Carol Thatcher dropped from the BBC, after being racist to a tennis player [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Carol Thatcher dropped from the BBC, after being racist to a tennis player

Pages : [1] 2

Mannboy
02-03-2009, 01:06 PM
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090203/tuk-carol-dropped-for-golliwog-remark-6323e80.html

dusk
02-03-2009, 01:28 PM
Why was she there in the first place?

reggie1
02-03-2009, 01:41 PM
Carol Thatcher usually appears on a morning phone in show called the ""wright Stuff" with Matthew Wright. He said that he has worked with Carol over the years and she is the least racist person that you could meet. Apparently she actually made the comment about Monfils's hair, saying that it reminded her of the Golliwog on the Robertson's Jam jars from years ago. No, she shouldn't have said it given the racial connotations to the term golliwog but I don't think that this neccessarily means that she's racist. I recently likened Jelena Jankovich's make up to Barbara Cartland's so if you apply the same logic I could have been thought of as being disrespectful to old ladies. If she had said it in a really racist way (which we will never truly know)that would be shameful but we will never know for sure the context of how it was said. And as someody who regularly has foot in her mouth disease myself, I would want to know more before judging her.

HattonWBA
02-03-2009, 01:43 PM
This is ridiculous, she should be fired

Wolfy
02-03-2009, 02:01 PM
I think she was talking about Verdasco :shrug:

Clydey
02-03-2009, 02:14 PM
This is ridiculous, she should be fired

I don't exactly like Carol Thatcher, but that comment does not make her a racist. She certainly shouldn't be fired for an innocent slip of the tongue.

JolánGagó
02-03-2009, 02:25 PM
Fu*k BBC and his politically correct dictatorship.

racist! :rolleyes:

Wolfy
02-03-2009, 02:34 PM
BBC Is always racist and full of twats :shrug: Like Johnaphan Ross

GlennMirnyi
02-03-2009, 02:37 PM
Golliwog... really?

Over-zealotry on political correctness is such a huge bullshit.

the graduate
02-03-2009, 02:41 PM
good riddance to bad rubbish,thats why tennis is fucked up with bigots like this representing the so called tennis experts.

rocketassist
02-03-2009, 02:48 PM
Political correctness is something I'd like to kill with my bare hands and a knife.

JolánGagó
02-03-2009, 02:53 PM
good riddance to bad rubbish,thats why tennis is fucked up with bigots like this representing the so called tennis experts.

:haha:

apply for the job yourself so tennis gets fixed.

Svetlana.
02-03-2009, 02:55 PM
Political correctness is something I'd like to kill with my bare hands and a knife.

agreed

tangerine_dream
02-03-2009, 03:04 PM
I don't even know what a golliwog is I had to go look it up.

reggie1
02-03-2009, 03:04 PM
One thing I think people need to remember before trying to lynch the woman is that she is from a different generation. I know that this excuse/reason is used a lot but sometimes people use terminolgies out of a kind of ignorance as to what is acceptable now.

GlennMirnyi
02-03-2009, 03:07 PM
I don't even know what a golliwog is I had to go look it up.

Same here.

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 03:11 PM
well she has a point if she was just talking about his hair. I haven't seen that reported anywhere but here though. Very naive of her if she was comparing more than the hair.

http://www.golliwogg.co.uk/images/dolls/golliwogg-1880.jpg

reggie1
02-03-2009, 03:11 PM
I don't even know what a golliwog is I had to go look it up.Really? It just shows how times change. I used to read Enid Blyton as a child and there was always a golliwog doll like there was a sailor doll, a teddybear etc.. Also years ago, I remeber saving the tokens from Robertson's jam jars to send off for a little enamel Golliwog brooch. I used to think the Golliwog was really cute as a child, many of us did and we used to take them to school, it was like a craze. (God, I'm really showing my age now :lol:) I don't know the origins of the word Golliwog but think (and rightly so) Robertson's stopped using it once it became a racial insult. But not everybody who uses the term would use it as an insult knowingly. This is my point about the older generation. And Carol Thatcher (imo) is a rather strange, posh woman who is probably rather far removed from reality anyway.

thesupreme
02-03-2009, 03:11 PM
Hating politcial correctness in this context and overuse of that term is a get out of jail free card for closet racists everywhere. How can a black player , which been has to be likened to a racially offensive, derogatory white manufactured stereotype of a black person created years ago, be not deemed racist is beyond me...it simply isnt funny in todays world....

But then again, maybe its not you she is offending so that ok then right??

This board sucks ass sometimes, this isnt PC issue, its about whats appropriate for ALL viewers (no matter who they are) to see on our TV screens during an innocent tennis broadcast... losers :o

Jōris
02-03-2009, 03:12 PM
Coz 'e is black, innit.

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 03:12 PM
she hasn't been dropped anyway from what I've read. most sources are saying that she *might* get dropped.

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 03:18 PM
well not really if you were speaking in a purely objective manner but the term and image carries a lot of historical baggage in the UK.

fast_clay
02-03-2009, 04:21 PM
there were some biscuits called Arnott's Golliwogs, until they changed the name in the mid 90's...

a typical household conversation could go something like:

M: would you like anything from down the street...?
C: aww f*** yeah... grab me a pack of golliwogs would ya...

and... f*** yeah... they were good...

the name was changed to Scalliwags... sh!thouse effort...

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/product_scalliwag_1bbc_large.jpg

fast_clay
02-03-2009, 04:23 PM
And Carol Thatcher (imo) is a rather strange, posh woman who is probably rather far removed from reality anyway.

this would seem the most likely reasoning behind it... few kangaroos loose in the top paddock with this one...

Chris Seahorse
02-03-2009, 04:27 PM
Carol Thatcher is the daughter of Margaret Thatcher. What do you expect when you have such an example growing up?

Tankman
02-03-2009, 04:37 PM
This is just :silly:

Unless it can be proven that she used the word in a deliberate, premeditated way, which from the reporting obviously seems not to be the case, there is no way that sacking this woman could ever be the right response. If it's because of a legitimate fear of litigation, I really feel for the despicable state of media and free speech in Britain. Otherwise these people need to get their heads out of their arses and man up.

No offence to any British posters, but political correctness and hypocrisy related to it are way out of control in your country and especially in your country's media. By so ardently "defending" the rights of the minority, a whole lot of other rights seem to have been thrown out of the back of the truck too.

scoobs
02-03-2009, 04:49 PM
OTT reaction by the BBC in this case I think.

Svetlana.
02-03-2009, 04:52 PM
10-15 more years and Brits will completely loose their culture and identity :(

Tankman
02-03-2009, 05:00 PM
Agreed.

George Orwell anyone? 1984?

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 05:06 PM
yes because from people getting in trouble for using racial slurs, the next logical step is a one-party superstate where the minutest detail of everyone's personal life is subject to surveillance and government control.

rocketassist
02-03-2009, 05:09 PM
One thing I think people need to remember before trying to lynch the woman is that she is from a different generation. I know that this excuse/reason is used a lot but sometimes people use terminolgies out of a kind of ignorance as to what is acceptable now.

Her mother is probably the most odious creature Britain ever created.

Tankman
02-03-2009, 05:13 PM
yes because from people getting in trouble for using racial slurs, the next logical step is a one-party superstate where the minutest detail of everyone's personal life is subject to surveillance and government control.

:lol: Ok maybe GM is starting to affect me a bit and I'm making an obscenely large jump here... but I guess my point is as a society, Britain is showing worrying signs.

And they're worried it's too hot down here :p

fast_clay
02-03-2009, 05:16 PM
yeah... uk civil liberties have taken a real battering this decade... common decency seems like a narrow path to tread these days...

Tankman
02-03-2009, 05:20 PM
Hating politcial correctness in this context and overuse of that term is a get out of jail free card for closet racists everywhere. How can a black player , which been has to be likened to a racially offensive, derogatory white manufactured stereotype of a black person created years ago, be not deemed racist is beyond me...it simply isnt funny in todays world....

But then again, maybe its not you she is offending so that ok then right??

This board sucks ass sometimes, this isnt PC issue, its about whats appropriate for ALL viewers (no matter who they are) to see on our TV screens during an innocent tennis broadcast... losers :o

I think you're making an obscenely large jump here too.

Racism is one thing, but having people in constant fear that any slip of the tongue they make could cost them their job is another thing altogether - this is why I was inclined to make the jump to Orwell. No one's saying that there should be a get out of jail anything for an actual racist. But there is a line between deliberate behaviour and accidental behaviour, and the erosion of this reasonable distinction is starting to create a monster of its own that's just as bad a racism.

And yes, that monster is political correctness :p

If you read the article, it wasn't even during an "innocent tennis broadcast"... it was a conversation on the AO draw which looked like it took place in some morning talk show or something - correct me if I'm wrong.

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 05:23 PM
You are wrong. It was a private meeting of the staff of a morning show. It wasn't on film. It was fellow members of staff who found the comment offensive not some hypersensitive member of the general public who takes it upon themselves to get offended on behalf of others as a pasttime.

There was no fear of litigation involved.

Andi-M
02-03-2009, 05:36 PM
The comment she made was a strange one, and yes it had racial connatations, but it wasn't a sackable offense imo, but its no great loss anyway.

fast_clay
02-03-2009, 05:36 PM
You are wrong. It was a private meeting of the staff of a morning show. It wasn't on film. It was fellow members of staff who found the comment offensive not some hypersensitive member of the general public who takes it upon themselves to get offended on behalf of others as a pasttime.

There was no fear of litigation involved.

sounds like a pompous fool got undone by a fellow pompous fool, who by chance read something or other once upon a time...

Bernard Black
02-03-2009, 05:42 PM
Have to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure she used the term in an endearing fashion.

The British members of the board will remember football manager Ron Atkinson a few years ago exclaiming live on air about French international Marcel Desailley "...he [Desailly] is what is known in some schools as a fucking lazy thick nigger".

Now THAT'S racist :lol:

Andi-M
02-03-2009, 05:46 PM
Have to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure she used the term in an endearing fashion.

The British members of the board will remember football manager Ron Atkinson a few years ago exclaiming live on air about French international Marcel Desailley "...he [Desailly] is what is known in some schools as a fucking lazy thick nigger".

Now THAT'S racist :lol:

I remember that alright just plain dispicable Ron Atkinson is a sad excuse for a man. But yeah theres a big difference between what Carole said and what he said.

fast_clay
02-03-2009, 05:47 PM
commentator jim rosenthal issued an apology last year because he said on air that a particular athlete was 'a great spearchucker' during a javelin event..

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 05:49 PM
sounds like a pompous fool got undone by a fellow pompous fool, who by chance read something or other once upon a time...

yeah, probably someone with a personal grudge saw an opportunity and seized it...

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 05:51 PM
commentator jim rosenthal issued an apology last year because he said on air that a particular athlete was 'a great spearchucker' during a javelin event..

I got a bit annoyed when I was flicking around ESPN one day and heard the commentator say "spud munching mick" but I relaxed when I realised it was an extreme eating competition and that was the leading competitor's name.

fast_clay
02-03-2009, 05:57 PM
I got a bit annoyed when I was flicking around ESPN one day and heard the commentator say "spud munching mick" but I relaxed when I realised it was an extreme eating competition and that was the leading competitor's name.

:spit:

i bet spud munching mick was a real angry prick, who only performed at his best while drunk... and persisted in repeatedly telling his imaginary leprechaun friend Larry to 'feck orf willya larry ye coont'...

Henry Chinaski
02-03-2009, 05:59 PM
yup. he used to get violent with his cockney rival Jellied Eel Johnny quite often as well.

Now that was an epic sporting rivalry. Fed-Nadal my arse.

Corey Feldman
02-03-2009, 06:01 PM
racist or not anyone who disses La Monf should be sacked

Corey Feldman
02-03-2009, 06:08 PM
http://www.golliwogg.co.uk/images/dolls/golliwogg-1880.jpg:tape:

Tankman
02-03-2009, 06:18 PM
You are wrong. It was a private meeting of the staff of a morning show. It wasn't on film. It was fellow members of staff who found the comment offensive not some hypersensitive member of the general public who takes it upon themselves to get offended on behalf of others as a pasttime.

There was no fear of litigation involved.

Ok thanks for pointing that out :p

I guess if I had taken the time to at least read the first paragraph word-for-word, I wouldn't have missed the words 'after filming' :o :lol:

This just makes the incident more :retard: and IMHO, the BBC a bit more :cuckoo:

scoobs
02-03-2009, 06:24 PM
I think it's a shame that this got carried this far. Being held publicly responsible for what you say on air is one thing - being witchhunted for what you say to somebody in a private conversation that happens to be on BBC premises, that then is leaked out to the media, is something else again.

I agree with those who say that people who go mad over "political correctness" are sometimes using that as a coded complaint for not being allowed by society to be as offensive, inconsiderate and boorish towards others as they might have been in the past.

However political correctness can be taken too far in its desire to avoid offending absolutely everyone about absolutely everything. There is no legal or civil right that says you have the right to never be offended by what you hear, read or see. The point is striking the right balance, not denying that a balance needs to be struck, but in this case I think they failed to strike the right balance.

The Pro
02-03-2009, 06:29 PM
Incidentally Carol Thatcher won a british reality show that Martina Navratilova was on last year. She doesn't strike me as a racist, just a posh eccentric. She doesn't seem to take after her twat mum for one thing, or she definitely wouldn't have won I'm A Celebrity...

Pardon me for this also, but the similarity between Gael Monfils with his present haircut and with the old Golliwog characters is hardly negligible. I'd put a picture but there's no need. It's very likely that the dotty old bird saw a similarity and blurted it out before she thought about the repercussions.

She should apologise, because it is an offensive term, if she digs her heels in then her job may be forfeit, as the BBC is definitely under fire at the moment and they'll cut loose whoever is sinking the ship. Another issue entirely from racism is people saying that the BBC has lowered its standards, and a lot of people in the UK are getting in trouble for things they normally wouldn't because the dumb british media have a bone and they're going to chase after it.

scoobs
02-03-2009, 06:39 PM
Yes ever since the Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross minor-story-whipped-up-into-a-major-drama-about-broadcasting-standards event the BBC has been far more ready to react to the slightest criticism in this sort of area.

Raquel
02-03-2009, 06:46 PM
Carol Thatcher is the daughter of Margaret Thatcher. What do you expect when you have such an example growing up?Exactly ;)

While I don't think Carol is some sort of hardcore racist, it's still ridiculous comments she has made or the Royal Family have recently made are brushed under the carpet as innocent. They may be, but say Jade Goody says it (or something similar)? She's vilified.

Lullaby
02-03-2009, 06:51 PM
Her mother is probably the most odious creature Britain ever created.

You are joking right?

I would love to have maggie in charge right now despite her faults compared to brown who is single handedly destroying these glorious isles

scoobs
02-03-2009, 06:52 PM
Can we not get started on politics.

Lullaby
02-03-2009, 07:02 PM
Can we not get started on politics.

No problem boss, i will leave it at that :wavey:

Melly Flew Us
02-03-2009, 07:27 PM
.... Pardon me for this also, but the similarity between Gael Monfils with his present haircut and with the old Golliwog characters is hardly negligible....

which is the reason why the caricature images were dropped, no?
i remember eating robertson's jam when i was little, and i also remember being called a wog. if i'm conflicted what is a person like carol thatcher supposed to do?

i think that since she is much older than me she ought to be able to recall why golliwogs fell out of favour (i don't know - anybody older than me care to detail any particular public furore or campaign or whatnot?).

i also feel that something said in private is a good indicator of your real feelings but, whatever, i'm not bitter.

Herdwick
02-03-2009, 07:28 PM
I think it's a shame that this got carried this far. Being held publicly responsible for what you say on air is one thing - being witchhunted for what you say to somebody in a private conversation that happens to be on BBC premises, that then is leaked out to the media, is something else again.

I agree with those who say that people who go mad over "political correctness" are sometimes using that as a coded complaint for not being allowed by society to be as offensive, inconsiderate and boorish towards others as they might have been in the past.

However political correctness can be taken too far in its desire to avoid offending absolutely everyone about absolutely everything. There is no legal or civil right that says you have the right to never be offended by what you hear, read or see. The point is striking the right balance, not denying that a balance needs to be struck, but in this case I think they failed to strike the right balance.

:hatoff: As far as I can gather this remark was made in a private conversation and 'reported' later. The context of the conversation itself does not seem to have been remotely racist - in poor taste possibly, as are no doubt a great many private conversations - yet the BBC are rushing to cover their backs.

And I wish people would stop visiting the perceived sins of the parents upon the children. Whose daughter she is is not relevant here, other than to ensure a banner headline for the story of course.

tangerine_dream
02-03-2009, 07:31 PM
I agree with those who say that people who go mad over "political correctness" are sometimes using that as a coded complaint for not being allowed by society to be as offensive, inconsiderate and boorish towards others as they might have been in the past.
I think it has more to do with the fact that everybody's lost their marbles.

~*BGT*~
02-03-2009, 09:52 PM
I just find it a bit funny that non-black people in this thread are saying that something that is CLEARLY racist and offensive to black people is not a big deal. You can't relate. :shrug:

well not really if you were speaking in a purely objective manner but the term and image carries a lot of historical baggage in the UK.

In the US too. :tape: I should know.

scoobs
02-03-2009, 10:03 PM
I just find it a bit funny that non-black people in this thread are saying that something that is CLEARLY racist and offensive to black people is not a big deal. You can't relate. :shrug:



In the US too. :tape: I should know.
I'm not saying it wasn't offensive. I'm saying she said something in a PRIVATE conversation that someone heard, leaked it out, and now she's in all kinds of doodoo because of it. She's apologised, and from the context of her comments, which I fully understood, I fully accept that it wasn't meant in any way to be a racist attack on anybody.

As for non-black people trying to say it's not a big deal...well as a non-black person myself who cannot relate, I'm equally as wary of pretending to speak for black people and saying something IS offensive to them as I am wary of speaking for black people and saying it ISN'T a big deal :shrug:

GlennMirnyi
02-03-2009, 10:03 PM
Agreed.

George Orwell anyone? 1984?

Airstrip Number 1? :p

Herdwick
02-03-2009, 10:05 PM
The point here is that the repercussions follow from what was said in a private conversation. What was actually said is almost irrelevant.

~*BGT*~
02-03-2009, 10:09 PM
The point here is that the repercussions follow from what was said in a private conversation. What was actually said is almost irrelevant.

To that, I agree. The same this with Phelps. What he does in private is a private matter. The same with this issue. But for people to say that what she said isn't a big deal? :tape: :help:

~*BGT*~
02-03-2009, 10:13 PM
I'm not saying it wasn't offensive. I'm saying she said something in a PRIVATE conversation that someone heard, leaked it out, and now she's in all kinds of doodoo because of it. She's apologised, and from the context of her comments, which I fully understood, I fully accept that it wasn't meant in any way to be a racist attack on anybody.

As for non-black people trying to say it's not a big deal...well as a non-black person myself who cannot relate, I'm equally as wary of pretending to speak for black people and saying something IS offensive to them as I am wary of speaking for black people and saying it ISN'T a big deal :shrug:

I agree with your last sentence. That's why I refuse to comment on situations with which I cannot relate. Or if I can relate in a small way, I will say something. Like Federer having a breakdown during the final. He was under a lot of pressure. I can relate to that because I put myself under a lot of pressure and I have had similar episodes going back to when I was just 11. So, I cannot criticize Fed because I know how he feels, in a very scaled down way. :shrug:

I am not gay. But I cannot even imagine what it must feel for you to hear someone use the F word either towards you, your loved ones, or just in jest. Just like most on this board cannot relate to how I feel when I'm called the N word, like I was called yesterday. So, don't say that people shouldn't be offended by something when you cannot relate to it. That last sentence wasn't to you scoobs but to others in this thread. :wavey:

Bernard Black
02-03-2009, 10:14 PM
To that, I agree. The same this with Phelps. What he does in private is a private matter. The same with this issue. But for people to say that what she said isn't a big deal? :tape: :help:

Because it was said in jest = not to be taken seriously = not a big deal

There are much more serious issues in the world at the moment.

Clydey
02-03-2009, 10:32 PM
Hating politcial correctness in this context and overuse of that term is a get out of jail free card for closet racists everywhere. How can a black player , which been has to be likened to a racially offensive, derogatory white manufactured stereotype of a black person created years ago, be not deemed racist is beyond me...it simply isnt funny in todays world....

But then again, maybe its not you she is offending so that ok then right??

This board sucks ass sometimes, this isnt PC issue, its about whats appropriate for ALL viewers (no matter who they are) to see on our TV screens during an innocent tennis broadcast... losers :o

So if someone says, correctly, that Monfils' hair looks like that of a golliwog doll, they are a racist? Racism is discrimination. It is not the act of observing a similarity between a black person and a golliwog doll, particularly when the observation is accurate.

Was it naive of her to think that the comment would go unpunished? Sure. That doesn't mean she should have been punished, nor does it make her a racist. What a lot of fuss over nothing. Grow up.

Clydey
02-03-2009, 10:40 PM
To that, I agree. The same this with Phelps. What he does in private is a private matter. The same with this issue. But for people to say that what she said isn't a big deal? :tape: :help:

It isn't a big deal. It was an accurate observation. It was in no way meant to disparage another race.

~*BGT*~
02-03-2009, 10:47 PM
So if someone says, correctly, that Monfils' hair looks like that of a golliwog doll, they are a racist? Racism is discrimination. It is not the act of observing a similarity between a black person and a golliwog doll, particularly when the observation is accurate.

Was it naive of her to think that the comment would go unpunished? Sure. That doesn't mean she should have been punished, nor does it make her a racist. What a lot of fuss over nothing. Grow up.

So, was it alright for the Spanish Fed Cup team to pose for a picture making Asian eyes or would it be fine to mock a disabled person just because that may be accurate?

~*BGT*~
02-03-2009, 10:48 PM
It isn't a big deal. It was an accurate observation. It was in no way meant to disparage another race.

And because you're black, you can relate, right?

Bernard Black
02-03-2009, 10:50 PM
And because you're black, you can relate, right?

You missed Clydey's point - it isn't about race.

Clydey
02-03-2009, 10:55 PM
So, was it alright for the Spanish Fed Cup team to pose for a picture making Asian eyes or would it be fine to mock a disabled person just because that may be accurate?

It's about intent. If someone walks up to you and aggressively refers to you using the "N" word, there is obvious intent to offend. If someone makes an accurate observation during a private conversation, there is obviously no such intent.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm black. It's about common sense, context, and intent. There are few things I despise more than someone being unfairly tagged as a racist.

GlennMirnyi
02-03-2009, 10:57 PM
BGT playing the race card...

Andi-M
02-03-2009, 11:01 PM
Im mixed-race myself, I find the comment inappropriate but dont take great offense, I know some black people that would take offense as i know some that wouldn't. You have to be able to see why it can be seen as offensive, but at the same time its no worse comparing Nadal to Mowgli or a pig etc.

~*BGT*~
02-03-2009, 11:05 PM
It's about intent. If someone walks up to you and aggressively refers to you using the "N" word, there is obvious intent to offend. If someone makes an accurate observation during a private conversation, there is obviously no such intent.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm black. It's about common sense, context, and intent. There are few things I despise more than someone being unfairly tagged as a racist.

I'm in English Comp right now. I professor says that how you come across in your writing has nothing to do with your intentions, but how your audience perceives it. I think that is similar in this case. And no, I'm not calling you a racist as I cannot read your mind, but I do perceive you to be racially insensitive as I have read comments like these before from you.

fast_clay
02-03-2009, 11:11 PM
go blow your bagpipes else where you tartan highland sheep rapist...

Clydey
02-03-2009, 11:21 PM
I'm in English Comp right now. I professor says that how you come across in your writing has nothing to do with your intentions, but how your audience perceives it. I think that is similar in this case. And no, I'm not calling you a racist as I cannot read your mind, but I do perceive you to be racially insensitive as I have read comments like these before from you.

I didn't say you were calling me a racist. I was talking specifically about Carol Thatcher. And I could not care less about what your professor said, since what he is suggesting is ridiculous. For all intents and purposes you are suggesting that we ignore what Carol Thatcher meant and put our own spin on it. I wonder how you would react if you said something completely innocent and people decided to ignore what you actually meant in favour of a more sinister interpretation.

Carol Thatcher made an observation. There was no intent to cause offence. It just so happens that Gael Monfils does share in common with golliwogs a particular hairstyle. That golliwog dolls are now a taboo subject does not change the fact that it was an accurate observation. Similarly, if someone compared my hair to a Ken doll what that doll represents simply does not come into it. There is no deeper, more sinister intent. It is an innocent observation that is in no way meant to disparage.

Clydey
02-03-2009, 11:27 PM
go blow your bagpipes else where you tartan highland sheep rapist...

Some bagpipe jokes for you, old friend.

Q. What's the difference between a bagpipe and an onion?
A. No one cries when you chop up an bagpipe.

Q. Why do bagpipers always walk when they play?
A. Moving targets are harder to hit.

Donald MacDonald from the Isle of Skye (or maybe it was Neil McNeil from Barra, but anyway..) went to study at an English university and was living in the hall of residence with all the other students there. After he had been there a month, his mother came to visit him (no doubt carrying reinforcements of tatties, salt herring, oatmeal and whisky).

"And how do you find the English students, Donald?" she asked.
"Mother," he replied, "they're such terrible, noisy people. The one on that side keeps banging his head on the wall and won't stop. The one on the other side screams and screams all night."
"Oh Donald! How do you manage to put up with these awful noisy English neighbours?"
"Mother, I do nothing. I just ignore them. I just stay here quietly, playing my bagpipes."

tangerine_dream
02-04-2009, 12:04 AM
;)

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2848/doonesbury75899cw6.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Tankman
02-04-2009, 12:05 AM
Ok massive post coming :p

I just find it a bit funny that non-black people in this thread are saying that something that is CLEARLY racist and offensive to black people is not a big deal. You can't relate. :shrug:

In the US too. :tape: I should know.

Ok I'm not black. However although it shouldn't mean anything, I'm also not white. I'm Chinese. And although as a minority group, Chinese are nowhere near as high-profile as African-Americans/African-Europeans/Negroes, historically vilification and racism towards Chinese has been just as disgusting, offensive and racist as that directed towards black people. Having personal experience of both intentionally directed and "jokingly" delivered racist comments, I believe I'm in a position to relate on some level. However, I don't believe I have to justify myself in this manner and it'd be best for you to ignore the above paragraph.

I'm not saying it wasn't offensive. I'm saying she said something in a PRIVATE conversation that someone heard, leaked it out, and now she's in all kinds of doodoo because of it. She's apologised, and from the context of her comments, which I fully understood, I fully accept that it wasn't meant in any way to be a racist attack on anybody.

As for non-black people trying to say it's not a big deal...well as a non-black person myself who cannot relate, I'm equally as wary of pretending to speak for black people and saying something IS offensive to them as I am wary of speaking for black people and saying it ISN'T a big deal :shrug:

my sentiments bolded + first paragraph

To that, I agree. The same this with Phelps. What he does in private is a private matter. The same with this issue. But for people to say that what she said isn't a big deal? :tape: :help:

Well the reason why we don't believe it's a big deal is explained in Clydey's response - INTENT

I am not gay. But I cannot even imagine what it must feel for you to hear someone use the F word either towards you, your loved ones, or just in jest. Just like most on this board cannot relate to how I feel when I'm called the N word, like I was called yesterday. So, don't say that people shouldn't be offended by something when you cannot relate to it. That last sentence wasn't to you scoobs but to others in this thread. :wavey:

Firstly, I agree with this entirely. However, this is not about whether you are offended or not. It's whether the comment warrants this woman losing her job or not, and I've already given my reasons as to why I believe this is ludicrous.

So, was it alright for the Spanish Fed Cup team to pose for a picture making Asian eyes or would it be fine to mock a disabled person just because that may be accurate?

Huh? No way in hell.... plus Clydey's response below.

It's about intent. If someone walks up to you and aggressively refers to you using the "N" word, there is obvious intent to offend. If someone makes an accurate observation during a private conversation, there is obviously no such intent.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm black. It's about common sense, context, and intent. There are few things I despise more than someone being unfairly tagged as a racist.

I'm in English Comp right now. I professor says that how you come across in your writing has nothing to do with your intentions, but how your audience perceives it. I think that is similar in this case. And no, I'm not calling you a racist as I cannot read your mind, but I do perceive you to be racially insensitive as I have read comments like these before from you.

I didn't say you were calling me a racist. I was talking specifically about Carol Thatcher. And I could not care less about what your professor said, since what he is suggesting is ridiculous. For all intents and purposes you are suggesting that we ignore what Carol Thatcher meant and put our own spin on it. I wonder how you would react if you said something completely innocent and people decided to ignore what you actually meant in favour of a more sinister interpretation.

Firstly there isn't anything wrong with what her professor said. As so effortlessly seen by the deconstruction of Shakespeare's works alone into a million different interpretations, on the face of things intentions don't matter at all, because what you see is what you get. However, if you do know the intentions and the context, it is wrong to keep your previous interpretation that does not take this into account. In this case, with the knowledge we have of her intentions and the context of this case, my conclusion is that BBC's decision is a totally disproportionate to what she did, however stupid and ignorant her thinking was.

Tankman
02-04-2009, 12:07 AM
;)

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2848/doonesbury75899cw6.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Amen. If I knew how to produce the nodding smilie I'd do it :lol:

Doonesbury right?

Clydey
02-04-2009, 12:20 AM
Firstly there isn't anything wrong with what her professor said. As so effortlessly seen by the deconstruction of Shakespeare's works alone into a million different interpretations, on the face of things intentions don't matter at all, because what you see is what you get. However, if you do know the intentions and the context, it is wrong to keep your previous interpretation that does not take this into account. In this case, with the knowledge we have of her intentions and the context of this case, my conclusion is that BBC's decision is a totally disproportionate to what she did, however stupid and ignorant her thinking was.

I meant applying it to this situation is ridiculous. It's one thing having your own interpretation of someone's writing. It is another thing to twist someone's words into something sinister. BGT's post seemed to be implying that her professor was suggesting interpretation as a general rule, applicable regardless of the circumstances.

Tankman
02-04-2009, 12:26 AM
I meant applying it to this situation is ridiculous. It's one thing having your own interpretation of someone's writing. It is another thing to twist someone's words into something sinister. BGT's post seemed to be implying that her professor was suggesting interpretation as a general rule, applicable regardless of the circumstances.

Ah right. Well in any case I think I got around to something close to what you intended :cool:

amierin
02-04-2009, 12:39 AM
For her co-worker to react the way he did and for the BBC to take the action it did there has to be history here somewhere.

shotgun
02-04-2009, 12:41 AM
If she said it in a private conversation, it was pretty poor form to make it public. Shame on the person who brought it up, if they had any issues with her comment, why not say it directly to her?

wilmar
02-04-2009, 02:04 AM
Really? It just shows how times change. I used to read Enid Blyton as a child and there was always a golliwog doll like there was a sailor doll, a teddybear etc.. Also years ago, I remeber saving the tokens from Robertson's jam jars to send off for a little enamel Golliwog brooch. I used to think the Golliwog was really cute as a child, many of us did and we used to take them to school, it was like a craze. (God, I'm really showing my age now :lol:) I don't know the origins of the word Golliwog but think (and rightly so) Robertson's stopped using it once it became a racial insult. But not everybody who uses the term would use it as an insult knowingly. This is my point about the older generation. And Carol Thatcher (imo) is a rather strange, posh woman who is probably rather far removed from reality anyway.

I grew up reading Enid too, and also never knew of any negative connections with regard to the Golliwog till much later in life when it was brought to my attention.
Still, it is not an outright blatant racist slurr like some other "n" words.
Btw, I have a different take on Jelena, I think she looks quite tranny to me. Oooops! Is she being discriminated by me now?

I'm in English Comp right now. I professor says that how you come across in your writing has nothing to do with your intentions, but how your audience perceives it. I think that is similar in this case.

Indeed, for successful communication to take place. The speaker's intention and the listener's perception must match.
Obviously there is a lapse in this case. Was the speaker's intent racist? Or was the listener over-sensitive to something that wasn't intended. We will never know.

Also, what is also interesting is that the listener here is only a third party and not the subject of the topic. It would've been a more "justified" case had Monfils been the listener and he is the one who lodge the complaint.

Still, I think to be dropped for a comment that is not as clearcut is a wee bit harsh. Perhaps just a suspension would suffice.

~*BGT*~
02-04-2009, 02:48 AM
I meant applying it to this situation is ridiculous. It's one thing having your own interpretation of someone's writing. It is another thing to twist someone's words into something sinister. BGT's post seemed to be implying that her professor was suggesting interpretation as a general rule, applicable regardless of the circumstances.

I agree. I wasn't saying that this woman should have been fired. I don't think she should have. She said something in private (without being videotaped. Only Prince Harry could get away with that). It should have been a private issue and her public apology should have sufficed. :shrug:

My point is that in my HUMBLE opinion, I don't think people should have been quick to say that what she said wasn't a big deal nor should they chastise ones who ARE offended by what she said as being overly PC. That is because you cannot relate to the negative connotations. Just like I cannot relate to a homosexual's feelings about the F word or the Brits' reaction to the Johnathon Ross/Russell Brand thing... I'm not going to judge them and say, "You're being overly sensitive about this. Get over it. It's not a big deal." Well, it's obviously a big deal to SOMEONE and I'm going to try my best to understand them even if I cannot personally relate.

I'm not sure about your background Clydey, I'm not targeting you, but I am quoting your post, but I grew up in a very racially and culturally diverse environment. Some of my friends in grade school were black, white, biracial, multiracial, Asian (Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese...), Indian, Bangladeshi, Belgian, Iranian, Canadian, Mexican, atheists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and probably every mix thereof.

I have always found other cultures fascinating so I always tried to understand where other people were coming from. I was a member of the Arabic Club although I couldn't tell you what a single symbol meant. I was a member of the Indian Club and the Chinese Club and the African-American Heritage Club and if there were a Caucasian Heritage Club, I would have joined, no doubt! Actually, the Caucasian Heritage Club was codenamed Teenage Republicans :haha: Bad joke. :angel:

So if, for example, one of my Chinese friends was offended by something, I wouldn't say, "Why is this bothering you? You're overreacting. It's not a big deal." Well, it's not my right to say how he/she should feel. I'm not Chinese, never will be, and cannot fully understand how he/she feels. But I can TRY to understand where he/she is coming from. Am I coming across? :confused: Honestly, I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just wondering if I somehow got my point across. :)

Actually, South Park can describe my point better than I can. :p

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155500

the graduate
02-04-2009, 09:38 AM
there is no justification for racism whether its said in private or public place,she is a grown woman and must be responsible enough to know whats vulgar and what is not

Graffite
02-04-2009, 11:09 AM
Apparently she was talking about Serena Williams. If so, I'd like to hear Serena's reaction.

Clydey
02-04-2009, 11:42 AM
I agree. I wasn't saying that this woman should have been fired. I don't think she should have. She said something in private (without being videotaped. Only Prince Harry could get away with that). It should have been a private issue and her public apology should have sufficed. :shrug:

My point is that in my HUMBLE opinion, I don't think people should have been quick to say that what she said wasn't a big deal nor should they chastise ones who ARE offended by what she said as being overly PC. That is because you cannot relate to the negative connotations. Just like I cannot relate to a homosexual's feelings about the F word or the Brits' reaction to the Johnathon Ross/Russell Brand thing... I'm not going to judge them and say, "You're being overly sensitive about this. Get over it. It's not a big deal." Well, it's obviously a big deal to SOMEONE and I'm going to try my best to understand them even if I cannot personally relate.

I'm not sure about your background Clydey, I'm not targeting you, but I am quoting your post, but I grew up in a very racially and culturally diverse environment. Some of my friends in grade school were black, white, biracial, multiracial, Asian (Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese...), Indian, Bangladeshi, Belgian, Iranian, Canadian, Mexican, atheists, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics and probably every mix thereof.

I have always found other cultures fascinating so I always tried to understand where other people were coming from. I was a member of the Arabic Club although I couldn't tell you what a single symbol meant. I was a member of the Indian Club and the Chinese Club and the African-American Heritage Club and if there were a Caucasian Heritage Club, I would have joined, no doubt! Actually, the Caucasian Heritage Club was codenamed Teenage Republicans :haha: Bad joke. :angel:

So if, for example, one of my Chinese friends was offended by something, I wouldn't say, "Why is this bothering you? You're overreacting. It's not a big deal." Well, it's not my right to say how he/she should feel. I'm not Chinese, never will be, and cannot fully understand how he/she feels. But I can TRY to understand where he/she is coming from. Am I coming across? :confused: Honestly, I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm just wondering if I somehow got my point across. :)

Actually, South Park can describe my point better than I can. :p

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155500

You did get your point across. I simply don't agree and I reject the premise of what you are saying. That aside, what she said is not offensive for the very reason I explained earlier. There was no intent. It was a benign observation. Let's say, for example, that Monfils' had the same hairstyle as a troll doll and Carol Thatcher observed the similarity. Would that be offensive? Of course not. Monfils just happens to share a similar hairstyle with a type of doll that is now taboo. She did not disparage black people. It is not as though she referred to him using the "N" word. It was merely an obervation, that in fact turns out to be quite accurate. Why go out of your way to take offence? I honestly do not think it's healthy for society to be forced to walk on eggshells for fear of offending people. If anything, it breeds resentment. You have your views on the matter and I have mine. You are free to find her remarks offensive. I just don't agree with you. It's no big deal. :shrug:

On a sidenote, please stop deleting posts, RagingLamb. You are verging on self-parody with your incessant deleting and promotion of censorship.

JolánGagó
02-04-2009, 11:46 AM
So, was it alright for the Spanish Fed Cup team to pose for a picture making Asian eyes or would it be fine to mock a disabled person just because that may be accurate?

Both cases have nothing in common. "Making Asian eyes" is not derogatory in any way, it just reflects reality or at least reality such as most caucasians see it, exactly the same as most Chinese see us as having big noses. Should that offend me? Get a clue FFS.

Doggy
02-04-2009, 11:51 AM
what a whore :o

the graduate
02-04-2009, 12:29 PM
Apparently she was talking about Serena Williams. If so, I'd like to hear Serena's reaction.she dissed all black tennis players and thats whats wrong with this sport that some people will never change their spots.The best revenge for Serena is to win Wimbledon singles and doubles that will shame the mf:rolleyes:

The Pro
02-04-2009, 06:37 PM
Apparently she said it about Jo Tsonga. So now am totally confused...:confused:

Snoo Foo
02-04-2009, 06:54 PM
Monfils just happens to share a similar hairstyle with a type of doll that is now taboo.... It was merely an obervation, that in fact turns out to be quite accurate.

Apparently she said it about Jo Tsonga. So now am totally confused...:confused:

OK Clydey, assuming she was talking about Tsonga (and I've read conflicting reports so... :shrug:), would that change your opinion of her (no longer remotely accurate) observation?

MurrayFan1
02-04-2009, 07:40 PM
Maybe she was line judging on a Lleyton Hewitt match.

Clydey
02-04-2009, 07:40 PM
OK Clydey, assuming she was talking about Tsonga (and I've read conflicting reports so... :shrug:), would that change your opinion of her (no longer remotely accurate) observation?

Naturally. Unless I'm missing some similarity between Tsonga and golliwogs. Not that it would make her a racist, mind you. That is not a label that should be handed out lightly.

Having said all that, I'm fairly confident it was in reference to Monfils. We've also had people suggesting that she was talking about Serena Williams, seemingly with nothing to back it up.

forbiddenfruit
02-04-2009, 08:30 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1134663/Furious-Carol-Thatcher-accuses-BBC-vendetta-leaking-golliwog-joke.html

Apparently, she was referring to Tsonga. He reminded her of this figure that used to appear on her Jam pot when she was growing up as a child: http://www.understandingslavery.com/citizen/scaled/96393701.jpeg [This being the figure on Jam pots]. :unsure:

I guess the hair is curly :unsure:... but if tsonga was really the target... her comments make me even more uncomfortable.

Henry Chinaski
02-04-2009, 08:35 PM
haha. the plot thickens

shotgun
02-04-2009, 08:41 PM
Apparently she was talking about Ljubicic. Oh wait.

forbiddenfruit
02-04-2009, 08:47 PM
Apparently she was talking about Ljubicic. Oh wait.

The Serena comment was probably meant to be a joke by that poster, the Monfils comparison seemed 'logical' to some people (:rolleyes:) - but if you google 'Thatcher Tsonga' - several articles come up.

Tsonga was the target! Apparently...

Sofonda Cox
02-04-2009, 08:49 PM
BBC is stupid. I hope Carol gets a job on Channel 4 - they don't give a shit

Henry Chinaski
02-04-2009, 08:51 PM
apparently Adrian Chiles and Jo Brand were among those who took offence to the remark. they're 2 people not exactly known for being pc....

Melly Flew Us
02-04-2009, 09:02 PM
Because it was said in jest = not to be taken seriously = not a big deal

There are much more serious issues in the world at the moment.
yes there are much more serious things in the world but if i heard that someone said that i looked like a golliwog, or was like a golliwog or was a golliwog, joke or no joke i wouldn't be happy and i'd make sure that they wouldn't be happy either.

i don't know who was backstage with thatcher but i should imagine that she wouldn't have cracked that 'joke' in 'mixed' company. if she did please let me know.

Melly Flew Us
02-04-2009, 09:03 PM
BBC is stupid. I hope Carol gets a job on Channel 4 - they don't give a shit
you're right - davina still has a job with them.

Graffite
02-04-2009, 09:18 PM
The Serena comment was probably meant to be a joke by that poster, the Monfils comparison seemed 'logical' to some people (:rolleyes:) - but if you google 'Thatcher Tsonga' - several articles come up.

Tsonga was the target! Apparently...


lol, I wish it had been Serena! Can you imagine getting a quote from her about it? :D

The Pro
02-04-2009, 10:00 PM
That Daily Mail article makes bizarre and depressing reading.

- The Johnathan Ross witch-hunt refuses to abate. It's 2 entirely different gaffes and shouldn't be compared.

- I bet Chiles leaked it, he can be a bit of a high and mighty nob.

- Seems to me that after it leaked the BBC are bending over backwards to make an example of her, so that people will say 'The BBC don't muck about anymore with offensive behaviour.'

It is very odd that a private, off the cuff remark suddenly becomes everyone's business. She seems dumbfounded that it is. I don't blame her. She didn't say it on TV. She said it to 2 other people and suddenly it's in the newspapers. I'd be pissed. At worst it's an ill-judged joke.

- She says she's apologised but not in the grovelling fashion directed to her. That's her business. This is all getting ridiculous and it borders on the police-state analogies that people were talking about earlier.

I think what she said was along the lines of, when talking about Verdasco, 'He's the one who beat the Golliwog in the last round.' So I think that's Tsonga. There's no way a brit with half a brain would say that unless they were making some joke analogy, otherwise she would have just called him a wog, which would have been terrible.

- It's hardly an anti-Thatcher conspiracy. That's just mental.

Lacey
02-04-2009, 10:24 PM
apparently Adrian Chiles and Jo Brand were among those who took offence to the remark. they're 2 people not exactly known for being pc....

They took offence but they didn't complain about it, it was the staff at the show that complained :rolleyes:

forbiddenfruit
02-04-2009, 10:45 PM
It is very odd that a private, off the cuff remark suddenly becomes everyone's business. She seems dumbfounded that it is. I don't blame her. She didn't say it on TV. She said it to 2 other people and suddenly it's in the newspapers. I'd be pissed. At worst it's an ill-judged joke.

- She says she's apologised but not in the grovelling fashion directed to her. That's her business. This is all getting ridiculous and it borders on the police-state analogies that people were talking about earlier.

I think what she said was along the lines of, when talking about Verdasco, 'He's the one who beat the Golliwog in the last round.' So I think that's Tsonga. There's no way a brit with half a brain would say that unless they were making some joke analogy, otherwise she would have just called him a wog, which would have been terrible.

:eek: Um wut?

With respect to paragraph one; Firstly, I think whether it was said in private is hardly the point at this stage. She used an offensive word, in it's most offensive context (she used a word born from Ministrel shows which were designed to humiliate and dengigrate black people, to describe a black person who barely resembles the image). That's the point now surely. I'd be extremely saddened if there's an attitude of 'saying such things is fine and dandy so long as no-one hears you' - this is in part how some neverending prejudices and discrimination are perpetuated. It's unaccepted full stop. Secondly, at worst it isn't just an ill-judged joke. Melly Flew Us raised a good point when he said 'say it in a mixed crowd'. You have to ask yourself would she have said this in a mixed crowd with some black people in the room. I bet the answer is NO. This is probably what I find most uncomfortable. If you can't say it in a mixed crowd you probably shouldn't be saying it at all. At worst, it's more than just an ill-judged joke. [But we need a proper transcript to make any solid conclusions].

With respect to paragraph two; I disagree. I don't think this borders on police state and disagree with those earlier claiming this is Political correctness gone wild. Firstly because you can't jump on that ship (or the 'she is a racist' ship - I don't think there's enough evidence to label her that, but the jury is out on her comments) considering full details have not been disclosed. Secondly, her being sacked maybe OTT (and it’s clear it’s probably happening because of the Jonathan Ross saga) but not asking her to apologise like she means it (instead of making excuses by saying it was a joke). The BBC is funded by licence fee payers, more than any other broadcaster have an obligation to be sensitive to the viewing public. Clearly some people will take offence with what she said; the golliwog brand wasn’t banned for nothing. It was banned so people could stop throwing the word/idea around because it was offensive. On the most basic level, black people shouldn’t have to be reminded of the whole golliwog saga, it wasn’t an innocent accident – but a calculated attempted to humiliate and denigrate them. I know some of you guys will think this is ridiculous PC stuff, but it’s not up to you to tell others what they should find offensive. Golliwog is not a word that has to be used, it is not central to the English language.

With respect to paragraph three; :eek:. If that’s what she said – it’s no doubt people complained. It doesn’t make her a racist (one ambiguous incident is not enough), but that’s obviously offensive. She would have referred to a black person as a golliwog. I mean.. lol ... she may as well have said the N word. It doesn’t matter if you say it in a jokey way or not, the golliwog concept is offensive by design… it makes me very uncomfortable thinking that was what she said. Wog is just an abbreviated version, doesn’t make it cuter IMO.

I didn’t mean to rant, I’ve been glimpsing the thread for a while but couln’t be bothered to post because I should be studying for an exam. :bolt:

Bernard Black
02-04-2009, 10:54 PM
:eek: Um wut?

With respect to paragraph one; Firstly, I think whether it was said in private is hardly the point at this stage. She used an offensive word, in it's most offensive context (she used a word born from Ministrel shows which were designed to humiliate and dengigrate black people, to describe a black person who barely resembles the image). That's the point now surely. I'd be extremely saddened if there's an attitude of 'saying such things is fine and dandy so long as no-one hears you' - this is in part how some neverending prejudices and discrimination are perpetuated. It's unaccepted full stop. Secondly, at worst it isn't just an ill-judged joke. Melly Flew Us raised a good point when he said 'say it in a mixed crowd'. You have to ask yourself would she have said this in a mixed crowd with some black people in the room. I bet the answer is NO. This is probably what I find most uncomfortable. If you can't say it in a mixed crowd you probably shouldn't be saying it at all. At worst, it's more than just an ill-judged joke. [But we need a proper transcript to make any solid conclusions].

With respect to paragraph two; I disagree. I don't think this borders on police state and disagree with those earlier claiming this is Political correctness gone wild. Firstly because you can't jump on that ship (or the 'she is a racist' ship - I don't think there's enough evidence to label her that, but the jury is out on her comments) considering full details have not been disclosed. Secondly, her being sacked maybe OTT (and it’s clear it’s probably happening because of the Jonathan Ross saga) but not asking her to apologise like she means it (instead of making excuses by saying it was a joke). The BBC is funded by licence fee payers, more than any other broadcaster have an obligation to be sensitive to the viewing public. Clearly some people will take offence with what she said; the golliwog brand wasn’t banned for nothing. It was banned so people could stop throwing the word/idea around because it was offensive. On the most basic level, black people shouldn’t have to be reminded of the whole golliwog saga, it wasn’t an innocent accident – but a calculated attempted to humiliate and denigrate them. I know some of you guys will think this is ridiculous PC stuff, but it’s not up to you to tell others what they should find offensive. Golliwog is not a word that has to be used, it is not central to the English language.

With respect to paragraph three; :eek:. If that’s what she said – it’s no doubt people complained. It doesn’t make her a racist (one ambiguous incident is not enough), but that’s obviously offensive. She would have referred to a black person as a golliwog. I mean.. lol ... she may as well have said the N word. It doesn’t matter if you say it in a jokey way or not, the golliwog concept is offensive by design… it makes me very uncomfortable thinking that was what she said. Wog is just an abbreviated version, doesn’t make it cuter IMO.

I didn’t mean to rant, I’ve been glimpsing the thread for a while but couln’t be bothered to post because I should be studying for an exam. :bolt:

There are quite a few people in this thread who seem to lead perfect lives in which they never say anything which could be construed as offensive towards others. You are all saints and heroes and we should follow your shining example.

Andi-M
02-04-2009, 11:02 PM
Ive changed my mind knowing the full story and i think she should be sacked.

'He's the one who beat the Golliwog in the last round.' - This is derogatory end of.

Bernard Black
02-04-2009, 11:08 PM
Ive changed my mind knowing the full story and i think she should be sacked.

'He's the one who beat the Golliwog in the last round.' - This is derogatory end of.

You advocate someone's sacking based on something you read in a tabloid article :rolleyes:

I'm staying out of this thread now, I can't see us all reaching agreement and we'll most likely never know the true story.

~*BGT*~
02-04-2009, 11:11 PM
:eek: Um wut?

With respect to paragraph one; Firstly, I think whether it was said in private is hardly the point at this stage. She used an offensive word, in it's most offensive context (she used a word born from Ministrel shows which were designed to humiliate and dengigrate black people, to describe a black person who barely resembles the image). That's the point now surely. I'd be extremely saddened if there's an attitude of 'saying such things is fine and dandy so long as no-one hears you' - this is in part how some neverending prejudices and discrimination are perpetuated. It's unaccepted full stop. Secondly, at worst it isn't just an ill-judged joke. Melly Flew Us raised a good point when he said 'say it in a mixed crowd'. You have to ask yourself would she have said this in a mixed crowd with some black people in the room. I bet the answer is NO. This is probably what I find most uncomfortable. If you can't say it in a mixed crowd you probably shouldn't be saying it at all. At worst, it's more than just an ill-judged joke. .

With respect to paragraph two; I disagree. I don't think this borders on police state and disagree with those earlier claiming this is Political correctness gone wild. Firstly because you can't jump on that ship (or the 'she is a racist' ship - I don't think there's enough evidence to label her that, but the jury is out on her comments) considering full details have not been disclosed. Secondly, her being sacked maybe OTT (and it’s clear it’s probably happening because of the Jonathan Ross saga) but not asking her to apologise like she means it (instead of making excuses by saying it was a joke). The BBC is funded by licence fee payers, more than any other broadcaster have an obligation to be sensitive to the viewing public. Clearly some people will take offence with what she said; the golliwog brand wasn’t banned for nothing. It was banned so people could stop throwing the word/idea around because it was offensive. On the most basic level, black people shouldn’t have to be reminded of the whole golliwog saga, it wasn’t an innocent accident – but a calculated attempted to humiliate and denigrate them. [B]I know some of you guys will think this is ridiculous PC stuff, but it’s not up to you to tell others what they should find offensive. Golliwog is not a word that has to be used, it is not central to the English language.

With respect to paragraph three; :eek:. If that’s what she said – it’s no doubt people complained. It doesn’t make her a racist (one ambiguous incident is not enough), but that’s obviously offensive. She would have referred to a black person as a golliwog. I mean.. lol ... she may as well have said the N word. It doesn’t matter if you say it in a jokey way or not, the golliwog concept is offensive by design… it makes me very uncomfortable thinking that was what she said. Wog is just an abbreviated version, doesn’t make it cuter IMO.

I didn’t mean to rant, I’ve been glimpsing the thread for a while but couln’t be bothered to post because I should be studying for an exam. :bolt:

:worship:

Raquel
02-04-2009, 11:17 PM
'He's the one who beat the Golliwog in the last round.' - This is derogatory end of.Was that the actual phrase she used though? The Pro said in their post that's what they thought it was along the lines of but we don't know she said that, do we? That is a lot worse than what we first thought that she was describing his hair or something? No one at the BBC seems to have confirmed anything. The Daily Mail articles are full of phrases like "describing a black tennis player thought to be Jo-Wilfried Tsonga"; "Chiles and Brand are understood to have been the only two others in the room. They are said to have challenged her about the comment which then filtered out to the rest of the production team." and "Insiders claim Chiles had been upset at her comments, as have other members of the production team"

It's all a bit vague. I'm in no doubt she said it and she shouldn't have but someone at the BBC should confirm exactly what she said and what the intention was.

forbiddenfruit
02-04-2009, 11:19 PM
There are quite a few people in this thread who seem to lead perfect lives in which they never say anything which could be construed as offensive towards others. You are all saints and heroes and we should follow your shining example.

Aww :hug:. Do you want me to send you a copy of my lastest book; How to taste the forbiddenfruits of life: Volume 1

If you wanna take what I wrote to the most extreme interpretation go ahead, but the fact remains that people in the media spot light are under more scruitny and held to high standards - it just comes with the territory. I doubt Carol is the first or the last person to refer to a black person as a golliwog behind closed doors - but using the criteria mentioned by Melly Flew Us about mixed crowds - we all know those things we shouldn't say. And if you're dumb enough to get caught out in public, and the best we can do is make excuses and say it was a joke - tuff!

Andi-M
02-04-2009, 11:33 PM
Was that the actual phrase she used though? The Pro said in their post that's what they thought it was along the lines of but we don't know she said that, do we? That is a lot worse than what we first thought that she was describing his hair or something? No one at the BBC seems to have confirmed anything. The Daily Mail articles are full of phrases like "describing a black tennis player thought to be Jo-Wilfried Tsonga"; "Chiles and Brand are understood to have been the only two others in the room. They are said to have challenged her about the comment which then filtered out to the rest of the production team." and "Insiders claim Chiles had been upset at her comments, as have other members of the production team"

It's all a bit vague. I'm in no doubt she said it and she shouldn't have but someone at the BBC should confirm exactly what she said and what the intention was.

Well i thought she said Monfil's hair reminded her of the hair on a Golliwog doll. Which to me is a strange comment but not an offensive one. Not sackable.

If she said what is now being claimed then i think that is racist and she should be punished.

Now we dont know which is true if either, but if the beeb think what she said was sackable then i'd trust their judgement on that. I dont think Chiles and Brand would take offense unless it was quite obvious racism.

Clydey
02-04-2009, 11:37 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1134663/Furious-Carol-Thatcher-accuses-BBC-vendetta-leaking-golliwog-joke.html

Apparently, she was referring to Tsonga. He reminded her of this figure that used to appear on her Jam pot when she was growing up as a child: http://www.understandingslavery.com/citizen/scaled/96393701.jpeg [This being the figure on Jam pots]. :unsure:

I guess the hair is curly :unsure:... but if tsonga was really the target... her comments make me even more uncomfortable.

There are conflicting reports. There have been no reliable sources to say that she was talking about Tsonga. In fact, reports almost universally say that the comment was in reference to the player's hair. That would lead one to think that it was Monfils.

Clydey
02-04-2009, 11:42 PM
:eek: Um wut?

With respect to paragraph one; Firstly, I think whether it was said in private is hardly the point at this stage. She used an offensive word, in it's most offensive context (she used a word born from Ministrel shows which were designed to humiliate and dengigrate black people, to describe a black person who barely resembles the image). That's the point now surely. I'd be extremely saddened if there's an attitude of 'saying such things is fine and dandy so long as no-one hears you' - this is in part how some neverending prejudices and discrimination are perpetuated. It's unaccepted full stop. Secondly, at worst it isn't just an ill-judged joke. Melly Flew Us raised a good point when he said 'say it in a mixed crowd'. You have to ask yourself would she have said this in a mixed crowd with some black people in the room. I bet the answer is NO. This is probably what I find most uncomfortable. If you can't say it in a mixed crowd you probably shouldn't be saying it at all. At worst, it's more than just an ill-judged joke. [But we need a proper transcript to make any solid conclusions].

With respect to paragraph two; I disagree. I don't think this borders on police state and disagree with those earlier claiming this is Political correctness gone wild. Firstly because you can't jump on that ship (or the 'she is a racist' ship - I don't think there's enough evidence to label her that, but the jury is out on her comments) considering full details have not been disclosed. Secondly, her being sacked maybe OTT (and it’s clear it’s probably happening because of the Jonathan Ross saga) but not asking her to apologise like she means it (instead of making excuses by saying it was a joke). The BBC is funded by licence fee payers, more than any other broadcaster have an obligation to be sensitive to the viewing public. Clearly some people will take offence with what she said; the golliwog brand wasn’t banned for nothing. It was banned so people could stop throwing the word/idea around because it was offensive. On the most basic level, black people shouldn’t have to be reminded of the whole golliwog saga, it wasn’t an innocent accident – but a calculated attempted to humiliate and denigrate them. I know some of you guys will think this is ridiculous PC stuff, but it’s not up to you to tell others what they should find offensive. Golliwog is not a word that has to be used, it is not central to the English language.

With respect to paragraph three; :eek:. If that’s what she said – it’s no doubt people complained. It doesn’t make her a racist (one ambiguous incident is not enough), but that’s obviously offensive. She would have referred to a black person as a golliwog. I mean.. lol ... she may as well have said the N word. It doesn’t matter if you say it in a jokey way or not, the golliwog concept is offensive by design… it makes me very uncomfortable thinking that was what she said. Wog is just an abbreviated version, doesn’t make it cuter IMO.

I didn’t mean to rant, I’ve been glimpsing the thread for a while but couln’t be bothered to post because I should be studying for an exam. :bolt:

Utter nonsense. She was talking about the player's hair. She did not refer to the player as a "goliwog". Also, it was said in private. People have no business telling her to apologise for a private comment. That is like me reporting you to the media for saying something offensive and you being asked to apologise. The comment was not on air. Therefore, it is none of our business.

Clydey
02-04-2009, 11:48 PM
Well i thought she said Monfil's hair reminded her of the hair on a Golliwog doll. Which to me is a strange comment but not an offensive one. Not sackable.

If she said what is now being claimed then i think that is racist and she should be punished.

Now we dont know which is true if either, but if the beeb think what she said was sackable then i'd trust their judgement on that. I dont think Chiles and Brand would take offense unless it was quite obvious racism.

Why would you trust the BBC's judgement? They are under pressure to discipline anyone for the slightest trangession after the whole Ross/Brand fiasco. She said something behind closed doors, which is of no business to the general public. Can you imagine being asked to apologise for every single thing you said in private that someone found offensive?

forbiddenfruit
02-05-2009, 12:15 AM
Utter nonsense. She was talking about the player's hair. She did not refer to the player as a "goliwog". Also, it was said in private. People have no business telling her to apologise for a private comment. That is like me reporting you to the media for saying something offensive and you being asked to apologise. The comment was not on air. Therefore, it is none of our business.

Oh please, the BBC greenroom and conversations that occur within the greenroom with other BBC employee's all fall under activity IN THE WORKPLACE. Unless you have a copy of the BBC'c codes of conduct and regulation and can prove otherwise, the BBC may have made it clear (in contracts) that language considered racist or offensive will not be acceptable on the entire premises and may be subject to some penalty. If this was a private conversation in her own home then that's a different matter. Sh should have kept her gob shut.

Oh and please don't present: 'She was talking about the player's hair' as though it's fact - you don't know.

There are conflicting reports. There have been no reliable sources to say that she was talking about Tsonga. In fact, reports almost universally say that the comment was in reference to the player's hair. That would lead one to think that it was Monfils.

Offer us some links because I haven't seen one article claiming she was referring to hair. Or Monfils. Here are just a few other articles that seem (some certain) to conclude it's Tsonga!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4511804/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-jibe-referred-to-black-tennis-player-Jo-Wilfried-Tsonga.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2202385.ece
http://www.samaylive.com/news/carol-thatcher-sacked-over-golliwog-jibe/606774.html
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/81723-margaret-thatcher-s-daughter-sacked.html

There are several others, but Telegraph is pretty reputable.

Clydey
02-05-2009, 01:02 AM
Oh please, the BBC greenroom and conversations that occur within the greenroom with other BBC employee's all fall under activity IN THE WORKPLACE. Unless you have a copy of the BBC'c codes of conduct and regulation and can prove otherwise, the BBC may have made it clear (in contracts) that language considered racist or offensive will not be acceptable on the entire premises and may be subject to some penalty. If this was a private conversation in her own home then that's a different matter. Sh should have kept her gob shut.

It was a private conversation. Thatcher, Brand, Chiles et al were not working. How do we know it was a private conversation? Because it was said in private, off the air, between colleagues. It was not intended for the public, so the idea that she should issue a public apology is absurd.

You could argue that she should apologise to her co-workers, but to suggest that she make a public apology is about as ridiculous as you being forced to apologise to the public for something that you said in the workplace. At most, you would be expected to apologise to your co-workers. It is political correctness gone made, and it sickens me. It reminds me of when Tony Blair was asked to apologise for slavery.




Offer us some links because I haven't seen one article claiming she was referring to hair. Or Monfils. Here are just a few other articles that seem (some certain) to conclude it's Tsonga!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4511804/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-jibe-referred-to-black-tennis-player-Jo-Wilfried-Tsonga.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2202385.ece
http://www.samaylive.com/news/carol-thatcher-sacked-over-golliwog-jibe/606774.html
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/81723-margaret-thatcher-s-daughter-sacked.html

There are several others, but Telegraph is pretty reputable.

http://www.buzzindisgrace.co.uk/political-correctness-is-ruining-the-uk-carol-thatcher-latest-victim/197

The latest story of Carol Thatcher jokingly saying, in a so-called private conversation, that French tennis player Gael Monfils hair reminded her of the golliwog previously seen on the jar’s of Robinson’s jam.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5645419.ece

"Neither the BBC nor representatives of Chiles and Thatcher were prepared to name the tennis player who was under discussion. Her friends said that she had been referring to the player’s hairstyle and was not making a racist comment."

http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/878315/Carol-Thatcher-axed-The-One-Show-golliwog-remark/

"Thatcher, the daughter of Britain's Conservative former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, compared a player in the Australian Open, thought to be Frenchman Gael Monfils, to the golliwog that once appeared on jars of Robinson's jam."

Like I said, there have been conflicting reports. No one knows for sure what exactly was said and to whom Thatcher was referring.

meihaditalab
02-05-2009, 01:13 AM
who was she referring to ?

nkp2
02-05-2009, 01:28 AM
What a ridiculous scenario. If she called a black player a golliwog, then yes, sacking. If however she was merely saying that a player LOOKED like or their hair LOOKED like the golliwog, then it's PC gone mad. Hard to know unless you were there really.

Clydey
02-05-2009, 01:32 AM
who was she referring to ?

No one knows for sure. It seems to have been either Monfils or Tsonga.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 02:17 AM
I agree. I wasn't saying that this woman should have been fired. I don't think she should have. She said something in private (without being videotaped. Only Prince Harry could get away with that). It should have been a private issue and her public apology should have sufficed.

My point is that in my HUMBLE opinion, I don't think people should have been quick to say that what she said wasn't a big deal nor should they chastise ones who ARE offended by what she said as being overly PC. That is because you cannot relate to the negative connotations (....)

So if, for example, one of my Chinese friends was offended by something, I wouldn't say, "Why is this bothering you? You're overreacting. It's not a big deal." Well, it's not my right to say how he/she should feel. I'm not Chinese, never will be, and cannot fully understand how he/she feels. But I can TRY to understand where he/she is coming from. (....)

You did get your point across. I simply don't agree and I reject the premise of what you are saying. That aside, what she said is not offensive for the very reason I explained earlier. There was no intent (....) You have your views on the matter and I have mine. You are free to find her remarks offensive. I just don't agree with you. It's no big deal.

On a sidenote, please stop deleting posts, RagingLamb. You are verging on self-parody with your incessant deleting and promotion of censorship.

From what I can see this debate could continue for another 10 years - and even after that long I doubt you're going to be any closer to agreeing :p

I guess it's enough you guys agree she shouldn't have lost her job :shrug: :lol:

That Daily Mail article makes bizarre and depressing reading.

- The Johnathan Ross witch-hunt refuses to abate. It's 2 entirely different gaffes and shouldn't be compared.

- I bet Chiles leaked it, he can be a bit of a high and mighty nob.

- Seems to me that after it leaked the BBC are bending over backwards to make an example of her, so that people will say 'The BBC don't muck about anymore with offensive behaviour.'

It is very odd that a private, off the cuff remark suddenly becomes everyone's business. She seems dumbfounded that it is. I don't blame her. She didn't say it on TV. She said it to 2 other people and suddenly it's in the newspapers. I'd be pissed. At worst it's an ill-judged joke.

- She says she's apologised but not in the grovelling fashion directed to her. That's her business. This is all getting ridiculous and it borders on the police-state analogies that people were talking about earlier.

I think what she said was along the lines of, when talking about Verdasco, 'He's the one who beat the Golliwog in the last round.' So I think that's Tsonga. There's no way a brit with half a brain would say that unless they were making some joke analogy, otherwise she would have just called him a wog, which would have been terrible.

- It's hardly an anti-Thatcher conspiracy. That's just mental.

Britsh media = :help: :tape: :help:

I could rant for ages, especially after reading the trash that has come up as a result of this incident, but for the sake of everyone here I'll restrain myself :p

But I will deal with the posters here - Line by Line :p

:eek: Um wut?

With respect to paragraph one; Firstly, I think whether it was said in private is hardly the point at this stage.

Mate this is very much the point. Let's take everything you say and run it under the nearest microscope - I doubt you'd come clean :p

She used an offensive word, in it's most offensive context (she used a word born from Ministrel shows which were designed to humiliate and dengigrate black people, to describe a black person who barely resembles the image). That's the point now surely. I'd be extremely saddened if there's an attitude of 'saying such things is fine and dandy so long as no-one hears you' - this is in part how some neverending prejudices and discrimination are perpetuated. It's unaccepted full stop.

Firstly, your description of this event is largely based on hearsay. IF she did this, yes some punishment is due. IF she has a history of such behaviour, particularly towards BBC staff, yes she probably should be fired. But we have NO evidence for this - only what the media have reported. I for one would like to hear testimonies from Carol Thatcher, her co-presenters, and all the staff that were there... but I know this isn't happening. So in light of that, we CANNOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS

Secondly, as I said above, people say such things all the time in all contexts for all reasons. You and I are probably as guilty as anyone. If you deny this, you are either a liar or your existence is impossible by the laws of nature :p

Secondly, at worst it isn't just an ill-judged joke. Melly Flew Us raised a good point when he said 'say it in a mixed crowd'. You have to ask yourself would she have said this in a mixed crowd with some black people in the room. I bet the answer is NO. This is probably what I find most uncomfortable. If you can't say it in a mixed crowd you probably shouldn't be saying it at all. At worst, it's more than just an ill-judged joke. .

Again hearsay. You have nothing to back you up except for pure speculation and hypothesis. And yes, we do need a proper transcript. However, judging by the context of the comments being 'after filming' I doubt one exists :o

With respect to paragraph two; I disagree. I don't think this borders on police state and disagree with those earlier claiming this is Political correctness gone wild. Firstly because you can't jump on that ship (...) Secondly, her being sacked maybe OTT (and it’s clear it’s probably happening because of the Jonathan Ross saga) but not asking her to apologise like she means it (instead of making excuses by saying it was a joke). The BBC is funded by licence fee payers, more than any other broadcaster have an obligation to be sensitive to the viewing public. Clearly some people will take offence with what she said; the golliwog brand wasn’t banned for nothing. It was banned so people could stop throwing the word/idea around because it was offensive. On the most basic level, black people shouldn’t have to be reminded of the whole golliwog saga, it wasn’t an innocent accident – but a calculated attempted to humiliate and denigrate them. I know some of you guys will think this is ridiculous PC stuff, but it’s not up to you to tell others what they should find offensive. Golliwog is not a word that has to be used, it is not central to the English language.

I disagree. If you're going to target people for what they say even outside a situation where publicly they're going to cause damage to a broadcaster, I believe there is a very slippery slope from that position. I can point out too many of these things in Britain, and I am very scared for that country :help:

Yes as a public broadcaster BBC have a lot of responsibilities, especially to their content and to what is said. And yes I am perfectly aware golliwog is an extremely offensive word. And yes, black people shouldn't have been reminded of this unfortunate saga of history. Which is why it's even more stupid that the BBC and the British media have made such an idiotic fuss about this whole situation.

And are you saying that what Carol Thatcher said is a 'calculated attempt to humiliate or denigrate' or are you speaking historically? Because I think you are speaking historically, but I can't be sure from what you say.

With respect to paragraph three; :eek:. If that’s what she said – it’s no doubt people complained. It doesn’t make her a racist (one ambiguous incident is not enough), but that’s obviously offensive. She would have referred to a black person as a golliwog. I mean.. lol ... she may as well have said the N word. It doesn’t matter if you say it in a jokey way or not, the golliwog concept is offensive by design… it makes me very uncomfortable thinking that was what she said. Wog is just an abbreviated version, doesn’t make it cuter IMO.

I didn’t mean to rant, I’ve been glimpsing the thread for a while but couln’t be bothered to post because I should be studying for an exam. :bolt:

All very well and good, but like Clydey said, in the end for the purposes of judging her, INTENT is the key. From her age and upbringing Carol Thatcher has obviously heard and used the word in everyday language. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. Whether she meant it deliberately or whether she said it out of ignorance/in passing/ill-judged joke... we need to know that to pass any judgment on her whatsoever.

Aww :hug:. Do you want me to send you a copy of my lastest book; How to taste the forbiddenfruits of life: Volume 1

If you wanna take what I wrote to the most extreme interpretation go ahead, but the fact remains that people in the media spot light are under more scruitny and held to high standards - it just comes with the territory. I doubt Carol is the first or the last person to refer to a black person as a golliwog behind closed doors - but using the criteria mentioned by Melly Flew Us about mixed crowds - we all know those things we shouldn't say. And if you're dumb enough to get caught out in public, and the best we can do is make excuses and say it was a joke - tuff!

Yes media personalities are under more scrutiny (:p) and should be held to high standards. This is very clear from the way media personalities have been treated in the past for similar incidents. Of course we cannot compare ourselves to them, because what they say on-air is heard by the public and they should be held accountable for what they say.

However for all intents and purposes, from the information we have, she made these comments off-air in a very non-public situation. Therefore, IMHO the fact that BBC have fired her is a travesty of justice and the principles of Western society, common law and human rights. Yes I'm going quite far in this conclusion, but you have to make a stand somewhere.

Well i thought she said Monfil's hair reminded her of the hair on a Golliwog doll. Which to me is a strange comment but not an offensive one. Not sackable.

[B]If she said what is now being claimed then i think that is racist and she should be punished.

Now we dont know which is true if either, but if the beeb think what she said was sackable then i'd trust their judgement on that. I dont think Chiles and Brand would take offense unless it was quite obvious racism.

Yes IF she said what is claimed and IF her intent was malicious in nature, then yes she should be punished. Again we speculate and speculate and speculate. But until we have concrete facts on anything, then judgment should wait.

Sorry but I don't trust the BBC at all :p Especially after this, I'm now even more skeptical of the standards of British media organisations.

What a ridiculous scenario. If she called a black player a golliwog, then yes, sacking. If however she was merely saying that a player LOOKED like or their hair LOOKED like the golliwog, then it's PC gone mad. Hard to know unless you were there really.

Just because she called a black player a golliwog, that doesn't mean anything without INTENT. For all we know, she's an idiotic, ignorant, out-of-the-loop, royal clown who probably had no idea of the significance of what she said and doesn't have the brains to comprehend it's significance. IF that's the case, how can you justify sacking her?

No one knows for sure. It seems to have been either Monfils or Tsonga.

EXACTLY. We have no absolute knowledge of 95% of what's happened in this situation. So until something comes out objectively, like a recording or a transcript or a testimony, people here should stop spouting their opinions without backing them up with evidence and reasons :p

(you could get yourselves in the same trouble Carol Thatcher did :p

Tankman
02-05-2009, 02:23 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4515444/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-row-BBC-faces-growing-backlash-over-refusal-to-reinstate-her.html

My non-existent faith in British media has partly been restored :lol:

Some of these guys mean well, but half of what is said in that article just makes me go :smash: :o

Spouting their opinions like the incessant talkers they are :tape: Every idiot has to have an opinion on everything sigh

nkp2
02-05-2009, 02:34 AM
Quite correct Tankman, an oversight on my part. I did mean, with the intent behind it. I was presuming that people weren't lacking the intelligence to at least know that the word is offensive. I have no idea why it's offensive or the history behind it, so I suppose it's no great leap for someone NOT to realise it's offensive at all, theoretically.

So in that case, I retract the first part of my post. :)

Tankman
02-05-2009, 02:36 AM
Quite correct Tankman, an oversight on my part. I did mean, with the intent behind it. I was presuming that people weren't lacking the intelligence to at least know that the word is offensive. I have no idea why it's offensive or the history behind it, so I suppose it's no great leap for someone NOT to realise it's offensive at all, theoretically.

So in that case, I retract the first part of my post. :)

:lol: Neither do I, so I probably should find out a bit more before I get any deeper.

nkp2
02-05-2009, 02:41 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4515444/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-row-BBC-faces-growing-backlash-over-refusal-to-reinstate-her.html

My non-existent faith in British media has partly been restored :lol:

Some of these guys mean well, but half of what is said in that article just makes me go :smash: :o

Spouting their opinions like the incessant talkers they are :tape: Every idiot has to have an opinion on everything sigh

That article is ridiculous lol.

Why can't everyone just get along.... sigh.....

Snoo Foo
02-05-2009, 03:15 AM
how can you justify sacking her?

Um... maybe because she's an idiotic, ignorant, out-of-the-loop, royal clown who probably had no idea of the significance of what she said and doesn't have the brains to comprehend its significance.

xargon
02-05-2009, 03:16 AM
Tsonga
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4511804/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-jibe-referred-to-black-tennis-player-Jo-Wilfried-Tsonga.html

Tankman
02-05-2009, 03:37 AM
Um... maybe because she's an idiotic, ignorant, out-of-the-loop, royal clown who probably had no idea of the significance of what she said and doesn't have the brains to comprehend its significance.

:lol: Fine :p I agree with that justification very much. If the BBC were to come out and say that they've fired her because they're sick of her idiocy and incompetence, fine.

But at the moment, their current justification for firing her is for the comments she made. That is not justifiable in my humble opinion.

Let me also say that what I said is also mere speculation to back up a point I made. Don't try to make it out to be anything more than that. I refuse to be taken out of context. :p

To make even more sure of that, let me repharse the hypothetical question I posed:

how can you justify sacking her based on what she said and that hypothetical situation in which there was no malice behind what she said?

Turquoise
02-05-2009, 03:56 AM
It’s difficult to interpret the context in which her remarks were made, because of the conflicting reports.

However, there's a big difference between:

"Monfils' hair reminds me of Golliwog". I don’t see anything wrong with that. My father and I often have a chuckle about Monfils' hair, but that's part of his charm. And I am familiar with Golliwog in Enid Blyton's books, he was a central and endearing character.

"He's the one who beat the golliwog in the last round" (meaning Tsonga). If indeed she said that, then the context becomes very offensive, as it's grouping a black person as a golliwog or wog (a known racial slur), just for the sake of being black and with no particular resemblance to the Golliwog character.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 04:01 AM
It’s difficult to interpret the context in which her remarks were made, because of the conflicting reports.

However, there's a big difference between:

"Monfils' hair reminds me of Golliwog". I don’t see anything wrong with that. My father and I often have a chuckle about Monfils' hair, but that's part of his charm. And I am familiar with Golliwog in Enid Blyton's books, he was a central and endearing character.

"He's the one who beat the golliwog in the last round" (meaning Tsonga). If indeed she said that, then the context becomes very offensive, as it's grouping a black person as a golliwog or wog (a known racial slur), just for the sake of being black and with no particular resemblance to the Golliwog character.

:yeah: for your post

Of course there's a huge difference, and often the content of what is said can definitely betray intent. Betray, but not give 100%. While that second hypothetical statement is obviously extremely offensive and evident of a great deficiency in Carol Thatcher, if she didn't mean any offence, firing her is unjust.

I've already made mention of conditions in which I do think she should be fired. In this particular hypothetical case, she should be severely reprimanded. I would go as far to say that she could be justifiably suspended, so that she understands the severity of what she said.

I know I've been going on about intent quite a lot, but in a hypothetical case such as this one, intent doesn't really matter all that much. Whatever ignorance, idiocy, flippancy was behind that comment does not justify the comment in any way. However, I will say again that firing her is also not justifiable for the reasons given by the BBC.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 04:08 AM
Tsonga
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4511804/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-jibe-referred-to-black-tennis-player-Jo-Wilfried-Tsonga.html

I have already read that article. This is the one that broke the camel's back for me.

In no way did this reporter justify the statement she made in the headline in the next few paragraphs of useless drivel she wrote.

'According to insiders at the One Show' is not a reasonable justification IMHO. Any trash magazine can write that. Until I see some concrete proof or a public statement made by one of these 'insiders', I'm not going to believe anything written, especially by the British news media.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 04:35 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4514325/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-row--Presenters-who-kept-their-jobs-at-the-BBC-despite-controversy.html

It seems the BBC have a history of acting reasonably in the past :eek: :lol:

Maybe a little too reasonably in some cases.

So you have to wonder - why this time?

Tankman
02-05-2009, 04:42 AM
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/-BBC-in-firing-line.4948535.jp

The plot thickens.

At least my fears of the UK becoming a police state a la Airport Number One (thanks Gu :)) have been assauged by the torrent of criticism levelled at the BBC.

And let me just say one thing - if what has been reported is true, Adrian Chiles is a &$^$&^%(many unpublishable words)(**&^ idiotic, mindless tool.

forbiddenfruit
02-05-2009, 09:43 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/05/jay-hunt-right-to-dismiss-carol-thatcher-golliwog


BBC1 controller defends decision to dismiss Carol Thatcher over race jibe

BBC1 controller Jay Hunt has strongly defended the corporation's decision to dismiss Carol Thatcher from The One Show, dismissing any disparity between her treatment and that of Jonathan Ross and insisting that she had caused offence to several members of production staff.

Hunt said that Thatcher described an international black tennis player as "golliwog" in front of 12 people, including Adrian Chiles, Jo Brand and a senior charity worker from Comic Relief.

Chiles, Brand and other staff had been offended, said Hunt, and the next day an executive producer spoke to Thatcher about the remark, prompting an email apology in which she said the comment had been a joke.

"What she decides to say at home in private is one thing, but we have given Carol ample opportunity to give a fulsome apology and she has chosen not to do so. She maintains that her comment was made in jest," Hunt said in an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"This is not her working in a private space and she was not in the pub with her friends. She was sitting in a BBC green room on BBC premises surrounded by a diverse production team on The One Show speaking to a BBC booked guest, a BBC booked celebrity and in the presence of a senior production worker from Comic Relief. In those circumstances she was effectively operating in a workplace."

Hunt added that Thatcher has not been banned or sacked by the BBC and is still working for the corporation.

"But The One show prides itself on the diversity of its production team and its range of coverage across the country, and I think everybody would be able to see that that is not an appropriate place for her to work now."

The controller dismissed any similarities between Thatcher's offensive comment and those made by Jonathan Ross about actor Andrew Sachs, saying that Ross had repeatedly apologised to Sachs both on and off air.

"He apologised. He was aware of the offence he had caused and apologised immediately. Regrettably Carol doesn't think she has caused offence," said Hunt.

Responding to reports that Thatcher's agent had demanded an apology that private comments were leaked by the BBC, Hunt said it is important to clarify the context in which her comments were made.

"How can you talk about someone leaking? This was not a private conversation. She was sharing a space with 12 people, some of whom were journalists, and in that context you don't talk about people snitching and leaking."

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

Tankman
02-05-2009, 09:58 AM
:rolleyes:

I see from your silence over my arguments that you have no argument against me.

As for this article, I'm not convinced. On-Air comments by BBC personnel in the past would have been extraordinarily offensive to BBC co-workers also. And these were PUBLIC COMMENTS. Millions of people would have been offended! And all the BBC does to them is give them a fucking slap on the wrist.

But for Carol Thatcher, they dismiss her from her public broadcasting position on her show because of a very similar offence. Unless the grounds for this offence were very much different from those, there are no grounds for her dismissal.

Oh she made those comments in front of 12 people of the BBC staff eh? Well unless the circumstances of her comment and apology were MARKEDLY different from similar cases, the BBC's actions in this case are unjustifiable. Note I have been working on assumptions this whole time. If it turns out she acted incorrectly and breached conduct rules, then maybe she should get the sack. Of course, then that will raise many questions about the dubious standards that the BBC have employed in the past.

But that article still gives me no reason to change my mind in any way. Either way, the BBC are a bunch of fools and they really should take a very good look at what they've been doing over the years.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 10:06 AM
and the bullshit they're pulling over "an international black tennis player" :rolleyes:

come out and bloody say that it's Tsonga/Monfils already! for goodness sakes

Tankman
02-05-2009, 10:23 AM
In fact let me deconstruct this "article":

BBC1 controller defends decision to dismiss Carol Thatcher over race jibe

BBC1 controller Jay Hunt has strongly defended the corporation's decision to dismiss Carol Thatcher from The One Show, dismissing any disparity between her treatment and that of Jonathan Ross and insisting that she had caused offence to several members of production staff.

This IMHO means jack-all. If there are any unfair dismissal laws left in Britain this would be the time to bring them up.

Hunt said that Thatcher described an international black tennis player as "golliwog" in front of 12 people, including Adrian Chiles, Jo Brand and a senior charity worker from Comic Relief.

Chiles, Brand and other staff had been offended, said Hunt, and the next day an executive producer spoke to Thatcher about the remark, prompting an email apology in which she said the comment had been a joke.


Carol Thatcher is a very intriguing person, and has not made things any easier for her by acting in the way she has acted. If she indeed has acted in an unacceptable manner, then maybe that is cause for her dismissal. But if the way she acted does not meet the criteria for that, then it is not. I'm not mentioning criteria as I am sure the BBC have criteria of their own.

"What she decides to say at home in private is one thing, but we have given Carol ample opportunity to give a fulsome apology and she has chosen not to do so. She maintains that her comment was made in jest," Hunt said in an interview with the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"This is not her working in a private space and she was not in the pub with her friends. She was sitting in a BBC green room on BBC premises surrounded by a diverse production team on The One Show speaking to a BBC booked guest, a BBC booked celebrity and in the presence of a senior production worker from Comic Relief. In those circumstances she was effectively operating in a workplace."


Interesting. By the BBC's "criteria" there obviously is a problem. And if she refused to apologise as per their claims, then her sacking is quite justifiable. But their justification of a public workspace does not entirely convince me, especially on the grounds that they sacked her for what she said. If this is the reason they wanted to give, they should have given it long ago before people started speculating out of the water.

Hunt added that Thatcher has not been banned or sacked by the BBC and is still working for the corporation.

Thanks for the clarification... a dismissal is a dismissal however you look at it though. Although I guess legally a demotion doesn't have the same standing as an actual dismissal in the scheme of things. She would be taking this up as unfair treatment at the workplace though - I forget the legal lingo.

"But The One show prides itself on the diversity of its production team and its range of coverage across the country, and I think everybody would be able to see that that is not an appropriate place for her to work now."

Everybody would not know, nor would they care if you hadn't chosen to make this so public.

The controller dismissed any similarities between Thatcher's offensive comment and those made by Jonathan Ross about actor Andrew Sachs, saying that Ross had repeatedly apologised to Sachs both on and off air.

"He apologised. He was aware of the offence he had caused and apologised immediately. Regrettably Carol doesn't think she has caused offence," said Hunt.

Ah Carol Thatcher's great intellect strikes again. If this continues to be the case, I guess they are in the right here.

Responding to reports that Thatcher's agent had demanded an apology that private comments were leaked by the BBC, Hunt said it is important to clarify the context in which her comments were made.

"How can you talk about someone leaking? This was not a private conversation. She was sharing a space with 12 people, some of whom were journalists, and in that context you don't talk about people snitching and leaking."

Oh you idiot. Playing with words so well. Whether you call it a leak or not- the way it was released makes it a leak. Releasing it to media in a bunch of leaks was really the best way to deal with this :rolleyes:

There was no reason for the BBC to take soooo long to make public comment confirming this. The only reason that makes sense is that the BBC wanted to cash in on this situation. Which is really, really sad. What they should have done was release a statement right away detailing the incident, exact details and reasons for Carol Thatcher's dismissal. They did not do this, and I can barely restrain my contempt for this "institution" now.

reggie1
02-05-2009, 10:29 AM
Jonathan Ross weilds so much power at the BBC and Carol Thatcher does not! It really is as simple as that imo. Russell Brand took the main fall out over that incident, Ross virtually got off scott free. Jonathan Ross was older (should have known better) egged Brand on and it was actually Jonathan Ross who shouted out in the background whilst Brand was on the phone "He f***ed your grandaughter! Yet Ross keeps his job!
I don't agree with What Thatcher said (she should have known better but she didn't) but the fact that she loses her job and Ross kept his shows how selective and spineless Auntie Beeb are imo.

scoobs
02-05-2009, 10:31 AM
Well if the story is that she did it in a room of 12 people and doesn't recognise that she could have caused offence, however jokingly it was meant, and refuses to apologise for that possible offence, then perhaps they've made the right decision. However it's unfortunate it's taken them so long to issue any kind of clarification about all this.

forbiddenfruit
02-05-2009, 10:42 AM
I wish the BBC would make the exact statement public, because the ambiguous articles: some claiming she just said the word Golliwog, some claim she was talking about a players hair… and so on, hinder anyone ability to have any meaningful discussion about this. It becomes incredibly difficult to understand people actual stances on the issue of political correctness, offensive language etc. – particularly with relation to this scenario.
All that said, from just about every article I’ve read, there is a general sentiment that what carol T. said was offensive, and caused understandable offence to those around her. To me, this rules out the Hair comparison version.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/-BBC-in-firing-line.4948535.jp
BBC sources said Ms Thatcher's remark had caused great offence to those who heard it at the time and to those members of the production team who heard about it subsequently.

For arguments sake, I’ll hence assume she said something along the lines of ‘…who beat the Golliwog’ or something similar because it meets the criteria of offending those around and referring to/describing the black player as a golliwog.



But I will deal with the posters here - Line by Line :p



Mate this is very much the point. Let's take everything you say and run it under the nearest microscope - I doubt you'd come clean :p

People say offensive things in private, when there aren’t ears to be offended – this is most likely a general fact. I can’t call it right or wrong because it’s just something that happens. But there’s a reason why people do it in private, because by social convention (if you will), they shouldn’t really be saying those things in the first place.

Think of it like the tree falling in an empty forest scenario… when you say these things in private, it isn’t quite so real, like it hasn’t happened (which I think is why the frequency of people saying offensive things in private is probably quite high). But the minute she made the comments to colleagues (journalists) who didn’t share her humour as outlined in the article above… it became more real. BBC heads probably figured that it was only a matter of time before it became public knowledge and in that situation had to discipline her.

Does this equate Political correctness gone wrong? IMO no! This is just how things are, when you get caught out doing something you shouldn’t be you face the consequences. And from the sounds of things, she wouldn’t have been disciplined so harshly had she apologised and shown an understanding of why she shouldn’t be saying such things.


Firstly, your description of this event is largely based on hearsay. IF she did this, yes some punishment is due. IF she has a history of such behaviour, particularly towards BBC staff, yes she probably should be fired. But we have NO evidence for this - only what the media have reported. I for one would like to hear testimonies from Carol Thatcher, her co-presenters, and all the staff that were there... but I know this isn't happening. So in light of that, we CANNOT DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS


As I’ve said, without a BBC statement all discussion remain condition and pretty meaningless, but I inclined to believe her statement was offensive – that being the basis of what I’ve said in the thread (see above), based on the consistency of reports that those around her found her comments offensive.



I disagree. If you're going to target people for what they say even outside a situation where publicly they're going to cause damage to a broadcaster, I believe there is a very slippery slope from that position. I can point out too many of these things in Britain, and I am very scared for that country :help:

Yes as a public broadcaster BBC have a lot of responsibilities, especially to their content and to what is said. And yes I am perfectly aware golliwog is an extremely offensive word. And yes, black people shouldn't have been reminded of this unfortunate saga of history. Which is why it's even more stupid that the BBC and the British media have made such an idiotic fuss about this whole situation.

And are you saying that what Carol Thatcher said is a 'calculated attempt to humiliate or denigrate' or are you speaking historically? Because I think you are speaking historically, but I can't be sure from what you say.

I was speaking of the terms historically. I think I addressed the private/public point above so don’t think your allegation of ‘slippery slope’ is founded. If Carol Thatcher was caught out saying something she shouldn’t really be saying, then tough luck. It seems the penalty she’s facing is about making her understand how her comments were offensive, something she failed to grasp. When you do something wrong and people catch you doing it – you face the consequences and should.


All very well and good, but like Clydey said, in the end for the purposes of judging her, INTENT is the key. From her age and upbringing Carol Thatcher has obviously heard and used the word in everyday language. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. Whether she meant it deliberately or whether she said it out of ignorance/in passing/ill-judged joke... we need to know that to pass any judgment on her whatsoever.

Intention is crucial when making judgments about character I agree, but the reason for her being punished is her apparent lack of understanding for what she said wrong, and or – her unrepentant attitude and near flippant apology. She certain does herself no favour by not being able to show she can understand why the comments were offensive as opposed to brushing them off as a joke.


Yes media personalities are under more scrutiny (:p) and should be held to high standards. This is very clear from the way media personalities have been treated in the past for similar incidents. Of course we cannot compare ourselves to them, because what they say on-air is heard by the public and they should be held accountable for what they say.

Well then so you can see my point.


However for all intents and purposes, from the information we have, she made these comments off-air in a very non-public situation. Therefore, IMHO the fact that BBC have fired her is a travesty of justice and the principles of Western society, common law and human rights. Yes I'm going quite far in this conclusion, but you have to make a stand somewhere.


Yeah again I think I addressed the private/public point. It isn’t travesty to anything, but a manifestation of the implicit laws in place.

JolánGagó
02-05-2009, 10:49 AM
Well if the story is that she did it in a room of 12 people and doesn't recognise that she could have caused offence, however jokingly it was meant, and refuses to apologise for that possible offence, then perhaps they've made the right decision.

If she did that it should suffice to apologize to the offended ones out of the 12 in the room. It was a room with 12 people and her words were made public by someone of those 12, why should she apologize to the public or to the alleged player? It was the leaker and the BBC who made her words public, thus possibly offending people who were not meant to hear what she said in the first place. Those who should apologize to the player and public are actually the leaker and BBC, and then they should apologize to Thatcher too for the cowardice of not confronting her and made a big public problem of what was a private gaffe at worst.

reporting, leaking, backstabbing... FFS grow up people, if you dont like it, confront her.

Disgusting.

forbiddenfruit
02-05-2009, 10:51 AM
:rolleyes:

I see from your silence over my arguments that you have no argument against me.

LOL! Oh my goodness, please don’t flatter yourself. I said after my first post that I wanted to avoid this topic because I have an exam to study for – more important things to do than spending more time that I’d like on an online message board.

As for this article, I'm not convinced. On-Air comments by BBC personnel in the past would have been extraordinarily offensive to BBC co-workers also. And these were PUBLIC COMMENTS. Millions of people would have been offended! And all the BBC does to them is give them a fucking slap on the wrist.

But for Carol Thatcher, they dismiss her from her public broadcasting position on her show because of a very similar offence. Unless the grounds for this offence were very much different from those, there are no grounds for her dismissal.

Oh she made those comments in front of 12 people of the BBC staff eh? Well unless the circumstances of her comment and apology were MARKEDLY different from similar cases, the BBC's actions in this case are unjustifiable. Note I have been working on assumptions this whole time. If it turns out she acted incorrectly and breached conduct rules, then maybe she should get the sack. Of course, then that will raise many questions about the dubious standards that the BBC have employed in the past.

But that article still gives me no reason to change my mind in any way. Either way, the BBC are a bunch of fools and they really should take a very good look at what they've been doing over the years.

Aren’t you yourself being quick to make judgements without adequate information. We still don’t know what she said, and yet you are pointing out the disparity between what she said and what others have done.

The part that stands out is – the part to probably selectively miss – about her not think she caused offence. That might be the main difference. Although some including you might conclude that this is a vendetta considering the BBC didn’t sack the others, it can quite easily be interpreted as the BBC’s fairness and willingness to give their employees another chance – provide they at least show some understanding of wrong doing… something Carol apparently failed to do.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 11:03 AM
Thanks for your reply mate. I think it's unfortunate that we had to make these arguments lacking the information that was crucial to such a discussion. Ultimately, the BBC is at fault IMHO for failing to clarify this situation earlier, and this is a serious failing on its part.

I wish the BBC would make the exact statement public, because the ambiguous articles: some claiming she just said the word Golliwog, some claim she was talking about a players hair… and so on, hinder anyone ability to have any meaningful discussion about this. It becomes incredibly difficult to understand people actual stances on the issue of political correctness, offensive language etc. – particularly with relation to this scenario.
All that said, from just about every article I’ve read, there is a general sentiment that what carol T. said was offensive, and caused understandable offence to those around her. To me, this rules out the Hair comparison version.

Agreed.

For arguments sake, I’ll hence assume she said something along the lines of ‘…who beat the Golliwog’ or something similar because it meets the criteria of offending those around and referring to/describing the black player as a golliwog.

People say offensive things in private, when there aren’t ears to be offended – this is most likely a general fact. I can’t call it right or wrong because it’s just something that happens. But there’s a reason why people do it in private, because by social convention (if you will), they shouldn’t really be saying those things in the first place.

Think of it like the tree falling in an empty forest scenario… when you say these things in private, it isn’t quite so real, like it hasn’t happened (which I think is why the frequency of people saying offensive things in private is probably quite high). But the minute she made the comments to colleagues (journalists) who didn’t share her humour as outlined in the article above… it became more real. BBC heads probably figured that it was only a matter of time before it became public knowledge and in that situation had to discipline her.

Does this equate Political correctness gone wrong? IMO no! This is just how things are, when you get caught out doing something you shouldn’t be you face the consequences. And from the sounds of things, she wouldn’t have been disciplined so harshly had she apologised and shown an understanding of why she shouldn’t be saying such things.

They shouldn't and I do agree entirely. Personally, I'd never use a racist word, even in a private situation. In private, however, I would make comments and statements and jokes that I would never make in a public situation. I think we all do this, because it's unavoidable. If the police do us an injustice, we can't exactly tell the arresting officer what we think, because that would make us liable for more offences and would do nothing to help. However, we would naturally in a private situation with a friend make our grievances known.

That said, it's becoming more and more clear that the situation wasn't as private as we thought. 12 people obviously is not that private. So this discussion therefore moves from public/private comments to a discussion of workplace ethics.

I'm still not entirely convinced, lacking a full description of the events, that she should have been dismissed. More definitely, BBC's actions have been extremely stupid in this case. If they'd already worked out their course of action, they should have let the public know as soon as they had decided. It is an insult to the public, in the age where information can be made available in a second, that they took so long to let us know

As I’ve said, without a BBC statement all discussion remain condition and pretty meaningless, but I inclined to believe her statement was offensive – that being the basis of what I’ve said in the thread (see above), based on the consistency of reports that those around her found her comments offensive.

Frankly, I'm inclined this way too. And if things go to where I think they're going to go, I'm going to end up very disappointed that I've spent so much time and effort defending her "integrity" and her "rights". But that's life. And my arguments remain as valid as ever :cool:

I was speaking of the terms historically. I think I addressed the private/public point above so don’t think your allegation of ‘slippery slope’ is founded. If Carol Thatcher was caught out saying something she shouldn’t really be saying, then tough luck. It seems the penalty she’s facing is about making her understand how her comments were offensive, something she failed to grasp. When you do something wrong and people catch you doing it – you face the consequences and should.
That point I still disagree with you. Mainly because it has nothing to do with private/public and everything to do with workplace laws and ethics. The reason she was sacked was that she caused offence to her colleagues, and quite obviously made her position untenable by this and her reaction to it. So I guess now from that POV, her sacking was entirely justifiable.

Intention is crucial when making judgments about character I agree, but the reason for her being punished is her apparent lack of understanding for what she said wrong, and or – her unrepentant attitude and near flippant apology. She certain does herself no favour by not being able to show she can understand why the comments were offensive as opposed to brushing them off as a joke.

Well I can see that now that I do have the information. I'm no longer speculating :p But there still remains some questions, and of course Carol Thatcher's response to the allegations. We may never know the truth. Especially if the BBC is involved :lol:

Well then so you can see my point.

To an extent. :p

Yeah again I think I addressed the private/public point. It isn’t travesty to anything, but a manifestation of the implicit laws in place.

Not really :p On the knowledge I made those comments with, I will stand by that argument. However, with current facts, it is a manifestation of enforcing workplace laws and ethics IMO.
[/QUOTE]

TankingTheSet
02-05-2009, 11:17 AM
If she did that it should suffice to apologize to the offended ones out of the 12 in the room. It was a room with 12 people and her words were made public by someone of those 12, why should she apologize to the public or to the alleged player? It was the leaker and the BBC who made her words public, thus possibly offending people who were not meant to hear what she said in the first place. Those who should apologize to the player and public are actually the leaker and BBC, and then they should apologize to Thatcher too for the cowardice of not confronting her and made a big public problem of what was a private gaffe at worst.

reporting, leaking, backstabbing... FFS grow up people, if you dont like it, confront her.

Disgusting.

I completely agree, arguably the person that leaked this committed a far greater offense than Thatcher herself and showed gross disrespect. If every word from jokes made in BBC offices was taken out of context and weighed in isolation a substantial part of the BBC employees would have to be suspended with these criteria.

Experimentee
02-05-2009, 11:19 AM
I used to read Enid Blyton books and know what a golliwog is, can't see how it can be so offensive to warrant her being fired though. Also, its not as if it was on air.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 11:29 AM
I completely agree, arguably the person that leaked this committed a far greater offense than Thatcher herself and showed gross disrespect. If every word from jokes made in BBC offices was taken out of context and weighed in isolation a substantial part of the BBC employees would have to be suspended with these criteria.

Agreed.

I forgot to make a bigger deal about this earlier :lol:

The contempt I have for BBC and its employees continues to grow.

It is quite sad indeed that the BBC can't control they're employees. And they're excuse for the leak? The most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in this age of PR and spin doctors. This is inexcusable, and I'm hoping this is a sorry attempt to cover their sorry arses.

:help:

Tankman
02-05-2009, 11:31 AM
I used to read Enid Blyton books and know what a golliwog is, can't see how it can be so offensive to warrant her being fired though. Also, its not as if it was on air.

Yeah I know. But I guess the on air/off air thing doesn't really matter now. From the info at hand, this is a workplace-related dispute and nothing to do with whether the comments were public or not.

Clydey
02-05-2009, 12:09 PM
Yeah I know. But I guess the on air/off air thing doesn't really matter now. From the info at hand, this is a workplace-related dispute and nothing to do with whether the comments were public or not.

It has everything to do with it going public, given that there have been calls for a public apology. Her firing doesn't have anything to do with whether it was in public/private. However, it is relevant to the calls for a public apology.

Also, she did apologise. Apparently it wasn't to the BBC's satisfaction, though.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 12:15 PM
It has everything to do with it going public, given that there have been calls for a public apology. Her firing doesn't have anything to do with whether it was in public/private. However, it is relevant to the calls for a public apology.

Also, she did apologise. Apparently it wasn't to the BBC's satisfaction, though.

I doubt they meant for a public apology considering it was in-house. If they were, that's just a stupid thing to ask.

Clydey
02-05-2009, 12:24 PM
I doubt they meant for a public apology considering it was in-house. If they were, that's just a stupid thing to ask.

She did apologise, so I can't imagine what else they would be after.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 12:43 PM
She did apologise, so I can't imagine what else they would be after.

:shrug:

There are a few articles in which BBC have said they were dissatisifed with her apology.

The mere fact of her apology is also insufficient IMHO. There are factors such as the timing, sincerity, opportunities she had to apologise but didn't and her attitude. From the reports, it looked like she refused to apologise immediately, then gave a terse email apology where she claimed what she said was a joke. If this is a case, I'd hardly call what she said a meaningful apology.

reggie1
02-05-2009, 12:59 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1135931/Race-doll-row-hits-royals-Queen-say-sorry-golliwogs-sale-Sandringham.html
Does anybody else other than me find it hilarious in a jaw dropping kind of a way that Buck house (or one of their estates) are still selling Golliwog dolls? The Queen would be better of with Max Clifford as her personal advidsor and agent! Never let it be said that the Royal family don't move with the times. ;)

the graduate
02-05-2009, 01:45 PM
first it was Prince Harry now this Carol character,its totally embarrassing...one wonders what the royal family says in private.Thats why Princess Diana wanted to distance herself from these spoiled ingrates,as for this carol is not the hottest chick on the block with typically ugly english teeth.Her brother is a mercenary in Africa trying to assassinate head of states and she is a racist,that says a lot about her upbringing...Margaret Thatcher did a good job of birthing fucked up kids:rolleyes:

reggie1
02-05-2009, 01:52 PM
Sorry, I've obviously missed a beat, whose Sarah?

JolánGagó
02-05-2009, 03:15 PM
first it was Prince Harry now this Sarah character,its totally embarrassing...one wonders what the royal family says in private.Thats why Princess Diana wanted to distance herself from these spoiled ingrates,as for this Sarah she is not the hottest chick on the block with typically ugly english teeth.Her brother is a mercenary in Africa and she is a racist,that says a lot about her upbringing...Margaret Thatcher did a good job:rolleyes:

uh? WTF? :scared: :bolt:

:lol:

the graduate
02-05-2009, 03:28 PM
first it was Prince Harry now this Carol character,its totally embarrassing...one wonders what the royal family says in private.Thats why Princess Diana wanted to distance herself from these spoiled ingrates,as for this Carol she is not the hottest chick on the block with typically ugly english teeth.Her brother is a mercenary in Africa trying to assassinate head of states all because of oil in Equatorial Guinea and she is a racist,that says a lot about her upbringing...Margaret Thatcher did a good job of birthing fucked up kids:rolleyes:
whatever her name is:rolleyes:

CyBorg
02-05-2009, 04:42 PM
:shrug:

There are a few articles in which BBC have said they were dissatisifed with her apology.

The mere fact of her apology is also insufficient IMHO. There are factors such as the timing, sincerity, opportunities she had to apologise but didn't and her attitude. From the reports, it looked like she refused to apologise immediately, then gave a terse email apology where she claimed what she said was a joke. If this is a case, I'd hardly call what she said a meaningful apology.

Why should she apologize? She didn't say anything wrong. Of course, she was resistent.

An apology would basically suggest that she thinks her comment racist, as accused. I don't think she was.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 05:13 PM
Why should she apologize? She didn't say anything wrong. Of course, she was resistent.

An apology would basically suggest that she thinks her comment racist, as accused. I don't think she was.

That's IMHO what she's thinking... which is even less reason for the BBC to have dismissed her.

However it doesn't matter that they were not racist. Specifically that Carol, you and many others may think those comments weren't racist in nature. It does not matter one iota. Even if she had no intention under the sun to be racist in any way, it doesn't matter. There are way too many examples of this, and I am way too wiped out too look them up :p

But the fact is that she said a word that is seen as extremely offensive with an extremely sensitive historical context. She said it not in public but in the presence of 12 colleagues who found the word offensive.

I know there's no comparison, but consider sexual harassment. A man may make lewd jokes about a woman, make terrible attempts to try "come on" to her, touch her inappropriately and communicate with her inappropriately. Now say that man didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Does that mean what he's done is alright?

I don't even have to go to this comparison, especially if people take offence to it. Racial harassment/discrimination laws in the workplace alone are enough - I sorta know Australian law, but I'm pretty sure English law is the same if not stricter. Anyway, let's say you may make any sort of comment to a person, judge them, deny them a job. Let's say it's based on race. And let's say you get hauled before a tribunal because of this action. Can you honestly in good conscience go up to the magistrate/convenor/whatever and say "Oh I don't think it's racist, why should I apologise? Just because some people are offended? Hmph. I am insulted by what you're insinuating. I demand that you take that back. Take that back!"

:lol: Ok maybe I've gone a little far with my hypothetical, and in no way am I saying you are anything like the person here (although I can imagine this might be something Carol Thatcher might say :help:). But can you see what I'm trying to say?

CyBorg
02-05-2009, 05:18 PM
That's IMHO what she's thinking... which is even less reason for the BBC to have dismissed her.

However it doesn't matter that they were not racist. Specifically that Carol, you and many others may think those comments weren't racist in nature. It does not matter one iota. Even if she had no intention under the sun to be racist in any way, it doesn't matter. There are way too many examples of this, and I am way too wiped out too look them up :p

But the fact is that she said a word that is seen as extremely offensive with an extremely sensitive historical context. She said it not in public but in the presence of 12 colleagues who found the word offensive.

I know there's no comparison, but consider sexual harassment. A man may make lewd jokes about a woman, make terrible attempts to try "come on" to her, touch her inappropriately and communicate with her inappropriately. Now say that man didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Does that mean what he's done is alright?

I don't even have to go to this comparison, especially if people take offence to it. Racial harassment/discrimination laws in the workplace alone are enough - I sorta know Australian law, but I'm pretty sure English law is the same if not stricter. Anyway, let's say you may make any sort of comment to a person, judge them, deny them a job. Let's say it's based on race. And let's say you get hauled before a tribunal because of this action. Can you honestly in good conscience go up to the magistrate/convenor/whatever and say "Oh I don't think it's racist, why should I apologise? Just because some people are offended? Hmph. I am insulted by what you're insinuating. I demand that you take that back. Take that back!"

:lol: Ok maybe I've gone a little far with my hypothetical, and in no way am I saying you are anything like the person here (although I can imagine this might be something Carol Thatcher might say :help:). But can you see what I'm trying to say?

Yeah - I do think you've gone a bit far. She said that a player's hair looks similar to a doll's. Which I think it does.

Holy shit - how inappropriate.

As for people getting offended, fuck them.

reggie1
02-05-2009, 05:23 PM
As for people getting offended, fuck them.
I bet this is what the Queen REALLY said when told Buck house were still selling Golliwog Dolls :devil:

Tankman
02-05-2009, 05:26 PM
Yeah - I do think you've gone a bit far. She said that a player's hair looks similar to a doll's. Which I think it does.

Holy shit - how inappropriate.

As for people getting offended, fuck them.

:lol:

Well bear in mind, we don't even know the actual comment.

At the moment, it's a contest between "his hair looks like a golliwog" vs "oh he beat that golliwog in the AO huh?"

We don't even know who she's referring to :shrug:

If you agree with the BBC and British news media, it's Tsonga. And based on our two hypotheticals... in the first it could either refer to Tsonga or Monfils, in the second he could refer to Simon/Verdasco and that golliwog could refer to Monfils/Tsonga.

It's all still up in the air and BBC hasn't released a proper statement yet :o Or they might have on their site, but I CBB looking for it.

I am absolutely sick and tired of this case. I just checked and I have TWENTY-SIX posts in this thread :help:

It's 5:24am here and I am no closer to being able to sleep. I hate Carol Thatcher. I hate the BBC. I hate the idiot leaks. And I hate British news media.

(But of course I love you guys... even though you've been making me draft out huge, over-sized and over detail posts for the past 48 hours :o :rolls:)

Tankman
02-05-2009, 05:27 PM
I bet this is what the Queen REALLY said when told Buck house were still selling Golliwog Dolls :devil:

:haha: :haha: :haha:

:rolls: :rolls:

thanks for that mate... I really needed the laugh.

CyBorg
02-05-2009, 05:33 PM
I bet this is what the Queen REALLY said when told Buck house were still selling Golliwog Dolls :devil:

Bless her soul.

Tankman
02-05-2009, 05:39 PM
Ok going to take a little preemptive action, but on professional advice I've been advised to ignore this thread. So therefore it's going out of my subscriptions (:tape: :o) and I am no longer going to visit and make arguments. If anyone still wants to argue with me, my arguments are already here spread over 26 posts. If you want to bring up yet ANOTHER issue, tough :p And if you even go as far as to PM me, by that higher being, I will shoot you :armed: :lol:

This may be a little excessive, but I'm taking no chances and covering all bases. Quite frankly its a little sad that I've become so involved in this, and seeing as nothing I say will have any noticeable impact on the British media, I'm going to stop for the sake of my sanity.

If I come here again, please ignore me, bar me and don't by any means let me get into an argument. You've been warned :p

JolánGagó
02-05-2009, 06:17 PM
As for people getting offended, fuck them.

Exactly. Nuff said.

Herdwick
02-05-2009, 08:12 PM
Seriously, I am now offended by what I perceive to be the sacking of someone for remarks made in a private conversation? Which, according to my values and my view of the world, constitutes a serious breach of what I believe are pretty fundamental human rights? Does my being offended count? Is it equally valid? Or am I not one of the chosen who are entitled to be offended?

~*BGT*~
02-05-2009, 09:57 PM
Seriously, I am now offended by what I perceive to be the sacking of someone for remarks made in a private conversation? Which, according to my values and my view of the world, constitutes a serious breach of what I believe are pretty fundamental human rights? Does my being offended count? Is it equally valid? Or am I not one of the chosen who are entitled to be offended?

what constitutes a private conversation? In your house? Over the phone? Talking with one person at a restaurant? In an office talking to 12 other people including journalists? :confused:

adee-gee
02-05-2009, 10:13 PM
I haven't read this thread fully....but the UK newspapers are saying that she made the remark about Tsonga. Was it actually about Monfils? :scratch:

Herdwick
02-06-2009, 09:55 AM
what constitutes a private conversation? In your house? Over the phone? Talking with one person at a restaurant? In an office talking to 12 other people including journalists? :confused:

Nothing confusing about it. A private conversation is one pertaining to, or affecting a particular person, or a small group of persons - ie something that is not intended for public dissemination beyond the group in which it is held. Any remark made in such a context, even if it is later picked up by a much wider audience, should not warrant someone losing their job.

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 12:46 PM
I have fond memories of collecting the Robertson golliwogs as a child. Does this mean it would no longer be possible in Britain to discuss this childhood activity in public? With his present hairstyle Monfils actually does look like a Robertson golliwog. That is a fact.

Meanwhile the same people who think Thatcher commited an unforgiveable sin, are laughing at the hilarious behaviour of Christian Bale.
I just saw someone on TV compare the words of Sully Sullenberger as he was about to take 200 people into the Hudson River in a crash landing with the words of Christian Bale when someone accidentally walked in his line of sight. Talk about priorities.

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 12:52 PM
That link to Thatcher led me to another report that said the BBC Breakfast Show just made a slip and broadcast the Bale rant unedited while Britons were eating their sausages.
No word yet on whether the BBC will fire everyone on the Breakfast Show.

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 12:56 PM
This board sucks ass sometimes, this isnt PC issue, its about whats appropriate for ALL viewers (no matter who they are) to see on our TV screens during an innocent tennis broadcast... losers :o

I haven't read the whole thread but this comment is typical of people who can't wait to act holier than everyone else. Obviously thesupreme did not read the article, which clearly states that the remark was not on our TV screens.

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 01:05 PM
I just find it a bit funny that non-black people in this thread are saying that something that is CLEARLY racist and offensive to black people is not a big deal. You can't relate. :shrug:





Everytime someone derogatorially refers to "Fighting Irish'' I feel so offended I just want to lash out and hit someone.

JolánGagó
02-06-2009, 02:33 PM
That link to Thatcher led me to another report that said the BBC Breakfast Show just made a slip and broadcast the Bale rant unedited while Britons were eating their sausages.
No word yet on whether the BBC will fire everyone on the Breakfast Show.

Britons got what they deserved. Who in his right mind would eat that crap for Breakfast FFS :rolleyes:

http://taheny.com/2005_04_24_English_Breakfast_300x298.JPG

:scared: :bolt:

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 03:32 PM
Oooooooooh, that looks good. Especially the black pudding. Can I say ''black'' pudding?

Corey Feldman
02-06-2009, 03:32 PM
^^

i would take out those 3 black puddings but the rest of that breakfast looks great to me :lick: maybe add a potato scone ..

Oooooooooh, that looks good. Especially the black sausage. Can I say ''black'' sausage?
black puddings we call them :lol:

Henry Chinaski
02-06-2009, 03:34 PM
epic feed. drooling just looking at it. black pudding is great.

interesting Jolan complaining about that breakfast. I got charged a fucking fortune for black pud tapas in spain before. murcilla I think they call it.

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 03:35 PM
black puddings we call them :lol:

That's how long it's been.

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 03:38 PM
Spaniards don't know what breakfast is, because by the time they get up breakfast is over.

reggie1
02-06-2009, 04:48 PM
I just hope Tsonga doesn't hear anything of it and feel hurt over it. He's such a nice person imo.

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 06:07 PM
As the days go on, more and more is being revealed about what really happened, the more I feel the BBC were not over-zealous, nor is this a case of PC gone mad. And I find it annoying that people have leapt to Carol Thatcher's defense outlining all sorts of ideological and theoretical songs, when details of what really occurred are JUST coming to light. And it also seems that Carool Thatcher has been lying about events (which is hardly a surprise); E.g. She stated or her spokesperon did, that no-one seemed offended. But Jo Brand has come out and said both her and Adrian were offended and that she had stormed out.

Anyway, don't have too much time so just a couple of articles...

Carol Thatcher's golliwog remarks ‘made eyes roll in the green room’

Carol Thatcher repeatedly described a black tennis player as a golliwog, despite being challenged by those gathered after the filming of a BBC show, sources said last night.

As the BBC announced that it had received more than 2,200 complaints about its decision to sack Thatcher as a contributor to The One Show, it was alleged that she had also used the terms “golliwog frog” and “halfgolliwog” to refer to the player, who is of French-African origin.

The former Prime Minister’s daughter was dropped as a roving reporter for the BBC’s early-evening programme after The Times disclosed that she had caused consternation by using the word “golliwog” at the informal get-together, a week yesterday.

Thatcher’s spokeswoman has said that she used the word as a joke in what she saw as a private conversation, and offered a “fulsome apology” when challenged by the corporation.

Last night, however, sources said that the journalist, who is understood to be leaving the country today for a month-long speaking tour, repeatedly referred to the player as a golliwog. It is claimed that at the gathering of 12 people in the green room, Thatcher, along with Adrian Chiles, the show’s host, and Jo Brand, who had appeared as a guest, talked about the Australian Open tennis tournament.

Thatcher, who had been drinking, her spokeswoman admitted, is alleged to have referred to “the golliwog frog”, thought to be a reference to the French player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who has a white French mother and a black Congolese father.

As some rolled their eyes and others challenged Thatcher about her use of the word, she is said to have responded, “well, he’s half-golliwog”, prompting Brand to leave the room in disgust. It is understood that Thatcher then said: “Now I’m in trouble, just like Prince Harry.” The prince apologised after referring to an Asian colleague as “our little Paki friend” on a video.

Baroness Thatcher is understood to be upset. A friend is reported as telling The Daily Telegraph: “Lady Thatcher feels sad for Carol, who has been hurt by all the accusations. But she thinks the whole row is a load of nonsense.”

On BBC2’s Newsnight last night, Will Young, the pop singer, said the BBC panicked in axing Thatcher. “I don’t think it’s the right decision. I feel sorry for the BBC because there’s a culture of timidity,” he said.

The player’s mother, Evelyne Tsonga, said that her son was “deeply hurt and upset”. Mrs Tsonga, a teacher from Coulaines, near Le Mans, in France, said that her son was “absolutely astonished” by the attack.

A statement on The One Show website said that Thatcher’s language “caused instant offence”. It added: “Jo questioned Carol about it at the time but, contrary to some recent press reports, neither she nor Adrian contacted the press.” The BBC had faced a growing backlash over its stance, with Thatcher’s spokeswoman claiming that there was a vendetta against the journalist because of her mother.

Jay Hunt, controller of BBC One, said: “This is not her working in a private space and she was not in the pub with her friends. She was sitting in a BBC green room on BBC premises surrounded by a diverse production team on The One Show speaking to a BBC-booked guest, a BBC-booked celebrity and in the presence of a senior production worker from Comic Relief. In those circumstances she was effectively operating in a workplace.”

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5671863.ece

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 06:08 PM
I just hope Tsonga doesn't hear anything of it and feel hurt over it. He's such a nice person imo.

Too late! See article above. It's a real shame. :(

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 06:34 PM
Just two more...

Boris backs Thatcher over golliwog sacking

Boris Johnson joined the "golliwog row" today by saying Carol Thatcher should not have been fired.

The Mayor, who has come under fire himself for allegedly racist remarks, said she should merely have been "taken to one side".

Ms Thatcher made the remark when referring to a black tennis player off-air during The One Show.

The 55-year-old was subsequently fired from the corporation after refusing to make a written apology.

In the run-up to the mayoral election last May Mr Johnson was forced to apologise for references to "piccanninies" and "watermelon smiles".

He defended Ms Thatcher when questioned about the row by LBC presenter Nick Ferrari.

He said: "You know, I don't think she should have been fired. The way to deal with it is ... you take that person on one side and say, "Listen you'e got to watch what you say and you'e got to be sensitive". Mr Johnson's remarks were criticised by Jennette Arnold, Labour member and chairman of the London Assembly.

Montserrat-born Ms Arnold said: "The symbolism of the golliwog is colonialist and racist. I find it hard to believe that the Mayor doesn't understand this. He should engage his brain and think about the people he represents."

The BBC added to its woes today when the BBC1 Breakfast show broadcast a swear word during an extract from actor Christian Bale's now-notorious verbal attack on a colleague on a film set.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23634925-details/Boris+backs+Thatcher+over+golliwog+sacking/article.do

Carol Thatcher made other offensive remarks in 'golliwog' incident

Carol Thatcher made multiple references describing a French mixed-race tennis player as a "golliwog", "half-golliwog" and "golliwog Frog", sources say.

Thatcher, dropped from BBC1's The One Show after the programme said she refused to adequately apologise for her comments in the programme green room, made multiple remarks in front of 12 people, including presenter Adrian Chiles, comedian Jo Brand and a representative from the Comic Relief charity.

Today, The One Show insiders confirmed a story in the Times that reported that Thatcher had made variations on her comment several times in the green room.

"'Golliwog' wasn't the half of it, it is much worse than what has come out," a programme source told MediaGuardian.co.uk.

Thatcher, the daughter of former prime minister Lady Thatcher, was dropped as a roving reporter from The One Show on Tuesday night after refusing to make a full apology about her remark. Her spokeswoman said it had been an off-the-cuff remark "made in jest".

Today, Thatcher's representative said all the reports on what had happened in the green room, including today's, were "uncorroborated".

A BBC spokeswoman declined to comment.

The BBC said complaints over its handling of the situation had now reached 3,348, while the number of calls and emails supporting the corporation had doubled from 60 yesterday to 133 today.

Sources have said Thatcher is considering selling her side of the story to the Mail on Sunday this weekend.

It is thought the story could rumble on into the weekend, with other sources saying that Thatcher is considering writing a tell-all piece for the Mail on Sunday. However, she is said to be worried that any further attack on the BBC could damage her chances of ever working there again, with one source saying she wanted to see an end to the row.

Thatcher currently has several projects on the go with the BBC – she is due to film a programme for the Inside Out regional current affairs strand about her mother and is also reported to be taking part in BBC1's geneaology series Who Do You Think You Are?

She is understood to have flown out to Italy this morning as part of a European speaking tour. She was seen at London's City airport, and when asked about the row described it as "total bollocks".

A source said the atmosphere among the team on The One Show was currently one of disbelief that the story had become so big.

Chiles is also said to be annoyed at the way he has been portrayed in media coverage amid suggestions he and Brand leaked the story.

MediaGuardian.co.uk understands the story originated from a member of the production team who mentioned it to a friend, who in turn told a reporter on the Times, which broke the story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/06/carol-thatcher-multiple-golliwog-remarks

Most of the articles I've seen are along these lines. Based on their consistency what happened is as roughly...

Carol Thatcher was in the BBC green room, in conversation with Adrian Chiles and Jo Brand and another chairty worker, and within ear shot of a lot of other people (up to 12 people witnessed this). She SEEMS to have said "...beat the Golliwog Frog". People were stunned and at least Adrian and Jo Challenged her... to which she at some point responded (I assume after being reminded Tsonga is half white); "half golliwog then...". Soon after, Jo Brand stormed out, and some other witnesses were rolling their eyes.

Some unnamed people who were in the room, have made it clear that Carol Thatchers comments were hugely offensive.

Carol Thatcher did apologise via email at least, after she was spoen to by the program co-ordinator (which may have been the weekend after or the day after, I'm no sure) - but she almost excused the remarks emphasising that they were in Jest, and that she didn't realise anyone was offended (sketchy here).
But according to the BBC, they fired her because her apology wasn't adequate, partly because she didn't seem to appreciate how her comments could have been deemed offensive (as though she didn't know what she was apologising for).

That's my take based on everything read. Public opinion seems to be divided, though many people are angry that she was sacked over this. But it's hard to separate the people basing their anger on the fact that what Jonathan Ross said was worse, and those who think this is political correctness gone overboard / the public-private divide. Have to state though that many of the complains were written before the new details emerged so I'm not sure if all people still feel the same. Some articles thought that she was talking about Monfils and referring to hair... do they think the same now it seem clear that she was talking about TSONGA?

I'm spending too much energy on this again... :tape:

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 06:42 PM
I haven't read this thread fully....but the UK newspapers are saying that she made the remark about Tsonga. Was it actually about Monfils? :scratch:

It seems that more than likely she made the comments about Tsonga! I think that's emphasised by the fact that she said he was a "half golliwog" allegedly. This is pretty strong IMO... well at least the connotoations of referring to a mixed race person a a half-golliwog. I'm extremely tempted to label the comment as Racist based on the obvious connotations. [She's basically calling his father a golliwog BECAUSE he is BLACK. She has probably never seen his father so this cannot be about resemblence! That's how I see it, but that's just my opinion.]

Herdwick
02-06-2009, 06:45 PM
People seem to be missing the point here. The remark was not said on air. The BBC chose to make this whole business public; presumably in an attempt to 'look tough' after the Ross business.:shrug: I have no affection for Carol T - in fact I didn't even know she was on the BBC in this capacity until now - but to my mind that makes it rather different.

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 06:51 PM
Seriously, I am now offended by what I perceive to be the sacking of someone for remarks made in a private conversation? Which, according to my values and my view of the world, constitutes a serious breach of what I believe are pretty fundamental human rights? Does my being offended count? Is it equally valid? Or am I not one of the chosen who are entitled to be offended?

Could you please explain how this is in breach of human rights? IMO theBBC are well within their rights. Carol Thatcher was speaking on BBC property, with the BBC colleague and other staff members. This was effectively an incident in a work place, witnessed by a sustantial number of people. If this was Carol's home, then sacking her probably would have been in breach of her CIVIL rights.

Secondly, what definition of PUBLIC AND PRIVATE are you, and those of you who feel this was a private area using? Is everything off air private. Would by that logic it mean that a Typist who was seated AWAY from her computer be in a private area or still within her public work area. Who decides these things. Is there a universally accepted distinction in broadcast studios.

ryan23
02-06-2009, 07:01 PM
I cant believe theres 13 pages of this shit- who gvies a fuck about the tory bitch

JolánGagó
02-06-2009, 07:01 PM
Total bollocks. Clownga must grow up quickly if he feels "deeply hurt and upset".

However I agree with the notion that it is Monfils, not Clownga, the one visually resembling a Golliwog.

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 07:02 PM
People seem to be missing the point here. The remark was not said on air. The BBC chose to make this whole business public; presumably in an attempt to 'look tough' after the Ross business.:shrug: I have no affection for Carol T - in fact I didn't even know she was on the BBC in this capacity until now - but to my mind that makes it rather different.

I guess see my comment above. But if I could add, Carol thatcher is also a Celebrity, best emphasised by her winning 'I'm a CELEBRITY get me out of here'. Call it right or wrong, but implicitly speaking, different conventions for you and her. Magazines selling copies by breaking all sorts of PRIVATE scandal. When you're in the public eye it is just that way. I can understand your point certainly that the leaking is in itself an issue. For instance look at the outrage caused, not just to Black people; it sounds like some are claiming it's okay to make racist jokes etc in private. [Perhaps that is a civil right, but can we really stand up and say yes, it's perfectly fine to use racist language in your own home and around people who agree - perhaps this is PC but it just doesn't sound right. People are and should be entitled to, but this is a very dangerous point and on that will stir up all sort]... *breathes* but also to Tsonga. Had the comments never been released, a lot of hurt could have been spared.

But I think people need to give equal weight to discussing the comments themselves. People have to make it clear whether they think using 'offensive remarks' even in private is OK. Like it or not, this is an issue now. When you think of the problems of institutional racism, misogyny, homophobia and all forms of prejudice that STILL exist in societies today... it's important that people be clear about their feelings on this subject too. I personally have found the talk about thi being PC gone mad upsetting... because it leaves this can of worms open. Like it or not, this is an issue too.

Okay... too much time in here lol.

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 07:03 PM
I cant believe theres 13 pages of this shit- who gvies a fuck about the tory bitch

It's moved on though. The incident has raised a lot of questions and the situation transcends Carol Thatcher now. :shrug:

ryan23
02-06-2009, 07:05 PM
It's moved on though. The incident has raised a lot of questions and the situation transcends Carol Thatcher now. :shrug:

It was all over question time last night to, the BBC should keep these things private just sack her if they feel its needed and dont give a reason or some bullshit reason- i'm fed up with the BBC milking easy airwaves with there sick ways its free advertising for them and now the one show and that awfull overweight idiot will have huge ratings

JolánGagó
02-06-2009, 07:06 PM
interesting Jolan complaining about that breakfast. I got charged a fucking fortune for black pud tapas in spain before. murcilla I think they call it.

Should've informed yourself better before venturing into The Unknown. It's called "morcilla" but no human being in his mind would have it for breakfast :lol: we throw it in some stews.

Herdwick
02-06-2009, 07:08 PM
I have already defined a private conversation as follows:

'A private conversation is one pertaining to, or affecting a particular person, or a small group of persons - ie something that is not intended for public dissemination beyond the group in which it is held.'

What was said is not really relevant. But if people can now be sacked because of remarks made in such circumstances, then where does it lead? Take the sensitive and emotive nature of the alleged remarks out of the equation and ask yourself if you have ever made comments in the course of a conversation that may, on reflection, have been ill-judged? Would you expect to lose your job as a result? Because that is really what this comes down to.

JolánGagó
02-06-2009, 07:11 PM
Spaniards don't know what breakfast is, because by the time they get up breakfast is over.

So true. In my case even lunch is over sometimes but I always get my proper breakfast be it 11:00 or 15:00. Biological clock is the one that counts.

It isn't our fault if we can booze and party 24/7 if so we chose :shrug:

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 07:49 PM
Considering all the shit the BBC threw at Margaret Thatcher on the air, it is ridiculous the high and mighty attitude they are now taking. When they made fun of her accent and looks, they were making fun of her appearance. So why is this now wrong, when the BBC have been doing this for years?
Oh my golly, what a storm in a teacup. Ribbit!

forbiddenfruit
02-06-2009, 07:53 PM
FF - firstly, could you please not be quite so aggressive? I have already defined a private conversation as follows:

'A private conversation is one pertaining to, or affecting a particular person, or a small group of persons - ie something that is not intended for public dissemination beyond the group in which it is held. Any remark made in such a context, even if it is later picked up by a much wider audience, should not warrant someone losing their job.'

What was said is not relevant. But if people can now be sacked because of remarks made in such circumstances, then where does it lead? Take the sensitive and emotive nature of the alleged remark out of the occasion and ask yourself if you have ever made comments in the course of a conversation that may, on reflection, have been ill-judged? Would you expect to lose your job as a result?

:tape: I don't think I was aggressive, I'm just have a rush rush attitude... I have an exam tomorrow morning actually. But I'm sorry it came off that way, not intentional.

Putting the nature of the comments aside; while you and many other may not feel Carol's comments were public because they were off-air and so not intended for public ears etc... the BBC and some others feel that considering the comments were made within the workplace/in a work place environment, with 12 people listening in, some of whom were journalists (staff members)- and you can add to that the fact that Carol Thatcher is a celebrity (and so bearing in mind celebrity culture perhaps) - that this was not the private environment you feel it was. Now because inspite of your quote /reference, whether this was a public or private space is a gray area, one difficult to resolve. There is no objective / final way of determining if this was a public or private area. It is quite subjective. The BBC can certainly make a solid case that it wasn't a private area.

So, while you can say 'people are now being sacked because of comments made in private' - this is you interpretation and not necessarily a truth. The BBC don't feel this is what happened, they feel that the space was not private, and the reason for her being sacked was NOT the comments themselves, but her unrepented attitude after. Her lack of sensitivity and understanding on a senstive issue. Based on their own codes of practice, which as employers they are allowed, the don't feel someone with this attitude is right for their show. Without knowing the details of the contract, it's hard to say how unfair the decision really is.

But it's a matter for that employer (knowing the full details). If Carol feels unfair dismissed the laws are in place for her to sue.

Because your premise is not a fact, I think the worry about this being indicative of some slippery slope is perhaps unfounded. We still don't know all the details BUT, again from reports the reason she was dismissed was because of her unrepentant attitude and lack of understanding. According to employment law (and you guys can correct me) - If a person does something serious within the work place, the employer has the right to dismiss them immediately. It is at their discretion - they feel carol did something offensive and hasn't offered a proper apology.

With this in mind, relating to everyday people, if I made an offensive remark that became public, unlike Carol (seemingly) I would make a public apology and emphasises how sorry I was, that my comments were considered offensive... I now understand why and am sorry for that... but I am not a racist, and didn't intend them in an offensive way. [Her comments are public now and seem pretty offensive. Inspite of this she has still not tried to ease the offense/apologise, and has carried on making excuses (joke, booze)... even lied apparently]. If the company decided to sack m and I felt they had made a mistake, I'd go staight to an Employment Tribunal and seek compensation and make my clear my name. The option are all there...

... :unsure: I think I've rambled a bit, I'm tired. But that's my take. I don't think the story is going away soon, as new bit of info keep emerging... so we'll see. :bolt:

fast_clay
02-06-2009, 08:19 PM
i thought steven gerrard should have been sacked for repeatedly requesting the dj play phil collins...

buddyholly
02-06-2009, 08:25 PM
People have to make it clear whether they think using 'offensive remarks' even in private is OK. Like it or not, this is an issue now.

I think the people who were within hearing distance have the right to treat her as they please.

But from what I have seen of the BBC over the last ten years or so, I would say that it is the very BBC itself that has fostered this kind of disrespect. It is amusing to me that the old farts at the BBC consider remarks made in private as offensive, yet they allow this kind of stuff on the air all the time and call it entertainment.

It is kind of like the News of the World printing all the sex court cases ''in the interests of public decency.''

Should MTF be banned? It is full of offensive posts.

Herdwick
02-06-2009, 08:34 PM
FF - OK - sorry in that case; as you can see I've pulled the aggression accusation. It's the use of capitals - I always see it as shouting.

I think we'll have to (civilly:D) disagree here. I do not think that the fact that she is a 'celebrity' should have bearing on this but perhaps that's an unrealistic hope in today's culture. I agree there is room for debate as to whether the 'green room' is public or private but I understand that comments made in there are usually regarded as 'off-limits'. I would imagine a great deal more controversy would come out from a similar source on various programmes were this not the case.

Bottom line is I can't see past the issue of a judicious leak/snitch here because of a)the nature of the comments, b)who CT is and c)the furore over the Ross/Brand issue and the consequent desire now to 'look tough'.

And if she was out of contract anyway, why didn't they just let her go quietly; why publicise the reason? I don't see who was served by it tbh otherwise and they have now made sure to maximise any offence caused.

Good luck with your exam anyway.

~*BGT*~
02-06-2009, 10:14 PM
Britons got what they deserved. Who in his right mind would eat that crap for Breakfast FFS :rolleyes:

http://taheny.com/2005_04_24_English_Breakfast_300x298.JPG

:scared: :bolt:

That looks disgusting. :tape: No wonder you all have sucky tennis players. Look what you're raising them on! :help:

Corey Feldman
02-07-2009, 03:19 AM
That looks disgusting. :tape: No wonder you all have sucky tennis players. Look what you're raising them on! :help:still have a higher ranked Brit than a higher ranked Yank, so suck me ;)

The Pro
02-07-2009, 10:42 AM
:lol:

Henry Chinaski
02-07-2009, 12:02 PM
still have a higher ranked Brit than a higher ranked Yank, so suck me ;)

a significantly lower rate of obseity too although from what I gather you Scots do your best to try and bring up the UK average and redress the balance.

ryan23
02-07-2009, 12:23 PM
That looks disgusting. :tape: No wonder you all have sucky tennis players. Look what you're raising them on! :help:

We dont all eat that kinda stuff :haha:

Herdwick
02-07-2009, 03:06 PM
A final word here, the fascination of breakfasts aside, from Mark Lawson in today's Guardian. He puts it pretty well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/07/surveillance-snitching-privacy-society

Raquel
02-07-2009, 04:03 PM
As the BBC announced that it had received more than 2,200 complaints about its decision to sack Thatcher as a contributor to The One Show, it was alleged that she had also used the terms “golliwog frog” and “halfgolliwog” to refer to the player, who is of French-African origin. Well the reports have gone from a jokey remark about his hair to her saying things like this. No wonder people were offended. She's like the Royal Family in that she's been on a pedestal for years (by association) and thinks she can say anything she likes. When Prince Harry called someone a "raghead" it was put down to a little private joke and everyone moved on, but if you said that to someone in the street you would rightly be regarded as racist. Well done to the BBC for treating Carol Thatcher the way anyone else would be treated.

JolánGagó
02-07-2009, 04:20 PM
A final word here, the fascination of breakfasts aside, from Mark Lawson in today's Guardian. He puts it pretty well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/07/surveillance-snitching-privacy-society

Excellent, spot on.

Herdwick
02-07-2009, 08:46 PM
Further rationale.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennymccartney/4549595/Golliwog-row-Its-not-what-you-say-its-where-you-say-it.html

forbiddenfruit
02-07-2009, 09:19 PM
FF - OK - sorry in that case; as you can see I've pulled the aggression accusation. It's the use of capitals - I always see it as shouting.

I think we'll have to (civilly:D) disagree here. I do not think that the fact that she is a 'celebrity' should have bearing on this but perhaps that's an unrealistic hope in today's culture. I agree there is room for debate as to whether the 'green room' is public or private but I understand that comments made in there are usually regarded as 'off-limits'. I would imagine a great deal more controversy would come out from a similar source on various programmes were this not the case.

Bottom line is I can't see past the issue of a judicious leak/snitch here because of a)the nature of the comments, b)who CT is and c)the furore over the Ross/Brand issue and the consequent desire now to 'look tough'.

And if she was out of contract anyway, why didn't they just let her go quietly; why publicise the reason? I don't see who was served by it tbh otherwise and they have now made sure to maximise any offence caused.

Good luck with your exam anyway.

*Trying to keep it short*

You know I don’t disagree with this, but it is slightly different from the point you were making in the post before :p. Essentially, because what was said was said off-air, a lot of distress and offence could have been saved had the details not been leaked, had this whole sage remained private – within the BBC walls.

But I have no issue with the BBC taking action against Carol T. Whether firing her was the best way to deal with the offence is open to debate, but they acted well within their rights (considering that greenroom can be considered part of the workplace – not a comment made in Carol home, where she is allowed to be as offensive and whatever as she wants). I actually say Kudos to the BBC, Adrian Chiles and Jo Brand, because what they essentially did was take a stand against ‘offensive, probably racist language’ I think.

PS. Aww Thanx for the luck :D :hug:

forbiddenfruit
02-07-2009, 10:12 PM
A final word here, the fascination of breakfasts aside, from Mark Lawson in today's Guardian. He puts it pretty well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/07/surveillance-snitching-privacy-society

Further rationale.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennymccartney/4549595/Golliwog-row-Its-not-what-you-say-its-where-you-say-it.html

:unsure:

I know I’ve said this already, but this rationale just doesn’t sit well with me. I don’t think the case is well argued. The issues spun and muddied by drawing various loosely related events to further this hypochondriac-like idea that 1984 is coming you life.

For instance, according to the BBC, CT was sacked because she said something offensive (in private/workplace) for which she was unrepentant/unapologetic about. Most of the other celebrities who made offensive remarks in public apologised publicly. I even think Prince Harry did too. Jimmy Carr may not have apologised publicly but not only does he not have a contract with the BBC, I don’t think he’s been on the BBC in a very long while.

The difference between Carol and the others seems to be an understanding of offence and public apologies. She didn’t say the comments publicly but they have been leaked publicly so it is a public affair now and she hasn’t shown any signs of regret.

[Another thing that makes me uncomfortable about it, is the perhaps milder issue of people seemingly arguing for the right to make offensive remarks. I know that’s fine under freedom of speech conventions and laws, but it doesn’t feel right. Its seems like a hindrance to what many are striving for, social cohesion. Without absolute clarity, meaning making it absolutely clear that offensive language is not being encourage and should be avoided… I just feel :unsure: ]

That said, the point I’d like to hear from these journalists, – who BTW seem to be unclear about what was said and the events of the green room – the point missing from this rationale is that once you so say something offensive and are caught out, it is important you explain yourself and apologise for the offence caused. Most people might say offensive things in private, but they say them in private because they know they cause offence, and if the comments are made public, explanations ought to be given and proper apologies made. Offended parties deserve that IMO.

buddyholly
02-08-2009, 12:18 AM
Well done to the BBC for treating Carol Thatcher the way anyone else would be treated.

If the BBC treated all their employees the way they treated Carol Thatcher, you would be watching a blank screen.

buddyholly
02-08-2009, 12:22 AM
People have to make it clear whether they think using 'offensive remarks' even in private is OK. Like it or not, this is an issue now.

Sometimes, in the privacy of my own bedroom, I rock back and forth chanting, "Fucking English bastards, fucking English bastards.''

Is it OK to continue to do this, even in private?

~*BGT*~
02-08-2009, 04:55 AM
still have a higher ranked Brit than a higher ranked Yank, so suck me ;)

Gladly... time and place?

Tankman
02-08-2009, 11:57 AM
ah hello thread :wavey:

thanks to the Mod who moved this to NonTennis btw. Really. You are my hero.

also may I point out none of you have challenged anything I've said since I've left here :p

also I know I said I would never post here again, but I just had to point this out.

also buddyholly - the Church of the FSM. Ask me about that letter and I will destroy every single one of the claims it makes. Seriously

Ok peace out y'all :p
i'd argue with y'all but I don't wanna ruin your fun. seriously :p

buddyholly
02-08-2009, 12:02 PM
What letter?

forbiddenfruit
02-08-2009, 02:26 PM
Sometimes, in the privacy of my own bedroom, I rock back and forth chanting, "Fucking English bastards, fucking English bastards.''

Is it OK to continue to do this, even in private?

No it’s not OK!!! I’d advise you to get out more because “fucking English Bastards” IMO is barely offensive (though I don’t speak for everyone) if at all. Is that the best you can do? It’s not in the same league as “fucking fudgpacker/faggot”, “fucking golliwog” or “fucking women, only good for one thing” or “Scottish one-eyed idiot” [the offence not being the Scottish but to the disabled. If you have no idea what I’m on about, search ‘Jeremy Clarkson’]. Your phrase is at worst calling someone/some portion of the English population a bastard (:rolleyes:)… (it doesn’t have far reaching effects of the others – in the case of the one eyes people (people with visual impairments) .. it’s just so :rolleyes:.

That said… you can say it all you like freely in your own home (and the other comments I find more offensive), or around people who aren’t offended (probably people not in the targeted group). It’s not advised that you say it, but what no-one knows won’t hurt them. But if you get caught out and offend someone, unless you’re just an insecure little prick who gets of on offending people/bullying people, you ought to apologise for the offence caused to he people hurt by the comments you have made. Going back to Carol, she may not have made her comments in public but they were leaked and have now offended more people. That’s why a public apology might be appropriate – because her comments were far reaching even if not intended. This is not PC gone made, but just the right and mature thing to do.

forbiddenfruit
02-08-2009, 02:36 PM
ah hello thread :wavey:

thanks to the Mod who moved this to NonTennis btw. Really. You are my hero.

also may I point out none of you have challenged anything I've said since I've left here :p

also I know I said I would never post here again, but I just had to point this out.

also buddyholly - the Church of the FSM. Ask me about that letter and I will destroy every single one of the claims it makes. Seriously

Ok peace out y'all :p
i'd argue with y'all but I don't wanna ruin your fun. seriously :p

SMH.

So anyway, are there any points in particular you'd like addressed? Or do you just want some attentive TLC :lol:. You could yourself just challenge more recent posts that you don't agree with :shrug:.

I think the threads been useful, for me anyway, but I think I'm gonna put some attention into actually writing to jounalists and so on. Because in some places, they're still reporting even today that CT just compared hair... even thought Adrian Chiles has written an article on what happened consistent with the more offensive reports. But I think Public opinion is swaying... more people are commending the BBC from what I've been reading. We'll see.

forbiddenfruit
02-08-2009, 02:47 PM
Can't find Adrians article - but I think the quotes here are excerpts from it.

Adrian's outrage at Carol

ONE Show host ADRIAN CHILES has exclusively revealed the full details of the “golliwog” outburst that cost Carol Thatcher her job.
He was in the green room after the show with comic Jo Brand and an unnamed woman from Comic Relief when Carol made the comment about French tennis player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga:

Carol was in full flow, talking about who’d win the Australian Open. “You also have to consider the frogs,” she said. “You know, that froggy golliwog guy.”

“Ooh,” she added — waving an arm about. “If I was Prince Harry I’d get shot for saying that.”

Before I’d worked out what to do, Jo — plainly aghast — leant across and said: “Excuse me, did you just say golliwog?”
“Yes, well, he’s half-black,” Carol explained, waving her hand in front of her face.

I looked at one of my colleagues — a young woman of Mauritian origin — and gave quiet thanks that she appeared to be out of earshot. Jo stood up saying, “Well, I’ve had enough of this. That’s it. I’m off.”

It was obvious that Jo was as appalled and embarrassed as I was but Carol didn’t seem to notice.

It’s been alleged that I was shocked. Well, I was. In my view, the g-word is offensive.

Not as offensive as the n-word, but offensive nevertheless. And I was pretty horrified to hear her use it.

I followed Jo out of the room. Carol then skipped past waving us a cheery good-bye.

Carol has since claimed she was joking. I don’t believe she was. I don’t believe Carol is a racist — it was just her utterly inappropriate way of saying he was black.

Days later she did offer an apology but still insisted she had been joking.

Call me politically correct, but it’s totally horrible to call a black person a golliwog — and even worse to then try to duck it by saying it was a joke.

Adrian Chiles donated the fee for this story to Comic Relief.

©Adrian Chiles 2009

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2215681.ece

PS. You know, I think Froggy was reference to French (I think referring to the French as Frogs is some kind of Jibe :shrug:).

JolánGagó
02-08-2009, 03:27 PM
P.R.I.V.A.T.E. what part of it you don't get? It must be dealt with in private if someone was offended. Ears not meant to have heard it have no business whatsoever judging it. Let the fu**ing speech police dictate your private conversations and next thing they'll be monitoring your thoughts as soon as technology allows for it. This nonsense must stop.

Snoo Foo
02-08-2009, 03:29 PM
I don't get all the ruckus, she said something offensive in front of several co-workers (and apparently a visitor to the workplace), at her place of employment, during the regular course of business, so they fired her.

Snoo Foo
02-08-2009, 03:39 PM
Ears not meant to have heard it have no business whatsoever judging it.

Dude, if I'm at my work and I tell my co-worker "Hey give this file to that nigger secretary," and my co-worker goes and tells my boss, I'm gonna get fucking fired.

forbiddenfruit
02-08-2009, 03:43 PM
P.R.I.V.A.T.E. what part of it you don't get? It must be dealt with in private if someone was offended. Ears not meant to have heard it have no business whatsoever judging it. Let the fu**ing speech police dictate your private conversations and next thing they'll be monitoring your thoughts as soon as technology allows for it. This nonsense must stop.

Which do you mean? It was a private conversation between 4 people and management shouldn't have heard about it? Or the details shouldn't have been leaked to the general public?

If you mean the former - I disagree. Conversations within the workplace, that end up in people being offended or made to feel uncomfortable are an employers business. Nothing wrong in someone telling BBC management. It is then at the employers discretion whether and how they go about discplining someone for making offensive remarks within their establishment/ask them to explain themselves or not. This is how employment relations are. Next some of you will be saying is sexual harrassment takes place in a work environment is between the two people involved! :tape: If you don't like that, don't say offensive things to sensitive ears. It is also her employers discretion how the discipline her. If she thinks it was unfair and goes against her employment contract she can sue. If the BBC think you should make proper apologies in such circumstances then they are entitled to do so, if you don't like it find another employer.

If you meant the latter, the leaking, then I think I've talked about it before. I don't agree with the leak. but what's done is done. Is there some part of my previous post you disgaree with in particular?

buddyholly
02-08-2009, 05:42 PM
Is that the best you can do? It’s not in the same league as “fucking fudgpacker/faggot”, “fucking golliwog” or “fucking women, only good for one thing” or “Scottish one-eyed idiot”

Well, it is a matter of personal taste, but I would rather be called fudgepacker, golliwog, woman, Scottish or one-eyed than English.

buddyholly
02-08-2009, 05:50 PM
PS. You know, I think Froggy was reference to French (I think referring to the French as Frogs is some kind of Jibe :shrug:).

Of course it is. I am surprised you did not know that. But this is the strange thing. Nobody seems to be complaining that Carol made a remark offensive to the French. I wonder why. PC taken to its limits. Which is to say, it is OK to be offensive to some groups, but not OK to be offensive to other groups.

Political correctness has been take to such ridiculous extremes that I sometimes think that if I took Notre Dame University to court for calling their football team "The Fighting Irish" and depicting a little Irishman with his fists up as their mascot, I would easily win my case.

buddyholly
02-08-2009, 05:56 PM
I don't get all the ruckus, she said something offensive in front of several co-workers (and apparently a visitor to the workplace), at her place of employment, during the regular course of business, so they fired her.

The use of the words God, Jesus, Christ and Lord are offensive to me. So how do you define offensive? I am sure that if everyone who made an offensive remark at the BBC was fired there would be no one employed there.

And don't forget that a good part of what the BBC calls entertainment these days, consists of people making offensive remarks in front of the whole nation on so-called comedy shows. (Well, to the couple of hundred or so that might actually be watching.)

Tankman
02-08-2009, 06:50 PM
SMH.

So anyway, are there any points in particular you'd like addressed? Or do you just want some attentive TLC :lol:. You could yourself just challenge more recent posts that you don't agree with :shrug:.

I think the threads been useful, for me anyway, but I think I'm gonna put some attention into actually writing to jounalists and so on. Because in some places, they're still reporting even today that CT just compared hair... even thought Adrian Chiles has written an article on what happened consistent with the more offensive reports. But I think Public opinion is swaying... more people are commending the BBC from what I've been reading. We'll see.

SMH? :scratch:

no :p I don't feel like it :p

if I wrote to all the journalists that i wanted to challenge, Australia Post would stop sending letters for me :o :haha:

also this is the letter: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

It's very funny but frankly it's a load of bullshit.....

The use of the words God, Jesus, Christ and Lord are offensive to me. So how do you define offensive? I am sure that if everyone who made an offensive remark at the BBC was fired there would be no one employed there.

And don't forget that a good part of what the BBC calls entertainment these days, consists of people making offensive remarks in front of the whole nation on so-called comedy shows. (Well, to the couple of hundred or so that might actually be watching.)

....and I think you might just agree with me ;) I thought you supported FSM :p :haha:

Snoo Foo
02-08-2009, 07:08 PM
The use of the words God, Jesus, Christ and Lord are offensive to me.

OK so if you have an employee who uses those words, you should fire her, if you want :shrug:

Tankman
02-08-2009, 07:46 PM
OK so if you have an employee who uses those words, you should fire her, if you want :shrug:

:scratch:

uhhhh NO :p

Snoo Foo
02-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Why not?

edit: look I realize we are coming at this from different cultures, legal systems, etc., but in my experience it is a basic fact that you do not have the right to say whatever you want at your job.

~*BGT*~
02-08-2009, 08:45 PM
P.R.I.V.A.T.E. what part of it you don't get? It must be dealt with in private if someone was offended. Ears not meant to have heard it have no business whatsoever judging it. Let the fu**ing speech police dictate your private conversations and next thing they'll be monitoring your thoughts as soon as technology allows for it. This nonsense must stop.

She is a celebrity... a public figure. When celebrities and public figures do "bad" things, (where I live) it's published in the tabloids, on blogs.... this is what happens. :shrug: That's the price they pay. :wavey:

When Michael Richards went on that racist tirade during a stand-up routine, it was made public because of who he is. If it were a nobody, most likely, it wouldn't have gotten the attention. One of my senators was caught in a brothel scandal. If this were just some normal dude, do you think the story would have been printed in newspapers worldwide?

Tankman
02-08-2009, 09:07 PM
Why not?

edit: look I realize we are coming at this from different cultures, legal systems, etc., but in my experience it is a basic fact that you do not have the right to say whatever you want at your job.

is it legal in the US to sack someone based on the fact that they disrespect God? :p

I wouldn't think so :p

While you don't have the right to say whatever you like, that usually means racist/sexist/defamatory remarks mate.

Australia isn't that different from the States. Our legal systems all came from Britain after all :p Besides, I know way too much about the US for my own good :rolls:

Tankman
02-08-2009, 09:09 PM
She is a celebrity... a public figure. When celebrities and public figures do "bad" things, (where I live) it's published in the tabloids, on blogs.... this is what happens. :shrug: That's the price they pay. :wavey:

It's a stupid culture :ras: I will never live in a country like that :ras: :haha:

When Michael Richards went on that racist tirade during a stand-up routine, it was made public because of who he is. If it were a nobody, most likely, it wouldn't have gotten the attention. One of my senators was caught in a brothel scandal. If this were just some normal dude, do you think the story would have been printed in newspapers worldwide?

Yeah of course. Duh. Unfortunately many celebrities act as if nothing is different and they should get the same privacy as everyone else :rolleyes:

Snoo Foo
02-08-2009, 09:25 PM
is it legal in the US to sack someone based on the fact that they disrespect God? :p

It's not based on the fact that they disrespect god; it's based on the fact that they used offensive language in the workplace.

While you don't have the right to say whatever you like, that usually means racist/sexist/defamatory remarks mate.

If you mutter "fuck this piece of shit" whenever your computer crashes or go around talking about how much you hate Roger Federer, you could get fired. You could get fired for complaining every time your boss asks you to do something. None of those things are racist/sexist/defamatory.

Tankman
02-08-2009, 09:38 PM
It's not based on the fact that they disrespect god; it's based on the fact that they used offensive language in the workplace.

Well unfortunately afaik, God (:p) is not considered swearing. It's considered everyday language :sad:

So unless the US still upholds those laws, I don't think you'd get fired for saying it. :shrug:

Maybe over and over, but not if you say it on odd occasions :p

If you mutter "fuck this piece of shit" whenever your computer crashes or go around talking about how much you hate Roger Federer, you could get fired. You could get fired for complaining every time your boss asks you to do something. None of those things are racist/sexist/defamatory.

Maybe. But I'd definitely get a good laugh out of it whenever that person said that to their computer :p Also saying you hate Roger Federer is quasi-defamatory depending on how you see it :p And questioning your boss is insubordination

I'll be more thorough w/my categories next time :ras:

Snoo Foo
02-08-2009, 09:52 PM
So unless the US still upholds those laws, I don't think you'd get fired for saying it. :shrug:

What laws? There doesn't have to be a law against it for you to get fired for saying it. :lol: I only used that cuz it was buddyholly's example of words that offend him. In reality I doubt any employer would fire you for saying it cuz as you said it's fairly common, but if your boss was easily offended by it, he could fire you. Might not be the best idea from a business point of view, but... he could do it.

But yeah, as I said many posts ago, she used a racial slur while she was at work, during the regular course of business, in front of many co-workers, that's the sort of shit people get fired for.

Tankman
02-08-2009, 10:16 PM
What laws? There doesn't have to be a law against it for you to get fired for saying it. :lol: I only used that cuz it was buddyholly's example of words that offend him. In reality I doubt any employer would fire you for saying it cuz as you said it's fairly common, but if your boss was easily offended by it, he could fire you. Might not be the best idea from a business point of view, but... he could do it.

But yeah, as I said many posts ago, she used a racial slur while she was at work, during the regular course of business, in front of many co-workers, that's the sort of shit people get fired for.

:lol:

fine then... I guess if you got a real Christian/fundamentalist/bible bashing (:p) employer, then I guess so :p

Yeah... that's what I said in my last post on the subject :p

which is why the private/public debate is MOOT :nerner:

buddyholly
02-09-2009, 12:59 AM
OK so if you have an employee who uses those words, you should fire her, if you want :shrug:

And my ass would be hauled into court in no time.

So I hope Thatcher takes the BBC to court.

Snoo Foo
02-09-2009, 01:14 AM
then there must be some legal difference cuz here there's no law against firing an employee for using racial slurs at work, or for using offensive language in general at work. This is all assuming the employee doesn't have a contract cuz that's another story, like Don Imus' situation.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 01:15 AM
And my ass would be hauled into court in no time.

So I hope Thatcher takes the BBC to court.

oh that would be funny

:haha:

you think we can get this to chat thread status? :rolls:

Tankman
02-09-2009, 01:16 AM
then there must be some legal difference cuz here there's no law against firing an employee for using racial slurs at work, or for using offensive language in general at work. This is all assuming the employee doesn't have a contract cuz that's another story, like Don Imus' situation.

there's laws against racial discrimination not racial incrimination :o :lol:

JolánGagó
02-09-2009, 01:17 AM
What laws? There doesn't have to be a law against it for you to get fired for saying it. :lol: I only used that cuz it was buddyholly's example of words that offend him. In reality I doubt any employer would fire you for saying it cuz as you said it's fairly common, but if your boss was easily offended by it, he could fire you. Might not be the best idea from a business point of view, but... he could do it.

You perhaps don't realize BBC is a public organization sustained by taxpayer's money.

Snoo Foo
02-09-2009, 01:17 AM
there's laws against racial discrimination not racial incrimination :o :lol:

dude what does this mean? She didn't get fired because what she said was illegal. :lol:

JolánGagó
02-09-2009, 01:20 AM
Well, it is a matter of personal taste, but I would rather be called fudgepacker, golliwog, woman, Scottish or one-eyed than English.

:haha:

Snoo Foo
02-09-2009, 01:22 AM
You perhaps don't realize BBC is a public organization sustained by taxpayer's money.

So there is some kind of law in the UK that you are allowed to say whatever you want at work as long as you work for a publicly funded organization? I don't get it. In this country, if you work for a government agency and you use racial slurs at work, you are going to get fired (or put on probation, or whatever kind of elaborate bureaucratic system has been set up).

JolánGagó
02-09-2009, 01:28 AM
So there is some kind of law in the UK that you are allowed to say whatever you want at work as long as you work for a publicly funded organization? I don't get it. In this country, if you work for a government agency and you use racial slurs at work, you are going to get fired (or put on probation, or whatever kind of elaborate bureaucratic system has been set up).

As if your country was a paradigma of freedom of speech protection, you invented the whole PC crap FFS. I realize your situation is even worse than in most European countries in that respect.

What I mean is you keep talking about your employer firing for this and for that. BBC is not your average employer but a quasi-govermental organization so hiring and firing policies must be based on something sounder that the personal tastes of "the employer".

Tankman
02-09-2009, 01:35 AM
dude what does this mean? She didn't get fired because what she said was illegal. :lol:

no she got fired because what she said was offensive. however, there are laws that determine what is offensive and what you can fire someone for.

:haha:

:haha: x2

I'd say the same thing good ol buddy did :p

Snoo Foo
02-09-2009, 01:48 AM
As if your country was a paradigma of freedom of speech protection, you invented the whole PC crap FFS. I realize your situation is even worse than in most European countries in that respect.

Huh? I didn't invent anything, I only brought up US cuz it's my reference point, not as some kind of... beacon of freedom and democracy. Nobody's guaranteed freedom of speech in the workplace, even if you're a government employee, your right to free speech in the workplace is based on whether what you're speaking about is a legitimate matter of public concern, and I sure as hell can't imagine how calling a tennis player a "golliwog" is a matter of such public concern that she'd be protected under US freedom of speech laws.

What I mean is you keep talking about your employer firing for this and for that. BBC is not your average employer but a quasi-govermental organization so hiring and firing policies must be based on something sounder that the personal tastes of "the employer".

ok sure, it's a big place, with a huge human resources department or whatever they call it over there, but from my point of view firing someone for using racial slurs is not exactly some capricious, whimsical decision like firing her for saying she hates cucumber sandwiches. I doubt one dude at the BBC said, "Oh Carol I'm upset by what you said, you're fired." Probably there was a big discussion with their legal department (or whatever they call it over there) and all kinds of back and forth over what to be done.

Tankman
02-09-2009, 01:50 AM
Huh? I didn't invent anything, I only brought up US cuz it's my reference point, not as some kind of... beacon of freedom and democracy. Nobody's guaranteed freedom of speech in the workplace, even if you're a government employee, your right to free speech in the workplace is based on whether what you're speaking about is a legitimate matter of public concern, and I sure as hell can't imagine how calling a tennis player a "golliwog" is a matter of such public concern that she'd be protected under US freedom of speech laws.

Agreed. If anything it's the paranoid Brits who invented PC :p

ok sure, it's a big place, with a huge human resources department or whatever they call it over there, but from my point of view firing someone for using racial slurs is not exactly some capricious, whimsical decision like firing her for saying she hates cucumber sandwiches. I doubt one dude at the BBC said, "Oh Carol I'm upset by what you said, you're fired." Probably there was a big discussion with their legal department (or whatever they call it over there) and all kinds of back and forth over what to be done.

:lol:

:yeah: