Danny Baker fired by BBC over royal baby chimp tweet

[Slarti]

I did wonder about the legal position of the BBC here. Whilst I certainly accept the possible racist interpretation of this, and it is certainly in bad taste, I doubt it could be judged criminal.

But I suspect it is likely DB is self employed like most celebs, rather than an employee. Hence he would have only contractual and not legal employment protection. No doubt he'll get a wad of cash from license payers as a payoff.

Gryff

If he was working under a contract crafted to avoid the pitfalls of IR35 there would almost certainly be no golden parachute.

Slarti

[melonfool]

I don't understand your point, please could you make it more clearly?

Are you suggesting there is no racism at football matches? When did you last go and see Millwall play a team that had black players, just out of interest?

Mel

I'm not asking you to justify my words, I'm asking you to justify your words, specifically

But, for reference, try watching almost any football match with black players. Do you think the bananas are thrown as a convenient mid-match snack? Do you think only black players get hungry mid-match?

A specific act performed at a majority of games involving a black player.

You bought Millwall up not me, I'm glad you agree it was a strawman.

I'm guessing it's the "...try watching almost any football match with black players..." that attracted the criticism that what you said was both "outdated and derogatory" (my bold).

Does racism still exist in football? Undoubtedly. Does it happen in nearly every match (I imagine, but don't have the data, that it is a very rare match these days without any black players)? Probably not. Are bananas involved in nearly every match? No.

Exactly.

Thank you for clarifying my point which I needlessly obscured by quoting directly and succinctly from the original source!

Well I wasn't suggesting that bananas are thrown at every football match

That is exactly what you suggested.

It's how you interpreted it, not what I said.

The banana throwing was an example of racism (specifically linked to the topic of the Tweet DB made).

I do believe there is racism at every football match, yes.

I don't think bananas are thrown at every football match.

I don't have to justify what I say - this is a discussion board, not a PhD thesis. I have no intention of trying to change anybody's minds, I am way too long in the tooth and have too much experience around these parts for that dead end street thank you.

But do feel free to read the Wiki page I posted. For those of you who really think that racism at football matches is an outdated stereotype you will find it most illuminating. Or a conspiracy. One or the other.

Mel

[dealtn]

...I'm afraid I do believe there is racism at practically every football match with non white players. Sorry.

Mel

There is still far to much racism in football (and society as a whole). I might not be able to convince you, and your "wiki" page has relatively few examples, although we would surely agree that is because of the relative absence of reporting, and dealing with it, rather than its non-existence.

I won't elaborate too much, but as well as being a season ticket holder, I am involved at a senior level of club management at one of the English clubs which even a non-football fan will likely have heard of. We have had no reported racism reported to the board directed at either players or fans this year, and I am not aware of any reported to match stewards. I have only encountered racism at 2 of this seasons matches, both at away grounds. (That's still 2 too many).

Homophobic comments exceed racist ones (and the vast majority of these are childish because a player might have a pink shirt or boots, not because they are "openly" non-heterosexual). Sexist comments are rare also, but only in the sense that there are still too few female officials in the game. Whilst I don't wish to hear more, it would at least be as a result of greater female involvement (and hopefully be tackled in the same strong way as other "isms" that blight the game).

If you feel sufficiently strongly about it, and encounter it, I would encourage you to report it. Such reports are one of the few means those in authority have to begin to deal with such unacceptable behaviour.

I suspect we have drifted too far from the original topic to continue however, but have no objection to participating in a new thread.

[BobbyD]

I don't understand your point, please could you make it more clearly?

Are you suggesting there is no racism at football matches? When did you last go and see Millwall play a team that had black players, just out of interest?

Mel

I'm not asking you to justify my words, I'm asking you to justify your words, specifically

But, for reference, try watching almost any football match with black players. Do you think the bananas are thrown as a convenient mid-match snack? Do you think only black players get hungry mid-match?

A specific act performed at a majority of games involving a black player.

You bought Millwall up not me, I'm glad you agree it was a strawman.

I'm guessing it's the "...try watching almost any football match with black players..." that attracted the criticism that what you said was both "outdated and derogatory" (my bold).

Does racism still exist in football? Undoubtedly. Does it happen in nearly every match (I imagine, but don't have the data, that it is a very rare match these days without any black players)? Probably not. Are bananas involved in nearly every match? No.

Exactly.

Thank you for clarifying my point which I needlessly obscured by quoting directly and succinctly from the original source!

Well I wasn't suggesting that bananas are thrown at every football match

That is exactly what you suggested.

It's how you interpreted it, not what I said.

The banana throwing was an example of racism (specifically linked to the topic of the Tweet DB made).

I do believe there is racism at every football match, yes.

I don't think bananas are thrown at every football match.

I don't have to justify what I say - this is a discussion board, not a PhD thesis. I have no intention of trying to change anybody's minds, I am way too long in the tooth and have too much experience around these parts for that dead end street thank you.

But do feel free to read the Wiki page I posted. For those of you who really think that racism at football matches is an outdated stereotype you will find it most illuminating. Or a conspiracy. One or the other.

Mel

So you don't need to justify your stereotypes.

Somewhat ironic on this thread...

Discussion isn't just the repetition of unsubstantiated guff.

[GoSeigen]

well for what its worth when I saw the picture wrt the hoo-hah my reaction was not "oh look - an obvious insinuration that the kid is a non-white skjinned individual".

Obviously my claim must be idiotic too.

I am now aware that may opeople it seems see chimpanzees as racist icons. Im not sure what that says abo0ut them TBH.

Meanwhile I see lots fo claims elsewhere about monkies = black people apparently.

Whereas this was of a chimp, not a monkey anyway. Speciest remarks maybe?


didds

Please explain the picture and its posting then, because I have no idea. And I can't fathom why the alternative of General Tom Thumb would better convey the joke. Kindly explain.

Thanks,


GS

[DiamondEcho]

That is exactly what you suggested.

It's how you interpreted it, not what I said. Mel

Moderator Message:
Quote attribution fixed - Itsallaguess

The same reply could come from Danny Baker, 'the problem is in your mind and not in my intention/actions'.
But he hasn't been judged on that, he was judged summarily guilty, and therefore why shouldn't the public witch-hunt conclude similar of yourself?

I'm not a Danny Baker fan BTW, he's too out there for me, and I don't get enough of his humour to find him pretty tiresome. Is the current iteration of The Posh Scaffolders the Woke-philosophical DJs?

[melonfool]

That is exactly what you suggested.

It's how you interpreted it, not what I said. Mel

Moderator Message:
Quote attribution fixed - Itsallaguess

The same reply could come from Danny Baker, 'the problem is in your mind and not in my intention/actions'.
But he hasn't been judged on that, he was judged summarily guilty, and therefore why shouldn't the public witch-hunt conclude similar of yourself?

I'm not a Danny Baker fan BTW, he's too out there for me, and I don't get enough of his humour to find him pretty tiresome. Is the current iteration of The Posh Scaffolders the Woke-philosophical DJs?

So I'm racist for thinking there is racism in football? OK. Whatever.

Truly down the rabbit hole there fella.

Mel

[didds]

Please explain the picture and its posting then, because I have no idea. And I can't fathom why the alternative of General Tom Thumb would better convey the joke. Kindly explain.

Thanks,


GS

?

explain what? it sounds as if you are asking me to prove a negative?

I don't equate a chimp to black people. so I see a royal couple with a chimp. whatever that is supposed to convey.

I do not see a royal couple with a black person - which is apparently what i am supposed to see. I think.

wierd.

didds

[GoSeigen]

Please explain the picture and its posting then, because I have no idea. And I can't fathom why the alternative of General Tom Thumb would better convey the joke. Kindly explain.

Thanks,


GS

?

explain what? it sounds as if you are asking me to prove a negative?
didds

Blimey you only need to read the next five words to know what to explain! I'm wondering if you are able to put yourself in DB's shoes and explain what the hell he meant posting the picture, since you evidently find it completely innocent. As I said I cannot fathom what he was getting at even after reading his explanation.

And what about the General Tom Thumb bit?

GS

[swill453]

Blimey you only need to read the next five words to know what to explain! I'm wondering if you are able to put yourself in DB's shoes and explain what the hell he meant posting the picture, since you evidently find it completely innocent. As I said I cannot fathom what he was getting at even after reading his explanation.

I certainly find it believable that someone not into the royals/celebs/Daily Mail scene would be entirely unaware that there was any mixed race involved in the recent birth.

So the explanation that he was attempting to "lampoon privilege" with a depiction of a "chimp dressed as a Lord" is, to me, conceivable. The reality was pointed out to him within minutes and the retractions, apologies and inevitable sacking followed.

Scott.

[Maylix]

Blimey you only need to read the next five words to know what to explain! I'm wondering if you are able to put yourself in DB's shoes and explain what the hell he meant posting the picture, since you evidently find it completely innocent. As I said I cannot fathom what he was getting at even after reading his explanation.

Sigh...
I saw the cartoon and thought:
1. He was implying that the media coverage of the royal birth was a 'circus' , hence the chimp dressed as a human (which you get in circuses)
2. The parents were complicit in treating their child like a circus act

I thought the above even though I KNOW Meghan is mixed race. DB claims not to have known that (which I can believe).

Soooo... he basically lost his job because he posted something without thinking through an alternative interpretation. Is he racist...No. Should he have realised that his cartoon would be misinterpreted...Yes. Should he have lost his job....Probably not. Am I surprised the BBC would bow to the inevitable Twitter storm and virtue signal it's own liberal credentials by firing him...Not in the slightest.

HTH
Maylix

[zico]

So the explanation that he was attempting to "lampoon privilege" with a depiction of a "chimp dressed as a Lord" is, to me, conceivable.

But his explanation that if he'd thought for a second or two, General Tom Thumb would have worked for "lampooning privilege" just as well - that doesn't make any sense at all to me.

[XFool]

So the explanation that he was attempting to "lampoon privilege" with a depiction of a "chimp dressed as a Lord" is, to me, conceivable.

But his explanation that if he'd thought for a second or two, General Tom Thumb would have worked for "lampooning privilege" just as well - that doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Does this help?

The real Tom Thumb and the birth of celebrity

BBC News

[zico]

Yes, that makes some kind of sense. So Danny Baker wishes he'd made fun of dwarfs instead???

[GoSeigen]

So the explanation that he was attempting to "lampoon privilege" with a depiction of a "chimp dressed as a Lord" is, to me, conceivable.

But his explanation that if he'd thought for a second or two, General Tom Thumb would have worked for "lampooning privilege" just as well - that doesn't make any sense at all to me.

Does this help?

The real Tom Thumb and the birth of celebrity

BBC News

Thank you XFool, that helps a lot. I can now just about get where he might be coming from with his "lampooning privilege" and the "media circus". Personally I can give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't expect everyone else to. If his employers acted rashly without thinking it seems to me they are guilty of the same thing Baker himself admits to. It's certainly an interesting incident. There is some irony in his being part of the media circus that he criticises...

If I accept Baker's explanation then it seems rather shallow to be criticising something (the royal family) when he is entirely ignorant of the most basic facts about it; similarly, engaging in social commentary on an event (royal birth) without making even the most cursory inquiries about it seems a bit unprofessional. However I guess he's just a DJ/presenter and not a journalist so might be excused.


GS

[StepOne]

Yes, that makes some kind of sense. So Danny Baker wishes he'd made fun of dwarfs instead???

He wasn't making fun of the chimp (or alternatively, the dwarf). He was making fun at the ludicrousness of being excited about a couple bringing a baby home.

[Gaggsy]

He wasn't making fun of the chimp (or alternatively, the dwarf). He was making fun at the ludicrousness of being excited about a couple bringing a baby home.

Yes. I believe that was his intention. His execution of his intention was where he fell foul.

Is this a better attempt? - viewtopic.php?f=29&t=17550

[Howyoudoin]

Can't help feeling that if the Beeb had wanted to keep him, they would've done. Certainly it seems that is the stance they have taken with Sir Alan Sugar and his similarly 'racist' tweet recently.

But if the Beeb were looking for a reason to fire him -again- . . . why do they keep re-hiring him after a period of grace?

None of it makes much sense.

Just hope that DB is able to find similar work*, should he want it at his age of course.

HYD

* Virgin Radio would seem a good fit

[dionaeamuscipula]

Can't help feeling that if the Beeb had wanted to keep him, they would've done. Certainly it seems that is the stance they have taken with Sir Alan Sugar and his similarly 'racist' tweet recently.

But if the Beeb were looking for a reason to fire him -again- . . . why do they keep re-hiring him after a period of grace?

None of it makes much sense.

Just hope that DB is able to find similar work*, should he want it at his age of course.

HYD

* Virgin Radio would seem a good fit

Because he is brilliant, but a PITA to manage.

DM

[Howyoudoin]

Can't help feeling that if the Beeb had wanted to keep him, they would've done. Certainly it seems that is the stance they have taken with Sir Alan Sugar and his similarly 'racist' tweet recently.

But if the Beeb were looking for a reason to fire him -again- . . . why do they keep re-hiring him after a period of grace?

None of it makes much sense.

Just hope that DB is able to find similar work*, should he want it at his age of course.

HYD

* Virgin Radio would seem a good fit

Because he is brilliant, but a PITA to manage.

DM

Ha ha ha!

Of all of the articles i've read, none of them summarised the situation as well as that!



HYD