problems than we are solving. Being silly and touchy , what about the disproportionate amount of black and asian presenters on our t.v in general at the moment.?I feel like i am being force fed. Live and let live is dead in this country and we are all becoming more paranoid because of the p.c gestapo
Chancellor
I'm sure I've posted this before, but...
"By the way, for what it's worth, EVERYBODY has naturally racist tendencies, no matter the race, creed, sex, etc.
It's instinctive, you see. Our primitive brains sort people initially according to potential danger levels in two processes. Firstly by similarities to oneself (family, clan, colour, profession, social standing, etc.), secondly by likelihood of a confrontation. And if one has little interaction with other races and hears a lot of bad things about them (true or not), then one distrusts them.
And distrust is the basis of fear, which is what racism often really is. And fear is part of a healthy instinct of self-preservation..."
Not that I'm implying racism is acceptable, simply that it's quite natural and cannot be removed just by wishful thinking or political correctness.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Senior MP
are we reading from the same book??
Banned
I would like to find out who the sad person is who started the complaint, make their name public so others can prod and poke into their life.
World goin one way, people another
Hey mods, maybe merge this into the other Carol Thatcher thread no?
Last edited by Albion 69; 04-02-2009 at 02:08 PM. Reason: Done :)
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E. B. White
"To be honest, you think a/c jump the fence, I say the whole college jump the fence"
The wonder that is Angelcountry
"If we're going to have a police state, at least orgainise it properly!"
Guy Outside the Chilcott Enquiry as he was led away by police for causing a 'disturbance' (thanks to LA I now know his name is Michael Culver)
It's not my version, nor that of anyone I have ever met...
Well this demonstrates it all really, doesn't it? It's a ridiculous assumption to make. How the hell could mixed-race marriages happen if everyone is 'slightly racist'. Surely even slight racism in someone would cause them not to date/marry someone of a different race.
Discrimination should be based on ability - nothing else.
Well, this may be true in the media, but I don't think that it's so much the case. After all, historically the black population have suffered far more from white racism than vice-versa, so perhaps through our hatred of slavery we instantly and subconsciously see white->black racism as worse. I personally think that it is worse because whites are in the majority, and thus any anti-white racism can only have a limited effect. In Nazi Germany, had the Jews been racist against white people, it would have had no effect. It took majority->minority racism to cause the racist atrocities.
Well without protection against racism, where would we be? You would have a black employer able to hire black workers simply based on their race? Or a white employer doing the same? I suspect that the latter is all you had in mind.
Anyway, calling a black person a 'gollywog' is racist. Who cares about the origin of 'gollywogs' - have you ever heard a non-racist call a black person one? Say I called you a table, but my intention was that 'table' was a word meaning 'cracker' or whatever anti-white racist term you want to use. I would still be guilty of racism, no matter what the word actually was.
Conservative Member
I was not being serious. I was merely stating that is the definition in which we live by. Whites get done for Racism while Blacks do not.
Why do you assume you can only be racist to black people?Well this demonstrates it all really, doesn't it? It's a ridiculous assumption to make. How the hell could mixed-race marriages happen if everyone is 'slightly racist'. Surely even slight racism in someone would cause them not to date/marry someone of a different race.
Everyone is slightly racist, there are no exceptions.
Is that not what I said? You need to discriminate against people whether by physical ability, skills or mental ability.Discrimination should be based on ability - nothing else.
I fail to see how. Racism is racism, it should not become more serious for one race to be racist than the other.Well, this may be true in the media, but I don't think that it's so much the case. After all, historically the black population have suffered far more from white racism than vice-versa, so perhaps through our hatred of slavery we instantly and subconsciously see white->black racism as worse.
So what you are saying only white people can be actually racist or are you saying only white people should be punished?I personally think that it is worse because whites are in the majority, and thus any anti-white racism can only have a limited effect. In Nazi Germany, had the Jews been racist against white people, it would have had no effect. It took majority->minority racism to cause the racist atrocities.
I do not care what colour you are. Racism is Racism, there is no difference.
The first scenerio happens. It is evident in the film industry where there are TV series of all black people and one stupid white person. If the reverse was to happen (all white, one stupid black person) it would be classed as racist immediately.Well without protection against racism, where would we be? You would have a black employer able to hire black workers simply based on their race? Or a white employer doing the same? I suspect that the latter is all you had in mind.
Golliwogg is; in my opinion, not racist. No one will convince me otherwise.Anyway, calling a black person a 'gollywog' is racist. Who cares about the origin of 'gollywogs' - have you ever heard a non-racist call a black person one? Say I called you a table, but my intention was that 'table' was a word meaning 'cracker' or whatever anti-white racist term you want to use. I would still be guilty of racism, no matter what the word actually was.
If a black person wants to convince themselves they look like Golliwoggs that is fine with me, but don't brand someone a racist because of it.
"You look like a Golliwogg" isn't necessarily racist. I have seen a few black dudes with crazy hair...
1) I never said that, you are creating a straw man.
2) We will have to disagree on that. But you are simply labelling everyone in the world as being the same, which never works by your own admission in other threads.
No, it shouldn't be more serious, but it is. What I am saying is that white->black racism is more DANGEROUS than black->white racism in Britain. The danger posed to black people if all white people were racist is far greater than the threat posed to whites if all black people were. Therefore, since this type of racism is more dangerous (and more widespread, although we could bandy statistics about all day so lets just avoid that discussion) it should be protected against more, just like guns are more dangerous than knives and thus there is a (slightly) greater sentence for carrying one.
But you would look down on the people who found that racist, so why do you hold that position when the races are reversed? Or do you think that noone should hold that position? I agree that this is bad, actually. Both are a bit racist, but like I said before, the latter would be more dangerous.
Did you read what I just wrote... Irregardless of what Golliwog originally meant, it is now used exclusively as a racist term by racists... Many swear words have similarly innocent beginnings, but you wouldn't say that they lost any potency because of it.
So 'your face is the colour of dog crap' isn't offensive to an Asian? It's the same logic...
Conservative Member
Then I am sorry, it appeared to me that you were hinting as such.
I wasn't trying to label anyone, I am merely stating human nature. Humans are all slightly racist because they are cautious of others through irrational fear or misunderstanding. This is just one example, but such things lead to mild racism and in some cases extremist views.2) We will have to disagree on that. But you are simply labelling everyone in the world as being the same, which never works by your own admission in other threads.
I do not agree.No, it shouldn't be more serious, but it is. What I am saying is that white->black racism is more DANGEROUS than black->white racism in Britain. The danger posed to black people if all white people were racist is far greater than the threat posed to whites if all black people were. Therefore, since this type of racism is more dangerous (and more widespread, although we could bandy statistics about all day so lets just avoid that discussion) it should be protected against more, just like guns are more dangerous than knives and thus there is a (slightly) greater sentence for carrying one.
Your course of action would cause more friction between communities. If we make it known that all racism will be punished within reasonable grounds, regardless of colour then I believe friction; through terms of one receiving more benefit than the other, will decrease.
I believe one way racism is caused is by the friction of communities. As stated above this leads to misunderstandings, irrational fear and many other factors all of which contribute to mild racism or stereotypical views.But you would look down on the people who found that racist, so why do you hold that position when the races are reversed? Or do you think that noone should hold that position? I agree that this is bad, actually. Both are a bit racist, but like I said before, the latter would be more dangerous.
I did read what you wrote, I am merely expressing that I will not be convinced otherwise. I agree Wolliwogg has been used over the years as a racist term, but to remove such a harmless word from general usage causing friction.Did you read what I just wrote... Irregardless of what Golliwog originally meant, it is now used exclusively as a racist term by racists... Many swear words have similarly innocent beginnings, but you wouldn't say that they lost any potency because of it.
no it is not.So 'your face is the colour of dog crap' isn't offensive to an Asian? It's the same logic...
The context is different.
Saying "you look like a Golliwogg" is also the same as going to a ginger haired person "My God, you have hair as light as an orange".
Looking like a Golliwogg merely means you are wearing an excentric clown like outfit and have wacky hair.
Regardless of whether you were trying to or not, you are labelling every single human being a racist...
There is some truth in this. I probably went too far - my original intention was merely to demonstrate why white->black racism is worse/more dangerous, and why there is more done about it.
I didn't propose to 'remove' it, (how would one go about doing that anyway...) I am just trying to show why it proves Carol Thatcher to be a racist... She used it as a means of being racist, and therefore is a racist, regardless of its origin or any freedom of speech.
Enid Blyton's golliwogs were evil creatures who came and stole things and did nasty things to people at night. They were called Golly, Woggie and Nigger. Their 'favourite song' was 'Ten Little Nigger Boys' - a song celebrating the slow deaths of 10 black children one by one. They were never an entirely innocent idea... But that's beside the point. You appear to have conceded that the word is usually used in a racist context, which just goes to show that Thatcher should be sacked...
Conservative Member
I am not convinced that it is more dangerous. Both cause friction, surely racism towards white people; if you exclude the laws recently created, would be more dangerous because the black people would become isolated from the community at the will of the white man.
By remove I mean prohibit its usage.I didn't propose to 'remove' it, (how would one go about doing that anyway...) I am just trying to show why it proves Carol Thatcher to be a racist... She used it as a means of being racist, and therefore is a racist, regardless of its origin or any freedom of speech.
Enid Blyton was not the first person to use Golliwoggs.Enid Blyton's golliwogs were evil creatures who came and stole things and did nasty things to people at night. They were never an entirely innocent idea... But that's beside the point. You appear to have conceded that the word is usually used in a racist context, which just goes to show that Thatcher should be sacked
The first Golliwogg was entirely innocent.
The creator of the Golliwogg was Florence Kate Upton.
The Golliwogg was a doll she owned, so she turned it into a childrens book
I stated the word can be used racially, not that it is a racial word.
She should not have been sacked. She did not say it publically.
It doesn't matter that she didn't say it publically. No public institution should employ people who are known to be racists, and even though she didn't broadcast the statement, it still proves her to be a bigoted person... Maybe the debate is whether freedom of speech should be such that taxpayer's money goes towards funding these sorts of people?
Conservative Member
This all comes down to peoples definition of what is racism.
I know you think she is racist, I do not think she is.
Then again when it comes to racism I am quite tolerant with what I class as racism.
Senior MP
Golliwog is a racist term, it is as racist as the term Nigger.
It is that simple.
Why can't Jesus eat M&Ms?
Because they keep falling through the holes in his hands!
Jesus may love you, but he won't respect you in the morning.
Racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
I think that number 3 is pretty clear, when discussing this. She clearly meant 'golliwog' as a derogatory term - thus, in number 3 (hatred or intolerance) we can see that she demonstrated hatred (perhaps too strong a word, but when taken more widely to mean dislike, it is apparent) and thus she should be fired.
You cannot downgrade 'hatred' to 'dislike' to support an argument.
By your own definition 'golliwog' is not racist as it is a descriptive term , derogatory I'd agree but in this case was uttered in poor taste or cultural indifference rather than fuelled by either hate or intolerance.
Yet more Political Correctness...
Last edited by Tete123; 05-02-2009 at 02:26 PM.
PC gone Mad !!
The madness continues .....
"Managers of a shop on a royal estate were forced to apologise after it was found to be selling golliwog toys. "
Golliwogs removed from Queen's shop - Yahoo! News UK
MP
Another pathetic product of the media!
Simply by generating news stories such as this, we are probably more in danger of causing racism on a much grander scale than it already is in Britain.
In my opinion I do feel that race in relation with political correctness is a load of old fluff!
I think many (social generalisation) are advocating race as a major issue even though the insult or comment/joke is not necessarily aimed at them.
I have this mental image that this story was assessed and viewed by white people before being published, I personally couldn't see why someone of different skin colour wishing to place so much focus on such a topic regularly. (Maybe I'm missing something)
It's media like this that develops segregation between ethnic groups and Brits, it's counter-productive I fail to see mass protests or phone calls on topics such as this.
Probably because ethnic groups have simply accepted the fact that racism cannot be removed from society by political correctness and that idiots will still be racist.
I have to admit maybe I'm guilty I've made jokes about immigrants but I certainly don't mind them, I would expect they would make the same sort of comments about us Brits. So why should we really go to the extent of sacking someone or reprimanding them if the joke was made in private?
It's little more than a stupid story that will only help to fuel racism...
At least that's how I feel, phew!
Sorry rant over
accidental genius!
I think this is ridiculous from a different angle I think to most of you, the term "gollywog" has been accepted as causing offence since the early eightees and therefore anyone still using it is ignorant (either stupidly so or just because they don't care who they might offend). Clearly none of you were fans of Grange Hill because if you were you might remember a story line where Benny (the token black child in an inner city comp.!) was bullied and taunted because of his skin colour and the words "gollywog" were spat at him. Ask yourselves if the term "wog" is racist?
The same goes for the P and N words, it is the historical context in which they have been used, if you were an Asian shop keeper in the 70s who was forced to wash off the words "Pakis out" from your shop window every morning you might see why it is a racist term.
Do I need to go into the historical and sociological importance of toys? To get us started the gollywog is in fact a 18/19th century bogeyman figure (black because of the fear in colonial times of native uprisings), over time it became seen as more mischevious than malicious, however you only need to read early edition Enid Blyton's Noddy stories to see them depicted as thieves and muggers. Florence Upton may be credited as creating them but she in fact based her drawings on an old doll that had been lying in someone's attic.
As Kiwi says "it's a racist term" get over it!
"The object of universities is not to make skilful lawyers, physicians or engineers. It is to make capable and cultivated human beings." John Stewart Mill
Chancellor
As I understand it the word 'wog' was originally an abbreviation for 'Wily Oriental Gentleman' and was far from racist; perhaps slightly snide in respect of the supposed cunning nature of the Orientals, but nothing more than that. It's only been given the racial connotation in latter years.
Your useless fact for the day
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
accidental genius!
Interesting, I just assumed it was an abbreviation of "golliwog"; do you think I can trust you all to understand my dislike for the term even if I don't surround it in quotation marks from now on please?As I understand it the word 'wog' was originally an abbreviation for 'Wily Oriental Gentleman' and was far from racist; perhaps slightly snide in respect of the supposed cunning nature of the Orientals, but nothing more than that. It's only been given the racial connotation in latter years.
Your useless fact for the day
Having only really heard it in recent years levelled at black football players I think we can assume it is no longer used to refer to devious males of asian origin.
"The object of universities is not to make skilful lawyers, physicians or engineers. It is to make capable and cultivated human beings." John Stewart Mill
Conservative Member
I think Golliwogg is one of those words that is offensive depending on how you first heard it.
I first heard of the term in a cartoon, for these funny little creatures.
I heard it used as a "racist" remark many years later.
As such I do not think of it as a racist term, merely a term that can be used as a racial derogitry.
As the ("Hideously White"*) BBC and others appear to have physic abilities knowing Carol Thatcher was being racist (not just being descriptive or naive) perhaps they could draw up a list of words that should trigger being sacked if used... no matter the context .
*Quote from Greg Dyke ex Director General of the BBC
World goin one way, people another
I may be wrong here, but as originally reported, Thatcher the younger did not call anyone a golliwog. It was alledged that she compared a tennis player's hair to that of a golliwog. As I say, haven't really been following the story too much in recent days but if thats all she said, I think its a massive over reaction by the BBC.
Yes, the word golliwog has racist undertones.
Yes, calling someone one could be considered racist.
But comparing someone's hair to that of a toy, (politcially correct toy or otherwise) does not deserve to get you sacked...even if your mother was the Anti-Christ and you are therefore by your very nature spawn of the devil.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E. B. White
"To be honest, you think a/c jump the fence, I say the whole college jump the fence"
The wonder that is Angelcountry
"If we're going to have a police state, at least orgainise it properly!"
Guy Outside the Chilcott Enquiry as he was led away by police for causing a 'disturbance' (thanks to LA I now know his name is Michael Culver)
Senior MP
LOL, I like that part.
Why can't Jesus eat M&Ms?
Because they keep falling through the holes in his hands!
Jesus may love you, but he won't respect you in the morning.
Senior MP
Right, so instead of just ignoring the people who called me stupid names because I was half Irish, I should've demanded my boss sack them? Well, that would've gone down well I'm sure.
Oh and my dad should've insisted that his colleagues at work should've been sacked for telling quite unkind Irish jokes and forever calling him 'Paddy'?
However, as I say, we both just ignored them. We decided we had lives to live and just got on with it. If we'd reacted to it and called it racist (the Irish are an acknowledged racial minority in and around the Ealing Borough where I grew up), it would've been ridiculous.
The only time I actually ever lost my temper over it was when my, openly gay, RE teacher told us (during a lesson) that all Irish people should be put on an island and bombed out of existence, that any English woman who married an Irishman was a whore (my mum was English) and that the offspring of such a union should be smothered at birth as they were little more than pig ignorant mongrel hybrids.
I lost my temper and had a go; but that was the only time I ever did. If you interpret every little word or joke as offending you - it probably will. What that teacher said was extremely wrong - mind you my retort was bad as well (I won't bore you with it).
But that was an extreme case, and there were others of course. But most people just told stupid Irish jokes or called me daft names like 'Paddyella' and such. Going by the BBC reaction even that should've resulted in some kind of retributional sacking - but why? It's hardly racist - though again, by Beeb's standards, it would be deemed to be so.
Yet Ross gets away with little more than a slapped wrist for a fairly sustained act of public bullying and humiliation of an elderly man and his family. Go figure.
Do you hear that? That's the sound of no one caring - anon
Senior MP
She is indeed the spawn of the devil. But she's a very amusing spawn, and certainly a better use of humanity than her mother and brother.
Oh and, more seriously, she did indeed apologise. But, apparently, according to the beeb bird this morning - it wasn't the right kind of apology; the bird thought Carol Thatcher didn't mean it enough or something. So she demanded a more sincere apology - Carol Thatcher replied that, having apologised once, she wasn't going to go on doing so. Good on her I say.
Sadly though the beeb wanted her to give a really crawly, boot licking apology in public. Shame they didn't demand the same of Ross - that would've been entertaining to watch.
Do you hear that? That's the sound of no one caring - anon
Just how bad have things got?
What next: The BBC weather reporter apologising that the snow covered map of the United Kingdom is implied racism due to it not being a multitude of colours to represent the many and varied ethnicities living here?
Come on common sense is needed ladies and gentlemen.
Side note: Why should Carole Thatcher make a public apology for comment that was made in private? The Beeb move from one controversy to another, and in my opinion have again made the wrong decision.
The decison not to air the Gaza appeal was overly cautious....
The decision to fire Thatcher was hasty and heavy handed ...
20 April 1968: Enoch Powell on the consequences of race relations legislation:
Like it or not, this is now true.In this country in fifteen or twenty years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man
Conservative Member
you are correct.
I personally believe the wrong action was taken with Carol Thatcher and I believe Will Young put it quite well yesterday on question time when he said.
"She said it in private, I fail to see the problem. I had this dinner the other day and this bloke said some homophobic comments. What? Do I go to his place of work and demand he be fired?"
If I am not mistaken she did not call the Tennis player a Golliwogg, she stated he looked like a Golliwogg. Like Nigel Farage correctly said, this has most likely been taken out of context.
Looking like a Golliwogg is not a racist comment, it just means you have big hair (Most black men who I have seen do have quite big hair that could resemble a Golliwoggs hair).
But how is it Johnothon Ross can constantly insult people, even a few days after he returned back to work after being suspended whilst Carol Thatcher is sacked for one private conversation.
Senior MP
Absolutely agree Tete. I think the issue here is that its rarely the true ethnic groups that are offended, more the liberal PC brigade assuming that offence on their behalf.
Their ernestness to assume a racist/sexist/etc affront at every turn is becoming increasingly annoying.
As I've said elsewhere being half Irish I've had my fair share of insults, sick jokes, etc. But I've never demanded the resignation of those whove done it.
I think you're right, a bit of common sense needs to be brought to bear here - but, as its only a few activists amongst the ethnic groups, and is predominantely the liberal PC members that is the most offended - I doubt that will happen.
I also couldn't understand why Chiles and Brand would leak it/report the comment. However having now heard that there was a comic relief rep there as well at the time I now wonder if that person was the real culprit? After all, it was likely that - given the support for Carol Thatcher - it would come back to bite the Comic Relief show on the butt; and as its another pet project of the beeb it explains their refusal to say who leaked/reported the story.
Do you hear that? That's the sound of no one caring - anon
Senior MP
Very sorry to hear I missed Will Young on Question Time. I really like him and thought he was brilliant on Top Gear.
As for Ross I do find the BBC's stance on him and the one taken with Carol Thatcher deeply confusing. Ross carried out a fairly sustained incident of publically bullying and humiliating an elderly man and his family, yet escaped with a slapped wrist. He went on to say that he'd enjoyed his 'enforced holiday'; his whole attitude, and that smug grin he constantly wears, told me he couldn't have cared less.
His public 'apology', which was certainly not immediate as the BBC claim, was made on his first return show - "as the kids say, it was my bad." Yeah, wow, that's really heartfelt and sincere.
He grinned his way through it, made jokes about his suspension and then started back 'jokingly' insulting his guests as usual. So basically he was NOT sorry, he had NOT changed and could really care less about all of it. He was just very lucky that Andrew Sachs was white and an elderly gentleman who just wanted to be left alone.
Carol Thatcher said sorry; just as Ross did. Both did so in private and both, apparently, were not really that sorry. However Thatcher's was not accepted because of that apparent insincerity, and Ross' was accepted despite it. I have yet to work out the sense in all that.
Do you hear that? That's the sound of no one caring - anon
You can watch Question Time on BBCi :
BBC iPlayer - Question Time: 05/02/2009
You can view it for the next 7 days.
Senior MP
Thanks Tete, at least I'll be able to see if the entertaining mr young will be to hold his own against the usual suspects.
Do you hear that? That's the sound of no one caring - anon
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks