# Danny Baker's loathsomely racist 'monkey' royal baby tweet



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

Baker has been sacked from his BBC post for Tweeting a picture of two people and a chimpanzee under the heading of 'Royal baby leaving hospital', or similar.

What a fucking arsehole.

Just to clarify, I couldn't give a flying fuck about the new baby, a baby is a baby, but that level of moronic racism should not be directed at any family.

Incidentally, he finished his 'apology' with the comment 'I guess it was my turn in the barrel'. I regard that as grossly homophobic.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 9, 2019)

Fucking hell!


----------



## planetgeli (May 9, 2019)

You need to learn how to UTFSE Sasaferrato


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 9, 2019)

What? No comment on Baker's loathsomely racist Tweet?

Plenty, old boy , on the Royal Baby thread, from post #70...

New Royal Baby.


----------



## Steel Icarus (May 9, 2019)

Who is Baker?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2019)

Richard Baker?


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 9, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> You need to learn how to UTFSE Sasaferrato



Ok, I had to google UTFSE. 

USE THE FUCKING SEARCH ENGINE!


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 9, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Who is Baker?



A knobhead, always has been, first name Danny.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 9, 2019)

S☼I said:


> Who is Baker?



Mary Berry. She's always tweeting about Tommy Robinson.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Baker has been sacked from his BBC post for Tweeting a picture of two people and a chimpanzee under the heading of 'Royal baby leaving hospital', or similar.
> 
> What a fucking arsehole.
> 
> ...



Royal baby thread and Millwall thread.


----------



## likesfish (May 9, 2019)

I thought the pic was funny and then went ohh fuck that looks really really racist suprised at danny baker


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

OK consider me suitably chastised for not 'UTFSE'. 

In my defence, I've not had a good morning. I forgot two things when I went for my shower, the first was my towel, the second was that Mrs Sas had a friend visiting.

I met the second whilst heading to the bedroom for the first.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (May 9, 2019)

Tbf Sass the comments are spread over two threads and tbh a single thread for the subject was suggested by someone (can't remember who, sorry) so it's not a bad idea


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2019)

likesfish said:


> I thought the pic was funny and then went ohh fuck that looks really really racist suprised at danny baker


What the fuck did you find fucking funny about it?

A mixed race royal just gave birth to a kid and he posted a picture of a chimp with some royals. 

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Tbf Sass the comments are spread over two threads and tbh a single thread for the subject was suggested by someone (can't remember who, sorry) so it's not a bad idea



Thank you!


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Incidentally, he finished his 'apology' with the comment 'I guess it was my turn in the barrel'. I regard that as grossly homophobic.



Why? 'Shooting fish' reference, isn't?


----------



## likesfish (May 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What the fuck did you find fucking funny about it?
> 
> A mixed race royal just gave birth to a kid and he posted a picture of a chimp with some royals.
> 
> Am I missing something here?



If the kid hadnt been mixed race it would have been funny forgot megan was mixed race then remembered so 
Looks racist and if not meant mindnumbingly stupid.


----------



## likesfish (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Why? 'Shooting fish' reference, isn't?



No horrible homophobic joke on naval traditions


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Why? 'Shooting fish' reference, isn't?



'My turn in the barrel' has nothing to do with fish.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2019)

likesfish said:


> If the kid hadnt been mixed race it would have been funny forgot megan was mixed race then remembered so
> Looks racist and if not meant mindnumbingly stupid.


Ffs, how can it be anything _but_ fucking racist? 

If she wasn't mixed race it would be totally out of context so why would it have been funny? 

Ffs, Fish


----------



## tim (May 9, 2019)

I'm not surprised given the fuss they made about the cake


----------



## Serge Forward (May 9, 2019)

Who is Baker?

Edit: forget it. I read further.


----------



## dervish (May 9, 2019)

Intentionally racist or not I'm still struggling to see what's in any way funny about it.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2019)

I’m sure Gerald Batten will be along to defend him shortly.


----------



## 19force8 (May 9, 2019)

dervish said:


> Intentionally racist or not I'm still struggling to see what's in any way funny about it.


The definition of hilarious is a picture of a baby chimp in a suit.

Oh, hang on.


----------



## 19force8 (May 9, 2019)

likesfish said:


> No horrible homophobic joke on naval traditions


Damn, I thought it was a reference to getting fired.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

dervish said:


> Intentionally racist or not I'm still struggling to see what's in any way funny about it.



For context, IIRC he has form for finding pictures of Monkeys dressed up, funny (not my taste, though I suppose vaguely understandable).

Quite good thread from cassetteboy, suggesting look for wider evidence of intent. I guess the ship has sailed on most opinions though. Cassetteboy (@Cassetteboy) on Twitter


----------



## editor (May 9, 2019)

I've edited the title for clarity. But fuckighell. What a fucking cunt Baker is.


----------



## 19force8 (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> For context, IIRC he has form for finding pictures of Monkeys dressed up, funny (not my taste, though I suppose vaguely understandable).
> 
> Quite good thread from cassetteboy, suggesting look for wider evidence of intent. I guess the ship has sailed on most opinions though. Cassetteboy (@Cassetteboy) on Twitter



Quite clearly doesn't understand Twatter.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

19force8 said:


> Quite clearly doesn't understand Twatter.



And be richer for it, in most cases!


----------



## Celyn (May 9, 2019)

dervish said:


> Intentionally racist or not I'm still struggling to see what's in any way funny about it.


That's roughly what I thought. Saw picture, couldn't see why it was meant to be interesting or funny, just mentally filed it under "I must be missing something here. Oh well, just another picture I can't 'read' properly". *

I can see now that he probably *did* intend it to be racist, but it sort of went over my head.

* Incindentally, does anyone else find that the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words is often a load of rubbish?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> For context, IIRC he has form for finding pictures of Monkeys dressed up, funny (not my taste, though I suppose vaguely understandable).
> 
> Quite good thread from cassetteboy, suggesting look for wider evidence of intent. I guess the ship has sailed on most opinions though. Cassetteboy (@Cassetteboy) on Twitter




He can fuck off too



Spymaster said:


> A mixed race royal just gave birth to a kid and he posted a picture of a chimp with some royals.




It was not an accident or a joke gone awry.


----------



## Celyn (May 9, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> I’m sure Gerald Batten will be along to defend him shortly.


And will bake a Battenburg cake.


----------



## keybored (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Why? 'Shooting fish' reference, isn't?


I read it as in the barrel (to better be able to scrape the bottom of it).


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> I've edited the title for clarity. But fuckighell. What a fucking cunt Baker is.



Thank you.


----------



## Celyn (May 9, 2019)

keybored said:


> I read it as in the barrel (to better be able to scrape the bottom of it).


Or some odd connection with monkeys/chimps and barrel organs.


----------



## brogdale (May 9, 2019)

Celyn said:


> * Incindentally, does anyone else find that the saying that a picture is worth a thousand words is often a load of rubbish?



Not rubbish here; we can do far better than a thousand...


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 9, 2019)

I am only months older than Baker, have no interest in celebrity culture, live in a tiny town abroad and so on. If  I knew about her being mixed race then his excuse that he didn't has to be bollocks.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

The barrel reference is this:

A young sailor, many days at sea was feeling horny. He was told by the bosun that down in the bilges was a barrel with a hole in it, which he could use on Mon, Wed, Thurs, Fri, Sat and Sunday. On asking why he couldn't use it on Tuesday, he was told, Tuesday he was in it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 9, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> I’m sure Gerald Batten will be along to defend him shortly.



James O’Brien already has...



> Defending Danny on LBC, James O’Brien said: “He often talks about chimpanzees dressed as famous people without any racial subtext whatsoever. Obviously the subtext changes hugely when the gag is applied to a child of ethnic minority. It changes, of course it does, but I don’t think that was even close to Danny Baker’s brain when he sent that tweet because he does loads of stuff about monkeys and apes dressed as human beings.
> 
> “The massive racist history of the conflation of gorillas and apes with people of colour is disgusting and I’m afraid it’s a matter of historical record. But I don’t think Danny Baker did that.”
> 
> Danny Baker sacked from 5 Live over chimp tweet


----------



## Favelado (May 9, 2019)

It's always okay when it's your cunt isn't it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> James O’Brien already has...




O’Brien’s place against The Wall is already marked, the posh, thicky prick.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (May 9, 2019)

JuanTwoThree said:


> I am only months older than Baker, have no interest in celebrity culture, live in a tiny town abroad and so on. If  I knew about her being mixed race then his excuse that he didn't has to be bollocks.


His excuse  wasn't that he didn't know, it's that it didn't immediately cross his mind when he made the post.


----------



## imposs1904 (May 9, 2019)

Favelado said:


> It's always okay when it's your cunt isn't it?



I like Danny Baker but you're right.


----------



## kebabking (May 9, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> James O’Brien already has...



i can see the idea of celeb culture as the _performing monkies _thing, without their needing to be a racist attitude behind it, and i can see why a person (the new baby), who is about a billionth in line to the throne but who will still have their picture in the papers every week, would be cast into that celeb/performing monkey bucket - but i can't even begin to imagine the level of sustained thoughtlessness that would have to take place in the minute of so that it would have taken to put that tweet together for the 'this is going to look monsterously racist' bell to not start going off.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 9, 2019)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> His excuse  wasn't that he didn't know, it's that it didn't immediately cross his mind when he made the post.



Fair enough


----------



## maomao (May 9, 2019)

I actually doubt it was intended as a racist joke but he deserves to lose his job for stupidity. Not being racist includes thinking about stuff not just being free of racist intent.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

Baker is a Corbyn supporter, apparently (wiki). If our very fine media don't make a connection before the day is out I'll be disappointed.

Can't say I've ever consciously thought about Baker's politics, but I'd have had down as basically 'progressive', along with a vague feeling that he's splurged out some dodgy or right wing views in the past.


----------



## 19force8 (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> And be richer for it, in most cases!


Very true. There was an interesting documentary on Radio 4 last week about guilt and shaming and how a flippant remark to a few dozen friends on social media can destroy someone's reputation. Online is a very nasty place and one reason I'm careful with my identity.

Not a defence of Baker - maybe if he'd come out with a decent apology instead of screaming "oversensitive."


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i can see the idea of celeb culture as the _performing monkies _thing, without their needing to be a racist attitude behind it, and i can see why a person (the new baby), who is about a billionth in line to the throne but who will still have their picture in the papers every week, would be cast into that celeb/performing monkey bucket - but i can't even begin to imagine the level of sustained thoughtlessness that would have to take place in the minute of so that it would have taken to put that tweet together for the 'this is going to look monsterously racist' bell to not start going off.


I was just about to go through the same logic, but this says it better than I would have done. Celebs and even 'seasoned broadcasters' do occasionally come out with something vile or grossly thoughtless, but this is several steps beyond that in terms of 'things my media savvy brain should have stopped me doing'.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

Danny Baker come on racist? This is just stupid. Monkeys in suits are never funny.  He posted something stupid, should’ve thought about it for. Twitter is absolute bullshit. 

 I remember a thread I started here years ago when I got grief for saying a teacher who gave the part of a monkey to the only black child had done wrong. People thought I was being over the top.  Funny how things change.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2019)

xenon said:


> Danny Baker come on racist? This is just stupid. Monkeys in suits are never funny.  He posted something stupid, should’ve thought about it for. Twitter is absolute bullshit.
> 
> I remember a thread I started here years ago when I got grief for saying a teacher who gave the part of a monkey to the only black child had done wrong. People thought I was being over the top.  Funny how things change.


there were as i recall six monkey parts, two given to black children and three to children of other hues.


----------



## Fedayn (May 9, 2019)

imposs1904 said:


> I like Danny Baker but you're right.



This


----------



## imposs1904 (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Baker is a Corbyn supporter, apparently (wiki). If our very fine media don't make a connection before the day is out I'll be disappointed.
> 
> Can't say I've ever consciously thought about Baker's politics, but I'd have had down as basically 'progressive', along with a vague feeling that he's splurged out some dodgy or right wing views in the past.



He's always been Labour.


----------



## Sea Star (May 9, 2019)

i don't know - i mean it's racist as fuck bu don't most people on Urban think that bigotry is OK? It's free speech innit?


----------



## souljacker (May 9, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> i don't know - i mean it's racist as fuck bu don't most people on Urban think that bigotry is OK? It's free speech innit?



eh? Do they?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> i don't know - i mean it's racist as fuck bu don't most people on Urban think that bigotry is OK? It's free speech innit?


this will end well


----------



## planetgeli (May 9, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> i don't know - i mean it's racist as fuck bu don't most people on Urban think that bigotry is OK? It's free speech innit?



That’s unlike you to weave your own agenda into something completely unrelated to you with some hyperbolic bullshit.

You ok?


----------



## LDC (May 9, 2019)

souljacker said:


> eh? Do they?



Not a very cleverly veiled comment about trans stuff I suspect. Predictable, boring, and idiotic.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 9, 2019)

Please don't let this thread turn into another Sea Star car crash.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Please don't let this thread turn into another Sea Star car crash.


Yes, here's the word IT. I'm drawing a line under it.

______________________________________________


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> i don't know - i mean it's racist as fuck bu don't most people on Urban think that bigotry is OK? It's free speech innit?



Yes.  63% of urban at our last “Free Speech Census”.


----------



## souljacker (May 9, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Not a very cleverly veiled comment about trans stuff I suspect. Predictable, boring, and idiotic.



OK, something from another thread then I guess.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 9, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> i don't know - i mean it's racist as fuck bu don't most people on Urban think that bigotry is OK? It's free speech innit?


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> there were as i recall six monkey parts, two given to black children and three to children of other hues.



<can’t decide whether enquiring about numbers will lead to a punchline I’ve failed to see coming...>


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Please don't let this thread turn into another Sea Star car crash.


it'll be something titanic


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> <can’t decide whether enquiring about numbers will lead to a punchline I’ve failed to see coming...>


toss a coin


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2019)

Sea Star said:


> i don't know - i mean it's racist as fuck bu don't most people on Urban think that bigotry is OK? It's free speech innit?


Do you ever get tired of listening to yourself?


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It was not an accident or a joke gone awry.


Of course it fucking wasn’t and he’s taking the piss by suggesting anything else.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it fucking wasn’t and he’s taking the piss by suggesting anything else.


Rationalising it probably doesn't help, but in cases like Baker's there seems to be a baseline of racist idiocy in there or some set of unchallenged racist tropes buzzing round in his head. The question then becomes one of his self presentation and self preservation, and whether these kick in in time to save him. Clearly they didn't. He almost certainly doesn't _think_ of himself as a racist, but he somehow _performs_ racism.

Admittedly... what you said says it better. And _performing_ racism is of course the same as _being_ racist.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 9, 2019)

Even if it wasn't meant seriously (and I don't believe that at all), how is it not a sacking offence to post shite like that?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it fucking wasn’t and he’s taking the piss by suggesting anything else.


The fact that some people are gullible enough to believe that he didn't realise he was being a total racist prick is worrying.


----------



## dylanredefined (May 9, 2019)

Hard to tell racists from Blithering idiots sometimes.

Didn't a guardian cartoonist used to draw prince Charles as a monkey?

 In any case, a moments thought would show it looked racist.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Didn't a guardian cartoonist used to draw prince Charles as a monkey?



I can remember monkey cartoons portraying George Bush Jnr...


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Hard to tell racists from Blithering idiots sometimes.
> 
> Didn't a guardian cartoonist used to draw prince Charles as a monkey?
> 
> In any case, a moments thought would show it looked racist.


I can remember George Bush being portrayed as a chimp in, I think, the guardian (perhaps/probably a reference to the supposed 'chimp walk' he did, that psychobabblers see as an expression of alpha male-ness). The difference is that he is white as is Charles. This kid has mixed heritage, something the press have been in a flap over, has attracted racist commentary and is very much in the news. Baker tweeted in that knowledge/context.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> I can remember monkey cartoons portraying George Bush Jnr...


beaten to it.


----------



## chandlerp (May 9, 2019)

It's PG gone mad


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I can remember George Bush being portrayed as a chimp in, I think, the guardian (perhaps/probably a reference to the supposed 'chimp walk' he did, that psychobabblers see as an expression of alpha male-ness). The difference is that he is white as is Charles. This kid has mixed heritage, something the press have been in a flap over, has attracted racist commentary and is very much in the news. Baker tweeted in that knowledge/context.



I think one bit of context that is really tricky is him being a Millwall supporter (and big football fan generally), knowing what they're like, which tropes get used at games etc.


----------



## dylanredefined (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> I can remember monkey cartoons portraying George Bush Jnr...



My mistake you were right.


----------



## petee (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I can remember George Bush being portrayed as a chimp in, I think, the guardian (perhaps/probably a reference to the supposed 'chimp walk' he did, that psychobabblers see as an expression of alpha male-ness).



he was drawn that way alot over here. not a reference to alpha-male, more to the goofy look on his face and his reputation for being less intellectually endowed than some other presidents.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> I can remember monkey cartoons portraying George Bush Jnr...


I also remember openly racist caricatures of Obama as a monkey. You don't seriously think they're the same thing?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I can remember George Bush being portrayed as a chimp in, I think, the guardian (perhaps/probably a reference to the supposed 'chimp walk' he did, that psychobabblers see as an expression of alpha male-ness). The difference is that he is white as is Charles. This kid has mixed heritage, something the press have been in a flap over, has attracted racist commentary and is very much in the news. Baker tweeted in that knowledge/context.


I'd be more impressed if db had retweeted another royal parasite and been sacked


----------



## andysays (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> I can remember George Bush being portrayed as a chimp in, I think, the guardian (perhaps/probably a reference to the supposed 'chimp walk' he did, that psychobabblers see as an expression of alpha male-ness). The difference is that he is white as is Charles. This kid has mixed heritage, something the press have been in a flap over, has attracted racist commentary and is very much in the news. Baker tweeted in that knowledge/context.


Exactly.

If he'd posted the same picture following the birth of any of William and Kate's babies, there wouldn't have been the same reaction, but he didn't


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd be more impressed if db had retweeted another royal parasite and been sacked


I'd have flown over and bought him a drink!


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> I also remember openly racist caricatures of Obama as a monkey. You don't seriously think they're the same thing?



Maybe read around a little for context.

(just one post back  )


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2019)

petee said:


> he was drawn that way alot over here. not a reference to alpha-male, more to the goofy look on his face and his reputation for being *less intellectually endowed than some other presidents*.


Rumour had it that he had an IQ of 84. I find that very hard to swallow. Low 50s, maybe.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

19force8 said:


> Very true. There was an interesting documentary on Radio 4 last week about guilt and shaming and how a flippant remark to a few dozen friends on social media can destroy someone's reputation. Online is a very nasty place and one reason I'm careful with my identity.
> 
> Not a defence of Baker - maybe if he'd come out with a decent apology instead of screaming "oversensitive."



He hasn't screamed oversensitive 

This was his response after being pulled up on it: (eta: no idea what the pic is!)



This has been a textbook example of twitter pitchfork attack you mention.

"Of course he had racist intentions. I said so." 

The whole predilection of liking (shitty) pictures of monkeys dressed up in suits doing humany things used sporadically through his career, has now finally borne fruit an enabled him to reveal his true colours as a racist.


----------



## Mr Moose (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> He hasn't screamed oversensitive
> 
> This was his response after being pulled up on it:
> 
> ...




A case of Baker being subject to _ad hominid_ attacks?


----------



## 19force8 (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> He hasn't screamed oversensitive
> ...
> 
> This has been a textbook example of twitter pitchfork attack you mention.


You're absolutely right, he didn't scream "oversensitive" I was out and about and that was my impression of his first response. He in fact implied those who pointed out the "*possible connotations*" had "diseased minds."

So that's okay then.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2019)

I’d assumed the ‘diseased mind’ thing is a reference to racists, does that make more sense? How I read it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> I’d assumed the ‘diseased mind’ thing is a reference to racists, does that make more sense? How I read it.


It's code for 'you are the real racist if you think that way'. Another classic doubled down defence.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

19force8 said:


> You're absolutely right, he didn't scream "oversensitive" I was out and about and that was my impression of his first response. He in fact implied those who pointed out the "*possible connotations*" had "diseased minds."
> 
> So that's okay then.




NO. He said _his_ mind wasn't, as he didn't/wouldn't consider it, diseased enough to consider the racist connotations of a dressed up monkey picture. All conveniently fitting his cynical(!) defence of being a career non-Racist that likes pictures of Monkeys.

It's a Sun/Trump-esque stretchy interpretation (IMO) to try justify further outrage and legitimise the pitchforking.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> NO. He said _his_ mind wasn't, as he didn't/wouldn't consider it, diseased enough to consider the racist connotations of a dressed up monkey picture. All conveniently fitting his cynical(!) defence of being a career non-Racist that likes pictures of Monkeys.
> 
> It's a Sun/Trump-esque stretchy interpretation (IMO) to try justify further outrage and legitimise the pitchforking.



Guess when he saw bananas being thrown at black players he thought that was cos they looked hungry as well


----------



## cheesethief (May 9, 2019)

_"Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up. Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased. Soon as those good enough to point out it's possible connotations got in touch, down it came. And that's it."_

Yes Danny, nail on head. Only those with diseased minds see implied racism. Like when those funny chaps chuck bananas at black footballers on the pitch. Only a diseased mind would see that as anything but harmless fun.

Either he genuinely didn't realise it was racist, in which case he's an utter moron. Or he did realise, in which case he's a racist utter moron.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It's code for 'you are the real racist if you think that way'. Another classic doubled down defence.



He is not a racist.

I was trying to question myself on this one - I back him as a non racist as I know his shtick, and have seen enough of his career and not seen anything remotely racist, or even right-wing. But my reaction to Ron Atkinson was similar to yours Ron Atkinson - Wikipedia . Is this any different? [/Rhetorical]


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> He is not a racist.


He just does racist things.
I'll have to use that as my tagline. "I'm not a cunt"


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> He is not a racist.]




What is an actual racist? Someone who identifies as one?

Racism isn't a final destination type of thing. People who don't identify as racist can and do/say racist things.

People who are otherwise sound, who you look up to for other reasons, who you love, your friends, who you drink with, who have Black partners and colleagues and think of themselves as anti-racists can and do say a wide range of things that are racist.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> I’d assumed the ‘diseased mind’ thing is a reference to racists, does that make more sense? How I read it.



Yes,I think he probably meant to say it didn't occur to him make a race-based racial slur on a baby because his mind isn't diseased.
Though cheesethief is correct about the literal meaning if you take the grammar apart.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Guess when he saw bananas being thrown at black players he thought that was cos they looked hungry as well



Apparently, that's what he wrote in his biography.


----------



## nogojones (May 9, 2019)

I don't know much about DB and when I saw this I thought what a racist cunt. Well rid of him.

Maybe there is something to his defence of "I like posting pictures of monkeys in suits" and I've seen normally OK posters on here re-post racist memes without getting the context.

At best, he really should have paused and thought about it.

Now if he'd posted a picture of the royals with a baby lizard....


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> What is an actual racist? Someone who identifies as one?
> Racism isn't a final destination type of thing. People who don't identify as racist can and do/say racist things.



That's a big part of it I think - in the context of this kind of shitstorm, is a racist something that a person *is*, or is racism something people *do*?
And to what extent is conscious intent integral to this (eg. let's consider if this was a crass error as opposed to something worse, the meme could still be picked up and propagated by Britain First types or whatever, with the physical details of the act being exactly the same.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

nogojones said:


> Now if he'd posted a picture of the royals with a baby lizard...


----------



## Idris2002 (May 9, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> I’d assumed the ‘diseased mind’ thing is a reference to racists, does that make more sense? How I read it.


I think it could be applied to both racists and those who called him out on it.


----------



## 19force8 (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> NO. He said _his_ mind wasn't, as he didn't/wouldn't consider it, diseased enough to consider the racist connotations of a dressed up monkey picture. All conveniently fitting his cynical(!) defence of being a career non-Racist that likes pictures of Monkeys.
> 
> It's a Sun/Trump-esque stretchy interpretation (IMO) to try justify further outrage and legitimise the pitchforking.


I agree with you about the pitchforking and some of the people doing it. 

I also agree he's not a racist, but is that enough?

If you're going to post pictures of primates in clothes then you really should be aware of the frequent use of such images by racists and be very careful not to slip across the line.

If you do make that slip (some would say when) what you should apologise for is racism. Not for having "whipped some up" who had pointed out the possible connotations. ie. had pointed out the racism.

And by the way, when I mentioned pitchforking it was in the context of the little people whose lives are destroyed by this kind of shit. Baker is wealthy enough and connected enough to bounce back. In five years this will just be fodder for his autobiography. Frankie Boyle got back on the BBC FFS.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> What is an actual racist? Someone who identifies as one?
> 
> Racism isn't a final destination type of thing. People who don't identify as racist can and do/say racist things.
> 
> People who are otherwise sound, who you look up to for other reasons, who you love, your friends, who you drink with, who have Black partners and colleagues and think of themselves as anti-racists can and do say a wide range of things that are racist.



I appreciate, there is an inherent racism in not appreciating the context in which this picture could (should!) be construed as racist. It was a huge blind spot for him. Huge, and stupid.

I'll back him, from everything I've ever seen, heard, and understood of him, to say he is definitely NOT a racist.

If this is the only evidence, this act that could (should, tbf) be construed as potentially* (likely, tbf) racist - an act SO grotesque it would surely be backed up by something...anything...to evidence the picture you are painting of this individual who thinks it's funny to associate monkeys with black people. It's off the mark IMO.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

19force8 said:


> Frankie Boyle got back on the BBC FFS.



Did Frankie Boyle do something racist?


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

19force8 said:


> I agree with you about the pitchforking and some of the people doing it.
> 
> I also agree he's not a racist, but is that enough?
> 
> ...



He can't apologise for being racist! He can't say, "Shit, maybe I go the tone wrong there, maybe pics associating black people as monkeys aren't funny, sorry...". This is not a Jim Davidson.

I agree, he will, and should, bounce back.


----------



## 19force8 (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> He can't apologise for being racist! He can't say, "Shit, maybe I go the tone wrong there, maybe pics associating black people as monkeys aren't funny, sorry...". This is not a Jim Davidson.
> 
> I agree, he will, and should, bounce back.


With a competent PR firm behind him


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> I think it could be applied to both racists and those who called him out on it.



With the diseased minds Baker is saying that racists have diseased minds and that anyone who sees that picture and thinks that it is mocking the baby for being mixed race also has the same racist, diseased mind. In other words, he's being a right cunt.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> He can't apologise for being racist! He can't say, "Shit, maybe I go the tone wrong there, maybe pics associating black people as monkeys aren't funny, sorry...". This is not a Jim Davidson.
> 
> I agree, he will, and should, bounce back.


If he was merely and 'accidental racist' on this, I'd expect him to have been _mortified_ when it was pointed out to him - _appalled_ that he hadn't noticed something so obvious.  I can't know what was going on in his head, but he seems to have gone through the apology stage pretty quickly and moved into rather huffy self preservation.


----------



## marshall (May 9, 2019)

I always quite liked Danny Baker   his nme singles page reviews back in the day were funny, as is his autobiography, obvs quite a smart guy who knew precisely what he was doing, weird.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> I appreciate, there is an inherent racism in not appreciating the context in which this picture could (should!) be construed as racist. It was a huge blind spot for him. Huge, and stupid.
> 
> I'll back him, from everything I've ever seen, heard, and understood of him, to say he is definitely NOT a racist.
> 
> If this is the only evidence, this act that could (should, tbf) be construed as potentially* (likely, tbf) racist - an act SO grotesque it would surely be backed up by something...anything...to evidence the picture you are painting of this individual who thinks it's funny to associate monkeys with black people. It's off the mark IMO.


You haven't answered my question.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> He can't apologise for being racist! He can't say, "Shit, maybe I go the tone wrong there, maybe pics associating black people as monkeys aren't funny, sorry...". This is not a Jim Davidson.
> 
> I agree, he will, and should, bounce back.


Yes he could have and should have instead of pretending he didn't understand or that he didn't  know  that MM  is mixed  and characterising others as having diseased  minds. Basically everyone else's fault.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes he could have and should have instead of pretending he didn't understand or that he didn't  know  that MM  is mixed  and characterising others as having diseased  minds. Basically everyone else's fault.



I think that is a pejorative interpretation of his response to James O'Briens interview, characterised by someone else looking for blood.

I haven't heard (I think) him "pretending" he didn't know MM was black. I heard him say it didn't occur to him.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> If he was merely and 'accidental racist' on this, I'd expect him to have been _mortified_ when it was pointed out to him - _appalled_ that he hadn't noticed something so obvious.  I can't know what was going on in his head, but he seems to have gone through the apology stage pretty quickly and moved into rather huffy self preservation.


The 'apology' was given lip service, then he went straight on to how badly he was treated by the BBC for being racist.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> I think that is a pejorative interpretation of his response to James O'Briens interview, characterised by someone else looking for blood.
> 
> I haven't heard (I think) him "pretending" he didn't know MM was black. I heard him say it didn't occur to him.


Looking for blood? What because I don't agree with you and think he should know better?

How is that a fair way of characterising my views and posts? 

Perhaps I should leave this discussion about racism  to White people like you and Danny because you clearly think you know best.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You haven't answered my question.



Ok, I would clumsily, practically say, there is effectively a (with a very low bar!) level of racist actions or beliefs, the carrying out of which would make someone a racist.

To throw the question back, can non-racist people can (sometimes, accidentally) do things that could be (despite no intent) construed as racist?

(I'm not too fond of explaining/justifying these kind of things for obvious reasons.)


----------



## Ranbay (May 9, 2019)

Lord Sugar Senegal team tweet resurfaces after Danny Baker fired | Metro News

first thing i thought about when i heared he was sacked, was this tweet from Lord bellend.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Looking for blood? What because I don't agree with you and think he should know better?
> 
> How is that a fair way of characterising my views and posts?
> 
> Perhaps I should leave this discussion about racism  to White people like you and Danny because you clearly think you know best.



Woah, now you are misconstruing my posts   I thought the reporting of DB's interview was inaccurate. I might even be wrong (I'm not transcribing it!).

And deep down where I thought we might end up.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> I appreciate, there is an inherent racism in not appreciating the context in which this picture could (should!) be construed as racist. It was a huge blind spot for him. Huge, and stupid.
> 
> I'll back him, from everything I've ever seen, heard, and understood of him, to say he is definitely NOT a racist.
> 
> If this is the only evidence, this act that could (should, tbf) be construed as potentially* (likely, tbf) racist - an act SO grotesque it would surely be backed up by something...anything...to evidence the picture you are painting of this individual who thinks it's funny to associate monkeys with black people. It's off the mark IMO.



Yep. It was stupid thing to do, despite having posted monkey memes before. Should have thought about it. I simply do not he posted this motivated by racism.


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

xenon said:


> Yep. It was stupid thing to do, despite having posted monkey memes before. Should have thought about it. I simply do not he posted this motivated by racism.


 Well, maybe not, but once you've done something that is on the face of it overtly racist, the onus is on you to show that wasn't the case.


----------



## planetgeli (May 9, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> Lord Sugar Senegal team tweet resurfaces after Danny Baker fired | Metro News
> first thing i thought about when i heared he was sacked, was this tweet from Lord bellend.



Unfortunately this was also the first thing many of Baker’s supporters leapt to his defence with in a kind of one right and one wrong makes a wrong stupid way. Then they started pointing out Farage is on QT tonight. None of them addressed the fact Baker, the supposedly media savvy Baker, had made a massive mistake because, well, Danny does as Danny does because he’s Danny Fucking Baker and bigger than anything racism can throw at him.

He’s a self important twat and it’s good to see him grovelling. Except he’s not is he. Because he’s Danny Fucking Baker who used to edit the NME. And do Daz adverts.

Fuck the cunt. It’s like someone said on here, when it’s your mate, well, it can’t be true can it. 

He’s got thousands of Twitter followers all prepared to back him now or, more to the point, moan about the twitter pile on. That is, moan about this pile of shit that they help feed his ego with on a normal day.

Fuck him, fuck them and fuck all their horses.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well, maybe not, but once you've done something that is on the face of it overtly racist, the onus is on you to show that wasn't the case.



Sure. He could have handled his responses better. But there we are. 

Twitter is still shite. Wankers on there will be at it for days.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 9, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well, maybe not, but once you've done something that is on the face of it overtly racist, the onus is on you to show that wasn't the case.



So are you open to the possibility that he's not a racist?


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> So are you open to the possibility that he's not a racist?


Open to it, yes, but I'd need to hear a very different response from him than we have today. Without that, we are back with the ducks.


----------



## Ranbay (May 9, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Unfortunately this was also the first thing many of Baker’s supporters leapt to his defence with in a kind of one right and one wrong makes a wrong stupid way. Then they started pointing out Farage is on QT tonight. None of them addressed the fact Baker, the supposedly media savvy Baker, had made a massive mistake because, well, Danny does as Danny does because he’s Danny Fucking Baker and bigger than anything racism can throw at him.
> 
> He’s a self important twat and it’s good to see him grovelling. Except he’s not is he. Because he’s Danny Fucking Baker who used to edit the NME. And do Daz adverts.
> 
> ...



I'm not backing either of them by the way, just saying what came to my mind. know fuck all about Danny Baker like other than something to do with footballs.


----------



## planetgeli (May 9, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> I'm not backing either of them by the way, just saying what came to my mind. know fuck all about Danny Baker like other than something to do with footballs.



Yeah wasn’t slandering you Ranbay just saying what happened in the timeline as it were.


----------



## D'wards (May 9, 2019)

It's a crying shame all this. I've listened to his radio show and podcast for years, and he is one of the warmest and personable radio presenters around. 
His Twitter life was always a different kettle of fish though. 
He could always be an arsehole on there- he once wished cancer on the council officials who were considering selling off the New Den to property developers.


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2019)

How did this make the lead story on ITN?

C list celbirity loses job, over twee -t accepts he's been a bit of an arse.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

D'wards said:


> It's a crying shame all this. I've listened to his radio show and podcast for years, and he is one of the warmest and personable radio presenters around.
> His Twitter life was always a different kettle of fish though.
> He could always be an arsehole on there- he once wished cancer on the council officials who were considering selling off the New Den to property developers.



Does he really have a penchant for PG Tips style images and an almost impossibly complete ignorance of the Royal Family?


----------



## D'wards (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> Does he really have a penchant for PG Tips style images and an almost impossibly complete ignorance of the Royal Family?


He defo has a penchant for old mildly amusing black and white photos


----------



## happie chappie (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> I've edited the title for clarity. But fuckighell. What a fucking cunt Baker is.



The BBC were absolutely right to sack Baker and he certainly hasn’t any cause to complain whatsoever.

But on a wider point (not specifically about Baker) you called him a cunt.

Some people would say that is a disgusting word that should never be used, particularly as a term of abuse.

Does that make you a unapologetic sexist who had hidden his deep-seated misogyny for years, or someone who has posted something on the internet without thinking through just how offensive it is when they really should know better?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> Does he really have a penchant for PG Tips style images and an almost impossibly complete ignorance of the Royal Family?



Yes, he posted very similar pictures for each of Kate & William’s sprogs. Surely?


----------



## editor (May 9, 2019)

happie chappie said:


> The BBC were absolutely right to sack Baker and he certainly hasn’t any cause to complain whatsoever.
> 
> But on a wider point (not specifically about Baker) you called him a cunt.
> 
> ...


Really can't be arsed with this desperate point which has zero relation to the topic under discussion. However, there has been plenty of discussion about the general use of the word 'cunt' here so I suggest you add your insights to one of those threads.


----------



## klang (May 9, 2019)

happie chappie said:


> The BBC were absolutely right to sack Baker and he certainly hasn’t any cause to complain whatsoever.
> 
> But on a wider point (not specifically about Baker) you called him a cunt.
> 
> ...


what do _you _think?


----------



## donkyboy (May 9, 2019)

Never liked this idiot. Glad he got the sack.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 9, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> I'm not backing either of them by the way, just saying what came to my mind. know fuck all about Danny Baker like other than something to do with footballs.


And detergent


----------



## editor (May 9, 2019)

happie chappie said:


> But on a wider point (not specifically about Baker) you called him a cunt.
> 
> Some people would say that is a disgusting word that should never be used, particularly as a term of abuse.
> 
> Does that make you a unapologetic sexist who had hidden his deep-seated misogyny for years, or someone who has posted something on the internet without thinking through just how offensive it is when they really should know better?


Oh dear oh dear. I


happie chappie said:


> “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” as Cameron the tax dodging cunt once said.





happie chappie said:


> You're a cunt





happie chappie said:


> What a complete and utter cunt of a club Chelsea is.





happie chappie said:


> Come on you fucking scouse cunt





happie chappie said:


> Cheating Scouse cunt


----------



## treelover (May 9, 2019)

Its a well know racist trope and he should have not done it, but it is very revealing what gets traction in the media and what doesn't, number one item on ITV news, yet the death of a man weighing six stones after losing all his benefits wasn't even covered by them.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> And detergent



Ooh, I remember those now.
He was very keen on very _white_ whites, wasn't he?


----------



## maomao (May 9, 2019)

happie chappie said:


> Some people would say that is a disgusting word that should never be used, particularly as a term of abuse.



People who object to the word cunt are cunts.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> People who object to the word cunt are cunts.


Particularly ones who seem to have forgotten that they've used the word all over these boards for years!


----------



## klang (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Oh dear oh dear. I


that wasn't what happie's post was about though. it was about downplaying baker as '_someone who has posted something on the internet without thinking through just how offensive it is when they really should know better'_


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Particularly ones who seem to have forgotten that they've used the word all over these boards for years!



Did you anticipate when setting up the site that it would be quite so full of cunts?


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2019)

treelover said:


> ..
> yet the death of a man weighing six stones after losing all his benefits wasn't even covered by them.


I didn't hear about that. Was it published anywhere?


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> People who object to the word cunt are cunts.


----------



## happie chappie (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Really can't be arsed with this desperate point which has zero relation to the topic under discussion. However, there has been plenty of discussion about the general use of the word 'cunt' here so I suggest you add your insights to one of those threads.


 
Sorry you regard it as a desperate point with zero relevance. Actually it wasn't meant to be so I don't think it deserved such a put down.

I think it's time I left Urban. I used to really enjoy it as a forum to discuss ideas and put/think about alternative views to my own. Can't put my finger on exactly why but sadly not so much now.

Please don't bother with any "shut the door behind you", or even better, "you are a cunt" remarks as I won''t see them.

But I did (mostly) enjoy my time on here.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2019)

happie chappie said:


> Sorry you regard it as a desperate point with zero relevance. Actually it wasn't meant to be so I don't think it deserved such a put down.
> 
> I think it's time I left Urban. I used to really enjoy it as a forum to discuss ideas and put/think about alternative views. Can't put my finger on exactly why but sadly not so much now.
> 
> ...


I had no intention of writing anything like that because I'd preferred it if you stayed. But it was rather strange the way you decided to single me out for criticism for the use of the word 'cunt' when (a) people do it here all the time with no comment from you and (b) you've used the word freely all over the boards for years.

So it felt like an unnecessary personal attack and I responded to it as such (albeit mildly).


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> Lord Sugar Senegal team tweet resurfaces after Danny Baker fired | Metro News
> 
> first thing i thought about when i heared he was sacked, was this tweet from Lord bellend.



Sugar being a total fucking arsehole doesn't give Baker carte blanche to follow.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Really can't be arsed with this desperate point which has zero relation to the topic under discussion. However, there has been plenty of discussion about the general use of the word 'cunt' here so I suggest you add your insights to one of those threads.



Or not.


----------



## maomao (May 9, 2019)

gosub said:


>


That must be the new version. All I have is this:


----------



## klang (May 9, 2019)

you are such a butterfly!
heard worse tbh.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> People who object to the word cunt are cunts.



I knew some cunt would say that.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ooh, I remember those now.
> He was very keen on very _white_ whites, wasn't he?



Oh FFS


----------



## Ranbay (May 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Sugar being a total fucking arsehole doesn't give Baker carte blanche to follow.



Didn't say that did i.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I didn't hear about that. Was it published anywhere?



Kinda his point.


----------



## happie chappie (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> I had no intention of writing anything like that because I'd preferred it if you stayed. But it was rather strange the way you decided to single me out for criticism for the use of the word 'cunt' when (a) people do it here all the time with no comment from you and (b) you've used the word freely all over the boards for years.
> 
> So it felt like an unnecessary personal attack and I responded to it as such (albeit mildly).



I wasn't singling you out personally or questioning your integrity - as it happens it was because it was one of the first I came across and it was a one-liner making it easier to quote.

I did think it was a pertinent point as it addresses the issue of whether posting something on social media is an accurate reflection of someone's world view.

Yes - I do use the word cunt, and I know I shouldn't. But I certainly wouldn't regard myself as a closet sexist or misogynist.

Perhaps I am - that's for others to judge, hopefully by my actions in real life and not what I type on a message board. That was the point I was trying to make.

I really do appreciate you asking me not to leave and I shall miss it but all good things come to an end.


----------



## D'wards (May 9, 2019)

The only swearing that offends me are these new portmanteau (if that's the right word) ones like Cockwomble and Arsepuffin- that sort of thing. 
Strikes me as very middle class guardianista


----------



## klang (May 9, 2019)

happie chappie said:


> I wasn't singling you at personally - as it happens it was because it was one of the first I came across and it was a one-liner making it easier to quote. I did think it was a pertinent point as it addresses the issue of whether posting something on social media is an accurate reflection of someone's world view.
> 
> Yes - I do use the word cunt, and I know I shouldn't. But I certainly wouldn't regard myself as a closet sexist or misogynist. Perhaps I am - that's for others to judge, hopefully by my actions in real life and not what I type on a message board. That was the point I was trying to make.
> 
> I really do appreciate you asking me not to leave and I shall miss it but all good things come to an end.


do you think Baker's tweet was an accurate reflection of his world view?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (May 9, 2019)

If Danny Baker is an attention seeking racist, how come he doesn't have a regular slot on Question Time?


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 9, 2019)

Ranbay said:


> Didn't say that did i.



Did I say you did?


----------



## Wilf (May 9, 2019)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> If Danny Baker is an attention seeking racist, how come he doesn't have a regular slot on Question Time?


He's moved up to 2nd reserve when Falange can't make it.


----------



## klang (May 9, 2019)

D'wards said:


> The only swearing that offends me are these new portmanteau (if that's the right word) ones like Cockwomble and Arsepuffin- that sort of thing.
> Strikes me as very middle class guardianista


or Boris Johnson types.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> I had no intention of writing anything like that because I'd preferred it if you stayed. But it was rather strange the way you decided to single me out for criticism for the use of the word 'cunt' when (a) people do it here all the time with no comment from you and (b) you've used the word freely all over the boards for years.
> 
> So it felt like an unnecessary personal attack and I responded to it as such (albeit mildly).



You should have just called him a cunt.


----------



## binka (May 9, 2019)

So is it right Danny Baker didn't know that comparing black people to monkeys is a classic racist trope, didn't know that Megan markle has a black mother and he didn't know that the royal baby was Harry and Megans. To quote my nan "what a load of fucking shit"


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

I'm someone else who's listened to him on the radio for years, and am confident that that photo was not posted with racist intent. Whether or not intent is relevant, you can argue amongst yourselves. It doesn't really change my opinion of the man.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 9, 2019)

"so i hear you're a racist now danny..."


----------



## Dogsauce (May 9, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> I think it could be applied to both racists and those who called him out on it.



In the same tweet he’s pretty much thanking people for calling him out on it, so that doesn’t make much sense.  

To me his posting of the image seems so utterly stupid and reprehensible that I find it difficult to believe it was intentional. Still has to face the music for it because for fuck’s sake it is what it is, but don’t get why people seem to be insistent that he’s some kind of long-term closet racist that’s been found out all of a sudden.


----------



## Ranbay (May 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Did I say you did?



I used to watch the A-Team every saturday at my nans.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I'm someone else who's listened to him on the radio for years, and am confident that that photo was not posted with racist intent. Whether or not intent is relevant, you can argue amongst yourselves. It doesn't really change my opinion of the man.


What would it take to change your opinion?  I quite like his radio show fwiw. Or should I say liked. But my opinion of him is very definitely changed after this, compounded as it has been by his utter bullshitting about it today. How would it not be?


----------



## Favelado (May 9, 2019)

I find it hard to believe Jimmy Savile is a paedo. He's raised so much money for charity and he seems to love kids.

PEOPLE ARE CUNTS.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 9, 2019)

baffling. 40 years working in the media, supposedly quite "right on" politically,  clearly quite a smart bloke - then he does this?!!?  

Its like  Morrissey coming out in support of UKIP or something ..... 

oh ....


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 9, 2019)

binka said:


> So is it right Danny Baker didn't know that comparing black people to monkeys is a classic racist trope, didn't know that Megan markle has a black mother and he didn't know that the royal baby was Harry and Megans. To quote my nan "what a load of fucking shit"


I'm sure he didn't think about it beforehand and consciously decide to do a Racist Thing. He's just the sort of self-satisfied cunt who will say what he wants while never examining his own attitudes or having the slightest bit of self-awareness, thus doing it automatically without having to decide to be consciously racist. Racism efficiency!

He probably really thinks that it was just an accident, there was nothing bad about making monkey jokes about the child of a mixed-race couple, and there'll be no arguing him out of that.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What would it take to change your opinion?  I quite like his radio show fwiw. Or should I say liked. But my opinion of him is very definitely changed after this, compounded as it has been by his utter bullshitting about it today. How would it not be?



I don't have much interest in the Royal family. I'd forgotten that Meghan Markle was mixed race. I had to google the spelling of her name because I don't even really know what her name is. If you'd asked me yesterday I might have said, is it prince william's wife who's mixed race? So when I first saw the picture I didn't get what the fuss was about. I've listened to Danny Baker doing various things about monkeys dressed as humans on the radio shows, for years. So my immediate reaction to the photo was that it was just something more on that theme, for the mild amusement of those who've followed that strand of his stuff. Of course, realising the context about Markle, then everything looked different, but it's completely plausible that DB just didn't think about it. Is it stupid of him? Yes a stupid mistake. However I'm fairly sure he's not stupid enough to post something like this with any intent to make the racist connotations - even if he is in fact a terrible closet racist, which I don't think he is - I'm not aware of anything in his history to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> Ok, I would clumsily, practically say, there is effectively a (with a very low bar!) level of racist actions or beliefs, the carrying out of which would make someone a racist.



So you think that there are levels of racism, that a person has to do or say x, y, z for it to be racism and for them to be racist and called out as such? That someone either is or isn't racist?

Go on Ted Striker lay them out, how unthinking and offensive does someone have to be and how often to actually get the racism card handed to them so they can fuck off and work on their issues for a day, week, month, year?

Also, please tell me why you think you are  in a position to make these value judgements. What qualifies you to guage the severity and impact of racist thoughts and deeds?

As posted elsewhere all this apologism and hoop jumping and attempts to rationalise and create hierarchies of what is obvious reminds me of people saying things like 'real racism' and that challenging the likes of DB undermines 'real racism' as if it isn't important unless people are getting their heads kicked in. That attitude can fuck off too. What do you know about impact and experience? What do you know about harm and how to reduce it?

You are effectively supporting someone, one amongst many in the last few days, that chose to racialise a newborn baby on account of his maternal grandmother being Black. Not to celebrate diversity and ethnicity and culture. They are positioning her Blackness as something of ridicule, a pollutant, less valuable, something to laugh at, poke fun of, show disgust of. They relied on a popular racist trope and then denied it. They doubled down and accused others of being the diseased ones for pointing it out. They then claimed to not have known MM is mixed and now that they had no clue who the baby's parents are. FFS.

Whether that was done because someone openly dislikes Black people or they just don't care enough to try not to offend them that is what is happening. DB is one of these people, the result is the same. They remind me and everyone else that STILL, no BAME child or person is safe from your ignorance, your jokes, your lack of caring, gaslighting, Whitesplaining, apologism, justifications, call it what you want and any combination of those things.

You remind people like me that I am right to keep my guard up and hold people accountable, that you have no understanding of the long term effects of racism, the drip, drip of everyday dismissiveness and claims of innocence. You remind me of what it was like growing up in Britain, my shared experiences of racism with BAME people form all over the world, that I know what I know and after 10 years even here on Urban being attacked, gaslighted, patronised, insulted and dismissed for daring to have a perspective and most times a deeper understanding of this stuff, despite that, I will still hold fucking firm.

You remind me how people will twist and turn and squirm and lie instead of simply learning and treating me and those like me as you would like to be treated.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2019)

Thing is, Danny Baker is not some old duffer disconnected from the news and the modern world. He's a writer, journalist and radio DJ and a large part of all those jobs involves staying up to date with current affairs and with what people are talking about.

So I find it very hard to believe he failed to notice how the content of his tweet may be received.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What would it take to change your opinion?  I quite like his radio show fwiw. Or should I say liked. But my opinion of him is very definitely changed after this, compounded as it has been by his utter bullshitting about it today. How would it not be?



The sausage sandwhich game willnever be the same again.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Thing is, Danny Baker is not some old duffer disconnected from the news and the modern world. He's a writer, journalist and radio DJ and a large part of all those jobs involves staying up to date with current affairs and with what people are talking about.
> 
> So I find it very hard to believe he failed to notice how the content of his tweet may be received.



I don’t. Comfortable in their mulure established public figures frequently post things without consideration. It’s what shitrags like the Sun thrive on after all.


----------



## editor (May 9, 2019)

xenon said:


> I don’t. Comfortable in their mulure established public figures frequently post things without consideration. It’s what shitrajs like the Sun thrive on after all.


But he's not The Sun. He's an award winning writer/presenter who is (apparently) held in some esteem by many and seen as something of an all-round clever-clogs.


----------



## D'wards (May 9, 2019)

xenon said:


> The sausage sandwhich game willnever be the same again.


Women and southerners always picked red anyway


----------



## T & P (May 9, 2019)

xenon said:


> The sausage sandwhich game willnever be the same again.


I was literally just coming here to say that if his departure means the end of the deeply daft and irritating Sausage Sandwich game, good news all around!


----------



## D'wards (May 9, 2019)

There's probably a very awkward conversation with Gary Lineker happening about now...


----------



## sovereignb (May 9, 2019)

I think particularly over the last few years the media has done a good job of misconstruing what racism is. All the connotations with hate, violence and "right wing" will have some flat out denying in their ignorance when it has actually occurred.


----------



## xenon (May 9, 2019)

Hes a stayed mor radio bloke. Bbc calling it in presentor. Hasn’t had to think about stuff since 1999


----------



## cantsin (May 9, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> *For context, IIRC he has form for finding pictures of Monkeys dressed up, funny (not my taste, though I suppose vaguely understandable).*
> 
> Quite good thread from cassetteboy, suggesting look for wider evidence of intent. I guess the ship has sailed on most opinions though. Cassetteboy (@Cassetteboy) on Twitter




I read that -  have seen no examples / evidence, but ii it was true, wouldn't it be central to the whole grim episode ? There is zero logic to Baker suddenly tweeting a grotesquely racist gag / trope after all these years, knowing full well the impact it would have on his life - but if it was the Royal version of previous daft monkey photos, and he hadn't thought about Megan ( hand on heart : when someone first sent me the photo on whatssapp, the race thing just didnt cross my mind, I thought he was in shit for disrespect ), it all at least starts to makes some sense ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2019)

editor said:


> Thing is, Danny Baker is not some old duffer disconnected from the news and the modern world. He's a writer, journalist and radio DJ and a large part of all those jobs involves staying up to date with current affairs and with what people are talking about.
> 
> So I find it very hard to believe he failed to notice how the content of his tweet may be received.


Yep. Thing is, even if we were to be more charitable towards this than it deserves and pretend that he didn't realise what he was doing, as pointed out earlier, he ought to have been _fucking mortified _when he found out. And he wasn't. I don't believe that charitable reading for one second, mind. As probably the most famous Millwall fan in the world, definitely the loudest, he knows what a fucking racist trope looks like.


----------



## teuchter (May 9, 2019)

cantsin said:


> I read that -  have seen no examples / evidence, but ii it was true,



It is true.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> if we were to be more charitable towards this than it deserves


Shouldn't we be charitable though? People often do stupid and unthinking things, but unless it's part of a pattern of behaviour that suggests otherwise I'm generally in favour of believing them if they say they did something stupid and unthinking rather than malicious.


----------



## cantsin (May 9, 2019)

teuchter said:


> It is true.



jeez, doesn't feel right all this


----------



## Balbi (May 9, 2019)

Danny's been banging the 'well you can't say anything nowadays' drum for a while now - I recall him going on an extended run about how Bowie's flirtations with fascist imagery etc at his cocaine peak would have meant he'd not have been allowed to go on and make music.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2019)

Balbi said:


> Danny's been banging the 'well you can't say anything nowadays' drum for a while now - I recall him going on an extended run about how Bowie's flirtations with fascist imagery etc at his cocaine peak would have meant he'd not have been allowed to go on and make music.


I'm not sure this event particularly disproves this thesis tbf.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

_I had no idea that MM is Mixed nor who the baby belonged to anyway..._


----------



## GarveyLives (May 9, 2019)

You _were_ warned ...



GarveyLives said:


> A dose of reality soup?:
> 
> _
> 
> ...








*One of the images seen by the entire world shortly before 1.00 p.m. UK time, Wednesday 8 May 2019*






*The response of twitter user (with half a million followers) and veteran broadcaster Danny Baker (who "did not know who had had the 'Royal Baby'") approximately five hours later.*​


> _"Baker’s tweet perpetuating the *image of black people as sub-human* says so much about race relations in Britain today ..."_



Danny Baker's Tweet Makes It Painfully Obvious The Royal Baby Won't Solve Racism In The UK



> _"But whether or not his intentions were pure is beside the point. We live in a world that has *habitually dehumanised black people*, and relied on comedy as a crutch to do so. Danny Baker lives in that world too. It isn’t something he can dismiss or ignore. His choice to seek out, upload and tweet that photo without apparently pausing to think speaks to that much bigger, more dangerous phenomenon ..."_



Danny Baker’s excuses don’t cut it – the impact of racism is inseparable from the intent


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> Shouldn't we be charitable though? People often do stupid and unthinking things, but unless it's part of a pattern of behaviour that suggests otherwise I'm generally in favour of believing them if they say they did something stupid and unthinking rather than malicious.


So, being (very fucking) charitable, his 'sorry you misunderstood' non-apology today condemns him instead. There is no charitable way to take the pathetic load of utter cobblers he's come out with today since, presumably, sobering up.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So, being (very fucking) charitable, his 'sorry you misunderstood' non-apology today condemns him instead. There is no charitable way to take the pathetic load of utter cobblers he's come out with today since, presumably, sobering up.


I dunno about that either, I reckon 'just been sacked' is probably a time of fairly heightened emotion.


----------



## planetgeli (May 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> I dunno about that either, I reckon 'just been sacked' is probably a time of fairly heightened emotion.



Oh ffs. He's had plenty of practice.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2019)

I wouldn't know, I'm about as aware of the ins and outs of Danny Baker's career as he claims to be about the goings-on in the royal household.


----------



## Favelado (May 9, 2019)

killer b said:


> I wouldn't know, I'm about as aware of the ins and outs of Danny Baker's career as he claims to be about the goings-on in the royal household.



4th sacking by the Beeb.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

The bit I didn't get is who the adult humans in the image were meant to be.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Favelado said:


> 4th sacking by the Beeb.



One thing I do find believable is that the sacking was a PR move by a totally cowed BBC.


----------



## Favelado (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> The bit I didn't get is who the adult humans in the image were meant to be.



No-one really, because the point was that the baby was a monkey because it wasn't white.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

Favelado said:


> No-one really, because the point was that the baby was a monkey because it wasn't white.


 FFs why are you still having to explain this? DB has said that he didn't know who's baby it was anyway...

#Chinnyreckon.


----------



## Fedayn (May 9, 2019)

One thing I find interesting in this whole grubby mess is the BBCs rather limited response to Jeremy Clarkssons comments of 'slope' and 'eeny meeny miny mo......' and their reaction to Danny Bakers tweet......


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Favelado said:


> No-one really, because the point was that the baby was a monkey because it wasn't white.



But I would have expected the adults to represent the parents.  I just can't really make it work as *anything*.


----------



## Favelado (May 9, 2019)

Fedayn said:


> One thing I find interesting in this whole grubby mess is the BBCs rather limited response to Jeremy Clarkssons comments of 'slope' and 'eeny meeny miny mo......' and their reaction to Danny Bakers tweet......



Yes well Baker isn't bringing in millions. Clarkson was. Simple as that.


----------



## gosub (May 9, 2019)

Fedayn said:


> One thing I find interesting in this whole grubby mess is the BBCs rather limited response to Jeremy Clarkssons comments of 'slope' and 'eeny meeny miny mo......' and their reaction to Danny Bakers tweet......




Not really  pduchess meghan online abuse - Google Search


----------



## Fedayn (May 9, 2019)

Favelado said:


> Yes well Baker isn't bringing in millions. Clarkson was. Simple as that.



I was being oblique....


----------



## Favelado (May 9, 2019)

Fedayn said:


> I was being oblique....



I was being thick then. Soz.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 9, 2019)

8ball said:


> But I would have expected the adults to represent the parents.  I just can't really make it work as *anything*.



Becasuse the stiff nothing parents don't matter. Why are you labouring this...you are convinced that it can't possibly be or mean anything. Boring to watch.


----------



## 8ball (May 9, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Becasuse the stiff nothing parents don't matter. Why are you labouring this...you are convinced that it can't possibly be or mean anything. Boring to watch.



I don't know; Danny Baker knows.  I would have expected him to know what connotations he was linking to, though, given who he is. 

I couldn't give a flying fuck whether you're entertained, though.


----------



## Fedayn (May 9, 2019)

Favelado said:


> I was being thick then. Soz.



No need to apologise at all


----------



## Don Troooomp (May 9, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Baker has been sacked from his BBC post for Tweeting a picture of two people and a chimpanzee under the heading of 'Royal baby leaving hospital', or similar.



There goes a well deserved sacking


----------



## The39thStep (May 10, 2019)

Unpopular opinion. Do I think the tweet was right no.Do I think he was stupid to tweet the photo yes. Do I think he is a racist no he has a long tradition of opposing racism and fascism. There are countless others not sacked by the BBC for comments that are racist or could be construed as racist , they give a platform to Gen Id who are fascist. 
If he'd have tweeted the same photo about any other royal family baby I probably would have laughed.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So, being (very fucking) charitable, his 'sorry you misunderstood' non-apology today condemns him instead. There is no charitable way to take the pathetic load of utter cobblers he's come out with today since, presumably, sobering up.


What particularly has he come out with that's so problematic? 
What I see on his twitter looks about the right tone to me. He's sorry, he's appalled with his mistake, he's not going to just sit and take the nonsense people are trying to ascribe to his intent. It's what I'd expect from him and why I've quite liked him for many years.


----------



## bemused (May 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Unpopular opinion. Do I think the tweet was right no.Do I think he was stupid to tweet the photo yes. Do I think he is a racist no he has a long tradition of opposing racism and fascism. There are countless others not sacked by the BBC for comments that are racist or could be construed as racist , they give a platform to Gen Id who are fascist.
> If he'd have tweeted the same photo about any other royal family baby I probably would have laughed.



I listened to him on James O'Brien. I don't get the impression he was malicious, even JOB acknowledges he likes posting pictures of monkeys in hats. Baker himself said it was deeply offensive and he had to go. I've never found Baker that funny on the radio, his biography is quite good.  

Danny Baker's First Interview Since Being Sacked By BBC Over "Racist" Tweet - LBC

He had to go, but he seems sincere in his contrition.


----------



## jarndyce (May 10, 2019)

If you’ve followed Baker for any length of time It’s bloody obvious he isn’t racist. Having said that, he works for a strict PC company and therefore had to go. I’m most gutted because I liked his podcast with Lineker.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 10, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> If you’ve followed Baker for any length of time It’s bloody obvious he isn’t racist. Having said that, he works for a strict PC company and therefore had to go. I’m most gutted because I liked his podcast with Lineker.



Looking at his brainless tweet, it's not at all "bloody obvious he isn't a racist". And I say this as someone who used to listen to his show. He's fucked up and doubled down with this talk of "diseased minds!.

Define "strict PC company". They did the right thing here. I'm sure Baker will get work somewhere else that likes "edgy" presenters.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 10, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> If you’ve followed Baker for any length of time It’s bloody obvious he isn’t racist. Having said that, he works for a strict PC company and therefore had to go. I’m most gutted because I liked his podcast with Lineker.



A strict PC company that is currently platforming Generation Identity (‘send them back’). Right.

There’s also the thing of it being to do with the royal family and the BBC’s unrelenting toadiness towards them, although not sure that’s much of a factor here given tweeting that picture about anyone else of black lineage would still have been a sackable offence.


----------



## binka (May 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> If he'd have tweeted the same photo about any other royal family baby I probably would have laughed.


Although strangely out of all the royal babies in recent years this is the only one where he posted a picture of a monkey.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

The man fronts a peak time show on a news, current affairs and sport radio station. He claims he had no idea at all who in the royal family had just given birth. Does he live on Mars? No, he’s on a BBC news, current affairs and sport station, so either telling lies or so woefully ill informed on current affairs that he should be sacked.

Add the casual homophobia he deployed to describe his sacking and I can’t see why anyone would feel he has a place in public life anymore.

That’s before we get to the fact that he described the mixed race baby as a fucking monkey, something he failed to do to any of the white royal babies at any time in his  career...


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Unpopular opinion. Do I think the tweet was right no.Do I think he was stupid to tweet the photo yes. Do I think he is a racist no he has a long tradition of opposing racism and fascism. There are countless others not sacked by the BBC for comments that are racist or could be construed as racist , they give a platform to Gen Id who are fascist.
> If he'd have tweeted the same photo about any other royal family baby I probably would have laughed.


tbf this seems to be more or less the opinion of half the people on this thread, so not _that_ unpopular.


----------



## D'wards (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The man fronts a peak time show on a news, current affairs and sport radio station. He claims he had no idea at all who in the royal family had just given birth. Does he live on Mars? No, he’s on a BBC news, current affairs and sport station, so either telling lies or so woefully ill informed on current affairs that he should be sacked.



To be fair, the whole remit of his show is that its blissfully ignores all current affairs. It's funny anecdote based with a guest in second hour. (He doesn't even talk about football)
For example, for the last couple of weeks they've had the topic "what has your child packed to take on holiday?" - the highlight being a lad whose suitcase consisted of a coconut and his stamp collection and nothing else.
I shall miss it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Spectacularly misjudged tweet but fucking hell I hope some of you are never on a jury.


----------



## likesfish (May 10, 2019)

He had to go and pleading ignorance might have mitigated if it had started with. 

I have completely fucked here and they were right to sack me because it looks totally racist. 

But he didn't so off you toddle to talk sport


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Unpopular opinion. Do I think the tweet was right no.Do I think he was stupid to tweet the photo yes. Do I think he is a racist no he has a long tradition of opposing racism and fascism. There are countless others not sacked by the BBC for comments that are racist or could be construed as racist , they give a platform to Gen Id who are fascist.
> If he'd have tweeted the same photo about any other royal family baby I probably would have laughed.


It's perfectly possible for a non-racist or even an anti-racist to make a racist remark out of ignorance or fucking stupidity but this is absolutely  stupendous. 

I don't believe that he didn't know that Meghan is mixed race, I don't believe he didn't know that it was she and Harry who had the kid, and I don't believe that he didn't know that equating chimps and black people is a racist thing as old as the hills. 

So, is Baker a racist? Maybe not. I'll take your word that he has history of opposing it (got any examples?). Was the tweet racist? Absolutely. Should he have been sacked? Yes, of course.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don't believe that he didn't know that Meghan is mixed race, I don't believe he didn't know that it was she and Harry who had the kid, and I don't believe that he didn't know that equating chimps and black people is a racist thing as old as the hills.



Let's say that he didn't know any of these things. So fucking what? You can still get sacked for something you didn't know was a wrong thing to do. You can get sacked for something someone in your team didn't know was wrong. You should.

Hence expressions like 'it happened on my watch'.

 I'd like to think I'd get my resignation in before being fired for something like that.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don't believe that he didn't know that Meghan is mixed race, I don't believe he didn't know that it was she and Harry who had the kid, and I don't believe that he didn't know that equating chimps and black people is a racist thing as old as the hills.



It's not even necessary to 'not know' any of this - it's a matter of not making the connection because the intention of the post was nothing to do with any of this. 

It's a stupid mistake for sure. And yes it's a bad mistake and he should have known better. 

But it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that he'd do it deliberately. Why would he do it deliberately? 

I find it a bit frightening how eager people are to judge, and assume the worst motivations, however implausible. 

Surely most people can think of a time when they said something unthinkingly, and in retrospect realised it could have looked really bad, interpreted based on an assumption of worst possible motives.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> But it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that he'd do it deliberately. Why would he do it deliberately?


I agree. I can only think that he was pissed or otherwise faculty-challenged. But regardless of his motivation it was still a racist tweet and that means he should still have been sacked.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Surely most people can think of a time when they said something unthinkingly, and in retrospect realised it could have looked really bad, interpreted based on an assumption of worst possible motives.


Absolutely. And it's had consequences.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely. And it's had consequences.


I think we should have a disclosure thread that ends with everyone on urban being banned.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> It's not even necessary to 'not know' any of this - it's a matter of not making the connection because the intention of the post was nothing to do with any of this.
> 
> It's a stupid mistake for sure. And yes it's a bad mistake and he should have known better.
> 
> But it doesn't make any sense whatsoever that he'd do it deliberately. Why would he do it deliberately?


 Because he thought he could weather it. Because despite knowing the connotations he thought he could plead ignorance and get away with it. Because he knew people like you would argue the toss for him based on his popularity/celebrity appeal. He didn't care enough about offending and didn't care enough not to use a racist trope...whether  he deliberately set out to do that or simply decided to risk it in the moment the result is the same. He didn't care enough to think about ithe risk and outcomes because the joke was more important to him, casually racist jokes aren't a new thing.  He was/is relying on his 'status'  and reputation.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I find it a bit frightening how eager people are to judge, and assume the worst motivations, however implausible.


with an attitude like that i'm not sure what you're doing on urban


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Because he thought he could weather it. Because despite knowing the connotations he thought he could plead ignorance and get away with it. Because he knew people like you would argue the toss for him based on his popularity/celebrity appeal. He didn't care enough about offending and didn't care enough not to use a racist trope...whether  he deliberately set out to do that or simply decided to risk it in the moment the result is the same. He didn't care enough to think about ithe risk and outcomes because the joke was more important to him, casually racist jokes aren't a new thing.  He was/is relying on his 'status'  and reputation.


He decided to do it just for the adrenaline rush or something? He really thought the joke was worth it even with the inevitable twitter storm and sacking which he knew would come, because when he posted it he thought, 'this will be interpreted badly but who cares'?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Because he thought he could weather it. Because despite knowing the connotations he thought he could plead ignorance and get away with it. Because he knew people like you would argue the toss for him based on his popularity/celebrity appeal. He didn't care enough about offending and didn't care enough not to use a racist trope...whether  he deliberately set out to do that or simply decided to risk it in the moment the result is the same. He didn't care enough to think about ithe risk and outcomes because the joke was more important to him, casually racist jokes aren't a new thing.  He was/is relying on his 'status'  and reputation.


Or he was pissed. Teuchter has half a point. DB doesn’t have any kind of form for racism, so why now?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Or he was pissed. Teuchter has half a point. DB doesn’t have any kind of form for racism, so why now?



I agree.  He must have been pissed.  I don't believe for a moment that he deliberately set out to be racist. Thoughtless perhaps, but not malicious.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> So you think that there are levels of racism, that a person has to do or say x, y, z for it to be racism and for them to be racist and called out as such? That someone either is or isn't racist?
> 
> Go on Ted Striker lay them out, how unthinking and offensive does someone have to be and how often to actually get the racism card handed to them so they can fuck off and work on their issues for a day, week, month, year?



Is this not all a bit of a disingenuous "So, tell me, what do you consider racism / Don't you dare try and define racism to me" shittery? What would be an acceptable response? I attempted to answer in good faith, admittedly trying to explain there's a smidgen of a grey area where a (perceived) racist act could be executed by a non-racist unwittingly. But all that will get lost if it's reduced to this level of nuance. Base Racism is fairly fucking obvious for most normal people (a group of which I claim membership of).



Rutita1 said:


> Also, please tell me why you think you are  in a position to make these value judgements. What qualifies you to guage the severity and impact of racist thoughts and deeds?



Again, I'm not sure what you're expecting here??

I would say my measure of racism isn't very far from yours, however I'd never infer that I have walked in your shoes, and indeed I, as everyone, develops their radars for these sort of things as life goes on.

Again, a picture of a monkey imitating a black person is so obviously grotesque, offensive and wrong, it is NEVER anything I would even remotely do anything other than spit on. The explanation, that the context of this picture was not meant to be in that way. I believe him, owing to having followed his career (and not seen any evidence of racism before).

Understandably, and on reflection, I see it would sound far fetched to believe that someone would have such naivety to not connect it to the seemingly infamous first mixed race princess.

Also, there is a further responsibility to have an awareness for this potential inference (tbf, especially if you have form for posting pictures of monkeys).



Rutita1 said:


> As posted elsewhere all this apologism and hoop jumping and attempts to rationalise and create hierarchies of what is obvious reminds me of people saying things like 'real racism' and that challenging the likes of DB undermines 'real racism' as if it isn't important unless people are getting their heads kicked in. That attitude can fuck off too. What do you know about impact and experience? What do you know about harm and how to reduce it?
> 
> You are effectively supporting someone, one amongst many in the last few days, that chose to racialise a newborn baby on account of his maternal grandmother being Black. Not to celebrate diversity and ethnicity and culture. They are positioning her Blackness as something of ridicule, a pollutant, less valuable, something to laugh at, poke fun of, show disgust of. They relied on a popular racist trope and then denied it. They doubled down and accused others of being the diseased ones for pointing it out. They then claimed to not have known MM is mixed and now that they had no clue who the baby's parents are. FFS.
> 
> ...



I'm not justifying racism. I abhor it, in all its forms. I am not a racist. That's probably the limit of what I can add without drifting into accusations of whitesplaining.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

D'wards said:


> To be fair, the whole remit of his show is that its blissfully ignores all current affairs. It's funny anecdote based with a guest in second hour. (He doesn't even talk about football)
> For example, for the last couple of weeks they've had the topic "what has your child packed to take on holiday?" - the highlight being a lad whose suitcase consisted of a coconut and his stamp collection and nothing else.
> I shall miss it.



So his show consists of making jokes about monkeys, guessing what a kid packs for a holiday, a sausage sandwich game and pretending not have to have a scooby what is going on in the world. And he wants a slice of my licence fee to do this? Sorry, but a decent enough wedge already goes to Cbeebies, ta.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> He decided to do it just for the adrenaline rush or something? He really thought the joke was worth it even with the inevitable twitter storm and sacking which he knew would come, because when he posted it he thought, 'this will be interpreted badly but who cares'?


He didn't care enough to stop himself. The result is the same. I don't think he knew in that moment he'd be sacked.


----------



## cheesethief (May 10, 2019)

sovereignb said:


> I think particularly over the last few years the media has done a good job of misconstruing what racism is. All the connotations with hate, violence and "right wing" will have some flat out denying in their ignorance when it has actually occurred.


Agreed. That's what I find quite offensive about the way Baker handled it - the whole "I'm not racist, only a racist would think this was racism" bullshit. It's disingenuous & a cynical attempt to turn the spotlight around, suggesting it's really others who have the problem. I might've had a tiny bit of sympathy if he'd just said "I was an arsehole, I should've known better, I'm really sorry", but he didn't, he tried to play the innocence card, and literally no one is fooled. Pathetic.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I agree. I can only think that he was pissed or otherwise faculty-challenged. But regardless of his motivation it was still a racist tweet and that means he should still have been sacked.



Have you heard the interview on LBC?

he has a thing about finding chimps dressed as posh people funny (fuck knows why, it's a bit dull humour wise) When someone pointed out the racist connertations, he deleted the tweet and felt mortified. He acknowledges it was a stupid thing to do. Also that the BBC were right to sack him. He is pissed off at the circus and the BBC's condescending attitude during his sacking phone call though.

If people are actually arguing DB is a racist and this is a case of the mask slipping, I think they're bonkers. If not, given the above, what else should he have done. Apart from not post the stupid fucking thing in the first place of course. Seems he's now being condemned for not being gracious enough, meeting some arbitry standard of post sacking conduct.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Or he was pissed. Teuchter has half a point. DB doesn’t have any kind of form for racism, so why now?



Many people get more right wing as they get older. Look at teuchter...


----------



## Ted Striker (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'll take your word that he has history of opposing it (got any examples?). Was the tweet racist? Absolutely. Should he have been sacked? Yes, of course.



I've got better things to do than go back and search for this kind of stuff, but this was posted on another forum


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> literally no one is fooled.


9 pages since yesterday afternoon says otherwise.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So his show consists of making jokes about monkeys, guessing what a kid packs for a holiday, a sausage sandwich game and pretending not have to have a scooby what is going on in the world. And he wants a slice of my licence fee to do this? Sorry, but a decent enough wedge already goes to Cbeebies, ta.



It's worse than that. The whole structure is like a forum (with weekly random subjects) for people that have never used the internet.


----------



## LiamO (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Because he knew people like you would argue the toss for him *based on his popularity/celebrity appeal. *
> ... blah...
> He was/is relying on his 'status'  and reputation.



Glad he wasn't relying on a 40/50 year track record of opposing racism then.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> I've got better things to do than go back and search for this kind of stuff, but this was posted on another forum


Yes, the very people he threw under a bus for a cheap gag.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> He didn't care enough to stop himself. The result is the same. I don't think he knew in that moment he'd be sacked.


So he thought he could post an openly racist comment and not get sacked by the BBC. "It's racist but they'll be fine with it".


----------



## LiamO (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> So he thought he could post an openly racist comment and not get sacked by the BBC. "It's racist but they'll be fine with it".



Don't get cheeky... Ru-*tit*-a '_knows'_ things... in fact s/he could teach Mystic Meg a thing or two about mind-reading.


----------



## Favelado (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> So he thought he could post an openly racist comment and not get sacked by the BBC. "It's racist but they'll be fine with it".



He definitely can't have thought it's okay otherwise he's an idiot, but it seems he isn't a card-carrying member of the BNP. There's something else maybe going on, where he's conflicted, or wanted to do his edgelord thing, or he's a bit racist sometimes and it came out here.

I've got a feeling there's something a bit odd going on in his head, but there's no way he didn't know what he was doing. So fuck him.


----------



## Favelado (May 10, 2019)

LiamO said:


> Don't get cheeky... Ru-*tit*-a '_knows'_ things... in fact s/he could teach Mystic Meg a thing or two about mind-reading.



Is this going to be your contribution? Turning it into a personal thing?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

xenon said:


> Have you heard the interview on LBC?
> 
> he has a thing about finding chimps dressed as posh people funny (fuck knows why, it's a bit dull humour wise) When someone pointed out the racist connertations, he deleted the tweet and felt mortified. He acknowledges it was a stupid thing to do. Also that the BBC were right to sack him. He is pissed off at the circus and the BBC's condescending attitude during his sacking phone call though.
> 
> If people are actually arguing DB is a racist and this is a case of the mask slipping, I think they're bonkers. If not, given the above, what else should he have done. Apart from not post the stupid fucking thing in the first place of course. Seems he's now being condemned for not being gracious enough, meeting some arbitry standard of post sacking conduct.


I listened to the LBC interview last night which is partly why I'm not calling him an out and out racist. As per my post that you quote though, you have to suspend belief too far to consider that he didn't know that it'd be a racist tweet. So that just leaves, why?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Favelado said:


> Is this going to be your contribution? Turning it into a personal thing?



His trolling attempts  with jarndyce haven't worked thus far so he is going in for the direct personal shit, true to form. Desperate twit that he is.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2019)

Favelado said:


> He definitely can't have thought it's okay otherwise he's an idiot, but it seems he isn't a card-carrying member of the BNP. There's something else maybe going on, where he's conflicted, or wanted to do his edgelord thing, or he's a bit racist sometimes and it came out here.
> 
> I've got a feeling there's something a bit odd going on in his head, but there's no way he didn't know what he was doing. So fuck him.



I actually think he has an odd, old fashioned sort of sense of humour. I don't mean that as code for still thinks the black and white minstrels were funny... Rather thinks animals dressed as people is still satire. Underneath the arches. Who even remembers what that is. ,  he is amazingly out of touch with online discourse, understanding of memes and so on. I don't find this surprising. The BBC is full of people that are comfortable in their demographical backwaters.

To be clear, I don't have  a problem with him being sacked. Just a bit peaved at some of the nonsense on this thread.


----------



## D'wards (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So his show consists of making jokes about monkeys, guessing what a kid packs for a holiday, a sausage sandwich game and pretending not have to have a scooby what is going on in the world. And he wants a slice of my licence fee to do this? Sorry, but a decent enough wedge already goes to Cbeebies, ta.


You've got it!
And that's why it was a hugely popular show.
Still, we cant all like the same things. Would be a very boring world if we did.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I listened to the LBC interview last night which is partly why I'm not calling him an out and out racist. As per my post that you quote though, you have to suspend belief too far to consider that he didn't know that it'd be a racist tweet. So that just leaves, why?



See my post just now. I think he's just a bit dence, out of touch. If this is the first time he'd made a joke, tweet etc, featuring monkies, apes, it would be a very different matter.


----------



## Chilli.s (May 10, 2019)

I find Sugar's tweet or whatever about beach sunglass sellers maybe more offensive, he should have had the same sacking.   DB insulted the monarchy too so...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

Chilli.s said:


> I find Sugar's tweet or whatever about beach sunglass sellers maybe more offensive, he should have had the same sacking.   DB insulted the monarchy too so...



Sugar was not employed by the BBC, so the BBC can't sack him. The BBC could have cancelled The Apprentice  until Sugar was removed though, but they didn't.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

D'wards said:


> Still, we cant all like the same things. Would be a very boring world if we did.



People say that, but no one would be bored.  Everyone would be perfectly content, all liking the same thing.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Chilli.s said:


> I find Sugar's tweet or whatever about beach sunglass sellers maybe more offensive, he should have had the same sacking.


 Absolutely. I don't log on to twitter much so I never saw that shit at the time.



> DB insulted the monarchy too so...


 So what?


----------



## Chilli.s (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> So what?


A double whammy


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> So what?



So the Beeb's PR department was concerned about flack coming in from two completely different angles.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Chilli.s said:


> A double whammy


Right, yes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

Cos no one on the Beeb every slags off the monarchy, right


----------



## krtek a houby (May 10, 2019)

Bigotry doesn't really follow logic or rationality. Pretty sure one or two stand up characters who have a record of being sound over the years, have come out with fuckwitted comments that prove to be their downfall. It's always disappointing, especially if it's someone you admire/follow etc but it should never be excused or dismissed as laddish bants...


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

krtek a houby said:


> Bigotry doesn't really follow logic or rationality. Pretty sure one or two stand up characters who have a record of being sound over the years, have come out with fuckwitted comments that prove to be their downfall. It's always disappointing, especially if it's someone you admire/follow etc but it should never be excused or dismissed as laddish bants...


This is not being excused or dismissed as laddish bants, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Many people get more right wing as they get older. Look at teuchter...


or better still, don't


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Cos no one on the Beeb every slags off the monarchy, right



Fair point, but once it’s been made into a “thing” on Twitter, things can get unpredictable.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

LiamO said:


> Glad he wasn't relying on a 40/50 year track record of opposing racism then.


Why do you reckon he posted it though? You can't deny that it was a mug cunt thing to do, so what made him do it?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 10, 2019)

krtek a houby said:


> Bigotry doesn't really follow logic or rationality. Pretty sure one or two stand up characters who have a record of being sound over the years, have come out with fuckwitted comments that prove to be their downfall. It's always disappointing, especially if it's someone you admire/follow etc but it should never be excused or dismissed as laddish bants...



Nobody is excusing this as laddish bants.


----------



## tommers (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you reckon he posted it though? You can't deny that it was a mug cunt thing to do, so what made him do it?



He said it was to compare the royal family to circus animals but just in nicer clothes.  As in they are here to perform for our amusement, and here's the next one for the circus.


----------



## Favelado (May 10, 2019)

tommers said:


> He said it was to compare the royal family to circus animals but just in nicer clothes.  As in they are here to perform for our amusement, and here's the next one for the circus.



Fuuck. Quite a stretch that isn't it?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you reckon he posted it though? You can't deny that it was a mug cunt thing to do, so what made him do it?



Imo - bit pissed, sees pic and posts it, only making the "posh baby" connection at the time.

Then, being of a generation that thinks intent and inner feeling is the complete underpinning of racism (combined with thinking it's only fans of the show familiar with prior silly tweets that will pay any attention), he trivialises it in a further tweet rather than doing the "OMG! I totally missed that, I am a muppet and am *so* sorry...". 

Then digs himself in further.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> This is not being excused or dismissed as laddish bants, though.





ElizabethofYork said:


> Nobody is excusing this as laddish bants.



My perception of DB and his whole presenter persona is exactly the 'jack the lad bants for bants sake' type.


----------



## The39thStep (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> tbf this seems to be more or less the opinion of half the people on this thread, so not _that_ unpopular.


Must admit I didnt read a lot of the thread as I was watching the football.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

tommers said:


> He said it was to compare the royal family to circus animals but just in nicer clothes.  As in they are here to perform for our amusement, and here's the next one for the circus.



Sounds like bollocks to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Sounds like bollocks to me.


yeh where's the clown and ringmaster?


----------



## Ted Striker (May 10, 2019)

Has there been football on this week?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Imo - bit pissed, sees pic and posts it, only making the "posh baby" connection at the time.


Still too generous, imo.


----------



## tommers (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Sounds like bollocks to me.


Fair enough.

Just fancied destroying his career then and having "the worst day of my life".

He's just tweeted about another 6 apologies. 

Damn him and his clever games.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Still too generous, imo.



So you think he was deliberately doing one of those Clarkson-style things where he could skirt past the line and act innocent later?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

tommers said:


> Just fancied destroying his career then and having "the worst day of my life".


Well that makes no sense either but it doesn't make his explanation any more believable.


----------



## tommers (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well that makes no sense either but it doesn't make his explanation any more believable.




Which one is less believable?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> So you think he was deliberately doing one of those Clarkson-style things where he could skirt past the line and act innocent later?


No, I don't. It's too big for even a moron to think he could have got away with it.

The only explanation that makes any kind of sense to me is that he was pissed or on drugs.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No, I don't. It's too big for even a moron to think he could have got away with it.
> The only explanation that makes any kind of sense to me is that he was pissed or on drugs.



But do you mean the booze/drugs lowered some inhibitions to where he did something he knew was dodgy, or that he was too addled to make the connection between the picture and the trope.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

bit early in the day to be caned perhaps


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> bit early in the day to be caned perhaps



Know a lot of media types, do you?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Know a lot of media types, do you?


clearly not


----------



## Ranbay (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> bit early in the day to be caned perhaps
> 
> View attachment 170466




Or maybe it was late in the night from the 7th


----------



## planetgeli (May 10, 2019)

“The picture, in context as presented was obviously shamefully racist, it was never intended so....seriously who would go there...I am so, so sorry”

Roughly his latest tweets. He knows he’s fucked up big time (his words), continuing to guess why or how his brain was working at the time seems futile. He does have a picture of the royal couple the day before the tweet and comments on a possible name so he knew damn well who the baby belonged to.

As I’ve said all along, he’s Danny Baker, he just sees himself bigger than...you, me, life. 

Maybe not so much this morning. But I won’t hold my breath.

He’s gone. But of course he’ll be back. Like you or me wouldn’t stand a chance of doing so.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> clearly not



Tbf, it was a bit of a lazy stereotype, given the thread.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 10, 2019)




----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 10, 2019)

He's been sacked - what?  4 times so far from the BBC?  

The Beeb seem to have certain people that they let go for a short time and then re-employ them when the fuss has died down.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> But do you mean the booze/drugs lowered some inhibitions to where he did something he knew was dodgy, or that he was too addled to make the connection between the picture and the trope.


No idea. No other explanation comes close to making any sense to me though, and I also don’t buy ‘I’m Danny Baker, I can get away with it’.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


>




All very _noble_ in the cold light of day. No mention of this nonsense:

_'I didn't even know she is Mixed'
'I didn't even know who the baby belonged to.'_


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> All very _noble_ in the cold light of day. No mention of this nonsense:
> 
> _'I didn't even know she is Mixed'
> 'I didn't even know who the baby belonged to.'_



Nor, "I guess it was my turn in the barrel"


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Might have known the apology wouldn’t wash.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> All very _noble_ in the cold light of day. No mention of this nonsense:
> 
> _'I didn't even know she is Mixed'
> 'I didn't even know who the baby belonged to.'_



You think he was being deliberately disgustingly racist?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No idea. No other explanation comes close to making any sense to me though, and I also don’t buy ‘I’m Danny Baker, I can get away with it’.



I doubt he thought the latter, but I don't know very much about him.  He must have known what Twitter is like, though.
I think it's likely the second tweet was caused by him thinking "that's ridiculous, why would anyone think I meant _that_", out of a kind of defensive reflex.

I mentioned it to a mate last night who is from DB's age cohort and has a history of anti-racist activity and on showing him the original tweet he was a bit puzzled by any meaning behind it, but I had to explain that it had been interpreted as racist.  Sample of one, though, and not a person of colour.


----------



## Argonia (May 10, 2019)

Am I the only one here who thinks Baker hasn't done anything wrong and shouldn't have been sacked?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 10, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Am I the only one here who thinks Baker hasn't done anything wrong and shouldn't have been sacked?



Yes.  Even Baker himself agrees that the BBC were correct to sack him.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> All very _noble_ in the cold light of day. No mention of this nonsense:
> 
> _'I didn't even know she is Mixed'
> 'I didn't even know who the baby belonged to.'_



Ever been pissed, or hungover, or revolted and scared, and doubled down stubbornly the wrong way in the heat of a panicked moment? Maybe regretted that initial reaction at a calmer, later moment? I have. 

I honestly don't know what more he could do. He's not asking for his job back. He's admitted it was a racist tweet and a terrible error of judgement. What do people want, a walk of shame?


----------



## tommers (May 10, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Am I the only one here who thinks Baker hasn't done anything wrong and shouldn't have been sacked?



Well, I'd certainly say you're at one end of the scale 

They had to sack him.  They had no choice.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> Ever been pissed, or hungover, or revolted and scared, and doubled down stubbornly the wrong way in the heat of a panicked moment? Maybe regretted that initial reaction at a calmer, later moment? I have.
> 
> I honestly don't know what more he could do. He's not asking for his job back. He's admitted it was a racist tweet and a terrible error of judgement. What do people want, a walk of shame?


from buckingham palace to st paul's in the buff like cersei


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> All very _noble_ in the cold light of day. No mention of this nonsense:
> 
> _'I didn't even know she is Mixed'
> 'I didn't even know who the baby belonged to.'_


Where are these statements quoted from?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Argonia said:


> Am I the only one here who thinks Baker hasn't done anything wrong and shouldn't have been sacked?



Well it's good that we have the full range of possible opinions on this now.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Plumdaff said:


> Ever been pissed, or hungover, or revolted and scared, and doubled down stubbornly the wrong way in the heat of a panicked moment? Maybe regretted that initial reaction at a calmer, later moment? I have.
> 
> I honestly don't know what more he could do. He's not asking for his job back. He's admitted it was a racist tweet and a terrible error of judgement. What do people want, a walk of shame?



To bathe in the blood of the sacrificial lamb.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> My perception of DB and his whole presenter persona is exactly the 'jack the lad bants for bants sake' type.


In most ways he's pretty much the opposite of laddish banter type. Have you ever actually listened to his radio stuff or do you think he's just the Daz advert guy from thirty years ago?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Where are these statements quoted from?




Danny Baker told BBC to 'f*** off' as they fired him for 'racist' Meg baby tweet



> He said: "Literally put a gun to my head and say ‘who was having a baby yesterday?’ I wouldn’t have been able to tell you.
> 
> "I can name every squad in the Champions League but the royals is not my forte.
> 
> "I knew there was a royal baby. I didn’t know it was Meghan and Harry’s.


----------



## planetgeli (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Where are these statements quoted from?





> Speaking outside his Blackheath home, he admitted his relationship with the BBC has always been tense, and said he did not know the royal baby was Meghan and Harry's.



I heard him say this, he was being interviewed. The problem with this bit is that it's an obvious lie. He was floundering, trying to duck out of things. It doesn't wash because in his twitter feed for May 6th there is a picture of Meg and Harry, a silly thing about naming the baby something to bring America and the UK together, and Baker suggests Homer Wallis Simpson.

Doesn't make him a racist. Does make him a twat for lying about 'not knowing who the baby belonged to'.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


>



These seem genuine, tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> These seem genuine, tbf.


he did indeed tweet those tweets


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> 'My turn in the barrel' has nothing to do with fish.


What does it have to do with? I only know it in the context of shooting fish in a barrel - i.e. picking someone off really easily and unfairly.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Danny Baker told BBC to 'f*** off' as they fired him for 'racist' Meg baby tweet



Going overboard with the charitableness at this point, but it's fair to say that Kate has been squeezing them out at a fair old rate.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> What does it have to do with? I only know it in the context of shooting fish in a barrel - i.e. picking someone off really easily and unfairly.



Yeah, we've been round this circle once (at least).

See post #39.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

The Sugar comments are worse in many ways, in that there can be no innocent explanation, and those comments _do_ show that Sugar is racist. The BBC are a bunch of inconsistent cunts, and of course royal lickspittles. But Baker lied his arse off yesterday, and that was perhaps even more stupid than the tweet, as his ludicrous protestations of ignorance are provably not true and he should have realised that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, we've been round this circle once (at least).
> 
> See post #39.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> The barrel reference is this:
> 
> A young sailor, many days at sea was feeling horny. He was told by the bosun that down in the bilges was a barrel with a hole in it, which he could use on Mon, Wed, Thurs, Fri, Sat and Sunday. On asking why he couldn't use it on Tuesday, he was told, Tuesday he was in it.


Never heard that before! But the saying about shooting fish in a barrel has been around for a long time and is commonly known. 

I am not trying to defend Baker, who I have always thought was a wanker - I just didn't know how the barrel comment was homophobic. Now I know, I suspect that he knew that story, too


----------



## planetgeli (May 10, 2019)

*Danny Baker*‏ @*prodnose* 








Danny Baker Retweeted Daily Express

Homer Wallis Simpson

Danny Baker added,


  












*Daily Express*Verified account @*Daily_Express*

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry to choose UNUSUAL name for baby that UNIFIES the US and UK Meghan Markle and Prince Harry to choose UNUSUAL name for baby that UNIFIES the US and UK …

	11:54 AM - 6 May 2019


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Danny Baker told BBC to 'f*** off' as they fired him for 'racist' Meg baby tweet


I've just listened to the whole of the video on that page, and I don't see where they have extracted those quotes from.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2019)

remembering the top gear comparisons- it wasn't the up-your -sleeve (and sometimes not even that) racism that did fr the show, it was pissed up Clarkson (rose wine apparently) punching and giving anti-irish racism to a BBC bod.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i can see the idea of celeb culture as the _performing monkies _thing, without their needing to be a racist attitude behind it, and i can see why a person (the new baby), who is about a billionth in line to the throne but who will still have their picture in the papers every week, would be cast into that celeb/performing monkey bucket - but i can't even begin to imagine the level of sustained thoughtlessness that would have to take place in the minute of so that it would have taken to put that tweet together for the 'this is going to look monsterously racist' bell to not start going off.


To be fair/accurate, the baby is 7th in line to the throne (Charles, William, all three of William's children (now that girls can inherit it), Harry, Archie). 

You're welcome


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I've just listened to the whole of the video on that page, and I don't see where they have extracted those quotes from.



ITV News @ 10 had them word for word last night. 

The Scum of course has form for making shit up, in this case they haven't.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I've just listened to the whole of the video on that page, and I don't see where they have extracted those quotes from.


TBF he says as much on that LBC interview. Told the caller to fuck off. He felt he was being talked down to, given a lecture, rather than look, you know you've fucked up, we have to let you go.

Who actually cares if he told the BBC to fuck off.


----------



## xenon (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ITV News @ 10 had them word for word last night.
> 
> The Scum of course has form for making shit up, in this case they haven't.



Why's it matter though. I regularly tell the BBC to fuck off. Well Radio 4 Today program in particular.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, we've been round this circle once (at least).
> 
> See post #39.


Yeah, sorry - I posted before I had read the whole thread. In fact, I still haven't read the whole thread - got bored   - but I did see the explanation.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

xenon said:


> TBF he says as much on that LBC interview. Told the caller to fuck off. He felt he was being talked down to, given a lecture, rather than look, you know you've fucked up, we have to let you go.
> 
> Who actually cares if he told the BBC to fuck off.





xenon said:


> Why's it matter though. I regularly tell the BBC to fuck off. Well Radio 4 Today program in particular.



No one cares about his telling the BBC to fuck off.

It's his attempt to worm out of putting up a picture of Harry and Meghan's mixed-race kid as a monkey by claiming he had no idea who in the royal family had just had a baby that is the issue...


----------



## co-op (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> In most ways he's pretty much the opposite of laddish banter type.



Yep. I wouldn't call him bantery at all these days, more a working class Londoner version of Terry Wogan.


----------



## kebabking (May 10, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> To be fair/accurate, the baby is 7th in line to the throne (Charles, William, all three of William's children (now that girls can inherit it), Harry, Archie).
> 
> You're welcome



To be fair, being 7th behind two young, fit, healthy men, and three well cared for children may as well be billionth - it would take something like plague _and _Richard, Duke of Gloucester to put this child within a thousand miles of the succession.

He's about as likely to be in the running as the reincarnated form of Harold Godwinson...


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> To be fair, being 7th behind two young, fit, healthy men, and three well cared for children may as well be billionth - it would take something like plague _and _Richard, Duke of Gloucester to put this child within a thousand miles of the succession.
> 
> He's about as likely to be in the running as the reincarnated form of Harold Godwinson...


That said, the queen was 7th in line to the throne at one point.


----------



## Yossarian (May 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> To be fair, being 7th behind two young, fit, healthy men, and three well cared for children may as well be billionth - it would take something like plague _and _Richard, Duke of Gloucester to put this child within a thousand miles of the succession.
> 
> He's about as likely to be in the running as the reincarnated form of Harold Godwinson...



"Thanks for coming to visit us in Malawi, Will, get the kids and I'll show you round the estate in my helicopter."


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> That said, the queen was 7th in line to the throne at one point.


when was that? she was third in line to the throne on her birth, second after george v died and then first when her father succeeded edward viii


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> To be fair, being 7th behind two young, fit, healthy men, and three well cared for children may as well be billionth - it would take something like plague _and _Richard, Duke of Gloucester to put this child within a thousand miles of the succession.
> 
> He's about as likely to be in the running as the reincarnated form of Harold Godwinson...


that's what they said about the nepalese prince


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> To be fair, being 7th behind two young, fit, healthy men, and three well cared for children may as well be billionth - it would take something like plague _and _Richard, Duke of Gloucester to put this child within a thousand miles of the succession.


Over the Queen's dead body will Archie be king!!!


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> when was that? she was third in line to the throne on her birth, second after george v died and then first when her father succeeded edward viii


 Something I (mis)heard on the radio.


----------



## ska invita (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The Sugar comments are worse in many ways, in that there can be no innocent explanation, and those comments _do_ show that Sugar is racist.


I never heard about the Sugar one till this thread...fuck me, never mind the BBC he's a Labour lord! I'd love to see the back of him. How he dodged it so far I don't know but maybe not too late to bring the case up, formal complaint to the Labour Party etc.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Over the Queen's dead body will Archie be king!!!


Eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I never heard about the Sugar one till this thread...fuck me, never mind the BBC he's a Labour lord! I'd love to see the back of him. How he dodged it so far I don't know but maybe not too late to bring the case up, formal complaint to the Labour Party etc.


that horse has bolted


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I never heard about the Sugar one till this thread...fuck me, never mind the BBC he's a Labour lord! I'd love to see the back of him. How he dodged it so far I don't know but maybe not too late to bring the case up, formal complaint to the Labour Party etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

.


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh?


Well actually she could abdicate. But death or abdication that the only way!!!

Over her dead or abdicated body will Archie ever be king!!!


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I never heard about the Sugar one till this thread...fuck me, never mind the BBC he's a Labour lord! I'd love to see the back of him. How he dodged it so far I don't know but maybe not too late to bring the case up, formal complaint to the Labour Party etc.


he's been a crossbench peer since 2015


----------



## Argonia (May 10, 2019)

is he what, Ska Invita?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> he's been a crossbench peer since 2015


four years ago pretty much to the day since he left the nefandous labour party


----------



## ska invita (May 10, 2019)

I missed that... Who gets to fire him?


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

Freemantle Media make The Apprentice. Presumably his contract is with them.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I missed that... Who gets to fire him?


Anyone. But shoot not fire is the right verb.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

Why is he even on TV? He looks like a shrivelled bollock.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Why is he even on TV? He looks like a shrivelled bollock.


steady viewing figures of around 7-8 million for ten consecutive seasons I guess.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> That said, the queen was 7th in line to the throne at one point.


No she wasn't. But no-one expected her to inherit it because everyone thought her uncle would get married and have kids, thereby letting her off the hook. So it seemed like she was more remote than 3rd in line, which is what she was when she was born - her uncle, her father then her. In fact, if her parents had had a son she would have dropped down the line of succession too, and I don't suppose anyone expected her parents would only have two daughters. 

Anyway... all irrelevant


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I never heard about the Sugar one till this thread...fuck me, never mind the BBC he's a Labour lord! I'd love to see the back of him. How he dodged it so far I don't know but maybe not too late to bring the case up, formal complaint to the Labour Party etc.


I thought he had resigned the Labour whip?

he should never have been made a Lord though, regardless of his political allegiance. Vile man.


----------



## LiamO (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you reckon he posted it though? You can't deny that it was a mug cunt thing to do, so what made him do it?



Good afternoon to you Sir.

Basically wot 8ball said



8ball said:


> Imo - bit pissed, sees pic and posts it, only making the "posh baby" connection at the time.
> 
> Then, being of a generation that thinks intent and inner feeling is the complete underpinning of racism (combined with thinking it's only fans of the show familiar with prior silly tweets that will pay any attention), he trivialises it in a further tweet rather than doing the "OMG! I totally missed that, I am a muppet and am *so* sorry...".
> 
> Then digs himself in further.



and also wot he said himself today.

Something similar happened to a Sinn Fein MP over here. He had taken to posting 'wacky' selfies and videos of him with various things on his head, such as a can of Coke or a bunch of bananas - just silly shite. He had a long history of such 'wacky'/juvenile posts.

Then he posts a video of himself with a loaf of bread on his head. Nothing to see here.



Unfortunately the brand of the sliced pan he had placed on his head was 'Kingsmills'.

Catastrophically, for him, it was also around the time of the Anniversary of the Kingsmill massacre.

Barry McElduff resigns: Full statement from Sinn Fein representative - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

No matter what he said or what 'character references' he could call from a long Political career in which he was very much at the right-on end of the political broad Church that is Sinn Féin, or how many cross-community initiatives he had been involved in could save him from the shitstorm or would or could convince Unionists that this was anything other than a calculated sectarian insult (that he had obviously spent the last few years laying the ground for).

A particularly astute and always-politically-on message Party colleague also got loads of grief for 'liking' the post initially. He, like McElduff, had not taken a blind bit of notice of what was written on the side of the loaf. And like I say he is an eloquent former newspaper journalist/editor and sharp as tack normally.
Barry McElduff resigns: Right for him to quit - what now of Mairtin O Muilleoir? asks Jim Allister - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

Sometimes people do just post or say stuff without spotting how a particular detail of it might be perceived by others.

None of us can _know_ what was going through Danny Baker's brain (Or Barry McElduff's) although I would have thought their honest reply would be "_nothing at all - unfortunately_".

When something like this happens I would tend to look at the track record of the person, their posting history and base my opinion/reaction on that, rather than reaching for my trusty pitchfork.

I dunno how times in my youth I heard old ladies refer to me or my mates as a 'cheeky monkey'. It was something that polite/non-sweary people said, rather than something more aggressive. I'm fairly sure if one was reported to have said it these days to a child who was any colour other than white, a social media tsunami would ensue.

And it would be complete bollocks in that scenario too. Unless, of course, that person had a history of racist comments or indeed only ever said it to black children.


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Something I (mis)heard on the radio.


No, Betty was 10 during the abdication crisis so would have been bumped up one then. With and assumption her Nazi uncle would have sproged so neither her nor her dad had planned to me Monach.

It’s one of the reasons, apparently , she hated her uncle and abdication as she felt the shock of becoming king shorterned her dad’s life.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nor, "I guess it was my turn in the barrel"



Is that directly homophobic, or making a joke about what straight men wind up doing when away from women for a very long time?

I may have just misunderstood the joke tbf.  I thought the joke was down to the guy being all embarrassed and furtive, then it turns out the men are all shagging each other.


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> No, Betty was 10 during the abdication crisis so would have been bumped up one then. With and assumption her Nazi uncle would have sproged so neither her nor her dad had planned to me Monach.
> 
> It’s one of the reasons, apparently , she hated her uncle and abdication as she felt the shock of becoming king shorterned her dad’s life.


Not that it really matters, but if she was number 10, who do you think were the 9 in front of her?


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

10 (years old)?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> No, Betty was 10 during the abdication crisis so would have been bumped up one then. With and assumption her Nazi uncle would have sproged so neither her nor her dad had planned to me Monach.
> 
> It’s one of the reasons, apparently , she hated her uncle and abdication as she felt the shock of becoming king shorterned her dad’s life.


it certainly wasn't his politics or this would never have happened


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Is that directly homophobic, or making a joke about what straight men wind up doing when away from women for a very long time?
> 
> I may have just misunderstood the joke tbf.  I thought the joke was down to the guy being all embarrassed and furtive, then it turns out the men are all shagging each other.



It's code for being arse-fucked against your will.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 10, 2019)

andysays said:


> Not that it really matters, but if she was number 10, who do you think were the 9 in front of her?



im really confused now  - Was she playing for england?  So no 9 would be -   Tom Finney? Lofthouse? Charlton?


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> 10 (years old)?


Ah, my mistake. 

Apologies to A380


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's code for being arse-fucked against your will.



Oh right, in terms of how DB was using it, yes, that's what he meant.

Definition 2 here is interesting by the way...


----------



## andysays (May 10, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> im really confused now  - Was she playing for england?  So no 9 would be -   Tom Finney? Lofthouse? Charlton?


I bet Danny Baker would know...


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

Kaka Tim said:


> im really confused now  - Was she playing for england?  So no 9 would be -   Tom Finney? Lofthouse? Charlton?


Wrong sport. She was a punchy little scrum half for London Irish pre war.


----------



## isvicthere? (May 10, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> You need to learn how to UTFSE Sasaferrato



Also: JFGI.


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

andysays said:


> Not that it really matters, but if she was number 10, who do you think were the 9 in front of her?


10 years old. She was born in 26. ( I don’t know what that is in lizard years though.)


----------



## mango5 (May 10, 2019)

I have listened with fondness to Danny Baker for nigh on 30 years. He has a deep and detailed knowledge about the history and culture of all sorts of turns of phrase and images, and uses that knowledge very cleverly. I don't think he's a racist person but I do think he's guilty of endorsing all sorts of garden-variety bigotry and using weasel words in his early attempts to apologise.  I am surprised the barrel remark hasn't caused more consternation on here; glad the OP raised it as an adjunct to the main debate.  

IMO Baker did not make an honest mistake - he thought he was being cheeky with the picture and thought the barrel remark too obscure to be called out on.  But whose nose was he tweaking? Not puffed up Royals or bureaucrats, but black people and gay people.  I believe the sincerity of his later lengthy apology but his thoughtlessly offensive remarks and self-defence have dissolved any sympathy I might have felt.


----------



## cheesethief (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's code for being arse-fucked against your will.


Which seems to have been DB's highly dubious way of suggesting victim-hood again. In my book, people who are truly regretful display genuine contrition, they don't keep tacking on little addendums. The most convincing & heartfelt kind of apology is one that simply ends after the "I'm really sorry" bit.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

cheesethief said:


> Which seems to have been DB's highly dubious way of suggesting victim-hood again. In my book, people who are truly regretful display genuine contrition...



Yeah, and people who feel they have been picked on unjustly do exactly what DB did.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, and people who feel they have been picked on unjustly do exactly what DB did.


And if he feels like he's being picked on unjustly then he doesn't really understand why what he did was so shit. That's the disappointing bit for me, tbh - all that crap about people with diseased minds as if this were the first time he'd ever heard of the idea of comparing black people to chimps or monkeys. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Just shut up for a bit and have a little think. Like mango5 I was quite fond of him. Now I think he's a twat.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And if he feels like he's being picked on unjustly then he doesn't really understand why what he did was so shit.



He didn't at the point at which he said it, I agree.


----------



## mango5 (May 10, 2019)

The point is, he certainly had the capacity to know, but he wasn't sufficiently sensitive to the racist content until called out on it.  It's a bit like using the N word -  it might be on the tip of your tongue for whatever reason in conversation, but you bite your tongue because you know the meaning and connotations.  If you don't stop yourself, you did a racist thing.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> He didn't at the point at which he said it, I agree.


It's very difficult to be empathetic and reflective about some bollocks you've just posted when under attack from all sides, as people who post on a politics messageboard should be well aware. The immediate instinct is to be defensive, not reflect on why something you've said might have upset a load of people. Then maybe after sleeping on it and thinking a bit, you might have a more nuanced response. as has happened here.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> No, Betty was 10 during the abdication crisis so would have been bumped up one then. With and assumption her Nazi uncle would have sproged so neither her nor her dad had planned to me Monach.
> 
> It’s one of the reasons, apparently , she hated her uncle and abdication as she felt the shock of becoming king shorterned her dad’s life.


Yeah, I heard that. Possibly true. This was, of course, before they realised that smoking leads to lung cancer. It was, of course, also before there was any effective treatment for lung cancer.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> I've got better things to do than go back and search for this kind of stuff, but this was posted on another forum



Some of my best mates, etc.


----------



## planetgeli (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> as if this were the first time he'd ever heard of the idea of comparing black people to chimps or monkeys. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. Just shut up for a bit and have a little think. Like mango5 I was quite fond of him. Now I think he's a twat.



But if you read his apologetic tweets today he says how he knows black people and monkeys have been used in a racist manner  for years.

“I needed no lessons on the centuries slurs equating simians and people of colour”


He still appears to be sticking behind the “I didn’t know whose kid it was” which, as I’ve proved with the post I copied from his may 6 timeline tweet, is a lie. (Post 318)

Again, I’ll say it. He thinks he’s bigger and better than someone who could possibly be caught out and called out on this shit. A horrendous mis-gamble. Hope he is having the worst day of his life as he pleads now.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it certainly wasn't his politics or this would never have happened


Or teaching her to do a cart wheel. Or to wave. Or whatever.  That always was a load of bollocks, that story.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> “I needed no lessons on the centuries slurs equating simians and people of colour”


Yeah so he's slept on it and is still getting it wrong. _No, Danny, you very clearly do need lessons on exactly that. _He felt like he was being patronised, well tough. Patronising BBC executives are not the story here, however much he might be trying to make it the story.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

mango5 said:


> The point is, he certainly had the capacity to know, but he wasn't sufficiently sensitive to the racist content until called out on it.  It's a bit like using the N word -  it might be on the tip of your tongue for whatever reason in conversation, but you bite your tongue because you know the meaning and connotations.  If you don't stop yourself, you did a racist thing.



With the N-word, if it's even on the tip of your tongue I'd say that's problematic in most cases I can think of. 

Personally I've learned all sorts of associations that racists use in the last 10 years, a lot of them from this site, and could easily have put my foot in it accidentally at some point (I brought a load of watermelons to a barbecue once because it was a hot day and I thought it would be nice - I don't think anyone there was black but on I guess that could have been seen as a faux pas if anyone there was - I'd never heard anything connecting black people and watermelons in my life, though). 

DB missing the significance in this case isn't in that bracket, being a media pundit and Millwall fan, though.  Absolutely should have known better but I can believe it was just a dumb error.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

mango5 said:


> I have listened with fondness to Danny Baker for nigh on 30 years. He has a deep and detailed knowledge about the history and culture of all sorts of turns of phrase and images, and uses that knowledge very cleverly. I don't think he's a racist person but I do think he's guilty of endorsing all sorts of garden-variety bigotry and using weasel words in his early attempts to apologise.  I am surprised the barrel remark hasn't caused more consternation on here; glad the OP raised it as an adjunct to the main debate.
> 
> IMO Baker did not make an honest mistake - he thought he was being cheeky with the picture and thought the barrel remark too obscure to be called out on.  But whose nose was he tweaking? Not puffed up Royals or bureaucrats, but black people and gay people.  I believe the sincerity of his later lengthy apology but his thoughtlessly offensive remarks and self-defence have dissolved any sympathy I might have felt.


Seems like a bit of an over-analysis of him choosing the term "turn in the barrel". I certainly had no idea of its origins until now. A quick search reveals it as a term used now and again here on urban. Is it generally recognised as offensive to gay people?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

mango5 said:


> The point is, he certainly had the capacity to know, but he wasn't sufficiently sensitive to the racist content until called out on it.  *It's a bit like using the N word -  it might be on the tip of your tongue for whatever reason in conversation, but you bite your tongue because you know the meaning and connotations.  If you don't stop yourself, you did a racist thing.*



That exact thing happened one evening out some years back with an ex-urbanite. We'd had a few beers where walking to the bus stop and laughing/taking the piss out of each other/banter etc... Mid back and forth joking, he called me a nigger. _'Hahahah very funny you nigge_*r' *I just stop dead in the street and looked at him. Then questioned what in the hell he was thinking and why he thought that was okay? His initial defense was it was obviously a joke and that Black people say it all the time as a term of endearment. He just refused to take on board that mid joke, he called the one thing  that was guaranteed to cut me off at the knees, _humiliate_ me, _put me in my place_. He thought he had that right, that the joke was the most important thing, that his reputation was all that should matter.

Needless to say we never met for beers again. We talked about it briefly via PM on here in the days afterwards, I was seriously disturbed by it, I was concerned about him doing the work he did with the people he did. IT reeked of a lack of self awareness and culturally sensitive boundaries to me. He just dug his heels in and insisted that I had gotten him all wrong and that he was disappointed in _me, that _I could think him a _racist_. He laid his emotions all over the place and tried to make me feel I was the one in the wrong for not being able to take a joke.

He posted here for a while afterwards too. I felt repulsed every time I saw his username.


He is dead now. No, I didn't kill him.


----------



## LiamO (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's code for being arse-fucked against your will.



And that is _homophobic_ how, exactly?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> That exact thing happened one evening out some years back with an ex-urbanite. We'd had a few beers where walking to the bus stop and laughing/taking the piss out of each other/banter etc... Mid back and forth joking, he called me a nigger. _'Hahahah very funny you nigge_*r' *I just stop dead in the street and looked at him.



Bet that felt like a punch in the gut, especially when you're getting on with someone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Seems like a bit of an over-analysis of him choosing the term "turn in the barrel". I certainly had no idea of its origins until now. A quick search reveals it as a term used now and again here on urban. Is it generally recognised as offensive to gay people?


You can be sure that he will have known its origins. That's his thing, knowing stuff like that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Bet that felt like a punch in the gut, especially when you're getting on with someone.


Actually yes. In that context, mid-happy. It winded me.


----------



## mango5 (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Seems like a bit of an over-analysis of him choosing the term "turn in the barrel". I certainly had no idea of its origins until now. A quick search reveals it as a term used now and again here on urban. Is it generally recognised as offensive to gay people?


Oh, just cos the people it's a slur against are the main ones who know about it means it's OK for everyone else? How do you think these things become _generally recognised_? Because over-analysing folk call it out.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

LiamO said:


> And that is _homophobic_ how, exactly?



As the expression is used to signify something deeply unpleasant, it means that gay sex is deeply unpleasant, dirty, nasty; you choose.


----------



## planetgeli (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> He is dead now. No, I didn't kill him.


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> With the N-word, if it's even on the tip of your tongue I'd say that's problematic in most cases I can think of.
> 
> Personally I've learned all sorts of associations that racists use in the last 10 years, a lot of them from this site, and could easily have put my foot in it accidentally at some point (I brought a load of watermelons to a barbecue once because it was a hot day and I thought it would be nice - I don't think anyone there was black but on I guess that could have been seen as a faux pas if anyone there was - I'd never heard anything connecting black people and watermelons in my life, though).
> 
> DB missing the significance in this case isn't in that bracket, being a media pundit and Millwall fan, though.  Absolutely should have known better but I can believe it was just a dumb error.


Are watermelons racist in the UK though? - they deffo are in America due to the historical connotations but is that true here? Like you I am worried if I have ever offended anyone as they are a great thing to take to a BBQ on a hot day.

Is it like Cunt?  In the UK it’s the worst thing you can call a very bad person, but despite its other meaning it’s not gender specific whereas in the US it is a gender specific term of abuse for a woman disliked by the speaker.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As the expression is used to signify something deeply unpleasant, it means that gay sex is deeply unpleasant, dirty, nasty; you choose.



That is apparent from a rendition of the joke I found when Googling, but wasn't from Sass's telling earlier in the thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> Are watermelons racist in the UK though? - they deffo are in America due to the historical connotations but is that true here? Like you I am worried if I have ever offended anyone as they are a great thing to take to a BBQ on a hot day.
> 
> Is it like Cunt?  In the UK it’s the worst thing you can call a very bad person, but despite its other meaning it’s not gender specific whereas in the US it is a gender specific term of abuse for a woman disliked by the speaker.


wasn't auld boris johnson called out for among other things using the phrase watermelon smile?


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> wasn't auld boris johnson called out for among other things using the phrase watermelon smile?


I thought it was him using the word ‘pickaninies’ the cunt.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> I thought it was him using the word ‘pickaninies’ the cunt.


'...with watermelon smiles'...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> I thought it was him using the word ‘pickaninies’ the cunt.


that too


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

...and no, of course watermelon isn't racist.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 10, 2019)

Seriously? No one would call you racist just for taking a watermelon to a barbecue.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> Are watermelons racist in the UK though? - they deffo are in America due to the historical connotations but is that true here? Like you I am worried if I have ever offended anyone as they are a great thing to take to a BBQ on a hot day.
> 
> Is it like Cunt?  In the UK it’s the worst thing you can call a very bad person, but despite its other meaning it’s not gender specific whereas in the US it is a gender specific term of abuse for a woman disliked by the speaker.



I'm not 100% sure.  But if its only in the US, then yes, it's a bit like the c-bomb in that regard.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> I thought it was him using the word ‘pickaninies’ the cunt.





Rutita1 said:


> '...with watermelon smiles'...


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Seriously? No one would call you racist just for taking a watermelon to a barbecue.



Of course they wouldn't. Fucking hell.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Seriously? No one would call you racist just for taking a watermelon to a barbecue.



Ok, that's one opinion.  Let's see what plays out...

(edit:  2 with Ruti)


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ok, that's one opinion.  Let's see what plays out...



Where? Between whom?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 170494



At the time Mr Mr de Pfeffel Johnson was of course an American citizen.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> (edit:  2 with Ruti)



Eh?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Where? Between whom?



In terms of whether anyone on here thinks its a faux pas.  So far, looks like I was concerned about something which would not be an issue outside the US.  
Your reaction, however, is exactly like the reaction of the friend I showed DB's pic to last night.  It's nothing to do with symbols, it's what's behind them.

As Dennis Potter famously said, "the trouble with words is you don't know whose mouths they have been in".


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh?



As in you and Monkeygrinder's Organ adds up to two opinions against the "watermelon racism" association.


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 170494


Fuck me, well just even more evidence that he is a (uk version) cunt .


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> In terms of whether anyone on here thinks its a faux pas.  So far, looks like I was concerned about something which would not be an issue outside the US.
> Your reaction, however, is exactly like the reaction of the friend I showed DB's pic to last night.  It's nothing to do with symbols, it's what's behind them.
> 
> As Dennis Potter famously said, "the trouble with words is you don't know whose mouths they have been in".



Even in the US taking a watermelon to a BBQ would not be offensive. Calling someone a watermelon is a term of offence in the US and as it is known as such here, it is clearly only used by racists in the UK too, see 'Boris' for example #1


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> Fuck me, well just even more evidence that he is a (uk version) cunt .



Oh, there's more evidence than we have bandwidthz...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> Fuck me, well just even more evidence that he is a (uk version) cunt .


And the cunt still got elected.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> As in you and Monkeygrinder's Organ adds up to two opinions against the "watermelon racism" association.



Oh come off it. It's how you juxtapose stuff and the context as you well know. This faux naviety isn't convincing in the slightest.


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Seriously? No one would call you racist just for taking a watermelon to a barbecue.


I’m a white liberal, I worry about these things. (whilst playing my part in perpetuating an unjust and structurally racist society and world order.  Obvs.)


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh come off it. It's how you juxtapose stuff and the context as you well know. This faux naviety isn't convincing in the slightest.



Man Fired For Bringing a Watermelon to Work


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 10, 2019)

What would actually be racist would be getting all weird about offering someone a piece of fruit because of their race.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Ah, well, back to the re-education camp...


----------



## mango5 (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ah, well, back to the re-education camp...


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As the expression is used to signify something deeply unpleasant, it means that gay sex is deeply unpleasant, dirty, nasty; you choose.


Not gay sex but specifically receiving anal sex.
Fucking the barrel isn't unpleasant in the joke. The officer in question fucks the barrel repeatedly.
Being in the barrel on the receiving is the supposedly unpleasant experience.
The English language has had this connotation for ages. Have you never heard someone say "management has fucked me"? It's not gender or orientation specific.
Neither is management have fucked me right in the arse. Supposedly worse and still not gender or orientation specific.
The English language is a funny old thing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Is saying you’ve been royally shafted homophobic?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is saying you’ve been royally shafted homophobic?


And royalist!


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> And royalist!



I'd have thought anti-Royalist.


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Is saying you’ve been royally shafted homophobic?


Royally in the context means grandly shafted.
So not just shafted but shafted with great pomp and ceremony. Paraded past in carriage with a 21 gun salute whilst they fuck you over.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

But it would be in my anus ergo homophobic.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

Why is referring to anal sex, homophobic?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

I fail to see how 'my turn in the barrel' is in any way homophobic.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

It’s ridiculous, unless we’re actually going to police every colloquialism for offence.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2019)

This is tilting at windmills, it's so fucking stupid. Whole thread


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> I fail to see how 'my turn in the barrel' is in any way homophobic.



I guess from one telling of the joke I saw there’s a kind of implicit contempt for one partner in a certain sex act.

Nothing of that in Sass’s telling, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> This is tilting at windmills, it's so fucking stupid. Whole thread


Welcome to urban


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> I guess from one telling of the joke I saw there’s a kind of implicit contempt for one partner in a certain sex act.
> 
> Nothing of that in Sass’s telling, though.


Even setting aside whether or not it was homophobic, it was a shit reaction to getting pulled up on posting that image. He was full-on playing the victim mode. Ugly stuff.


----------



## planetgeli (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It’s ridiculous, unless we’re actually going to police every colloquialism for offence.



That’d be beyond the pale.


----------



## maomao (May 10, 2019)

Being on the receiving end of a penis is always derogatory whether you're a cocksucker or getting fucked. There's definitely some sexual politics in there somewhere.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Even setting aside whether or not it was homophobic, it was a shit reaction to getting pulled up on posting that image. He was full-on playing the victim mode. Ugly stuff.



Because he was feeling picked on.  It’s what people do.


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> That’d be beyond the pale.


That's veganphobic!


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> That's veganphobic!



Oh, that’s going to be popular.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 10, 2019)




----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Anyway, at least the whole affair has brought Urban out in support of the Royals.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Anyway, at least the whole affair has brought Urban out in support of the Royals.



Are you and Gromit tag-teaming?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Are you and Gromit tag-teaming?



Did he say the same? I skip past his posts.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Anyway, at least the whole affair has brought Urban out in support of the Royals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)




----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Anyway, at least the whole affair has brought Urban out in support of the Royals.


It is interesting that there's an expectation here among many that because someone works at the BBC they should have an intimate knowledge of the goings on in the royal household.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> It is interesting that there's an expectation here among many that because someone works at the BBC they should have an intimate knowledge of the goings on in the royal household.




Can we just get one thing straight. DB knew full well who was having a baby here. That's the only 'intimate knowledge' he needed.


----------



## petee (May 10, 2019)

LiamO said:


> I dunno how times in my youth I heard old ladies refer to me or my mates as a 'cheeky monkey'. It was something that polite/non-sweary people said, rather than something more aggressive. I'm fairly sure if one was reported to have said it these days to a child who was any colour other than white, a social media tsunami would ensue.



real life example: i got called a monkey when young too, meaning just "undisciplined" or such, even a little endearing. common use in ireland. decades pass. a young irish nun is hired to teach in my old parochial school here in nyc. some kid in her class is a tearaway, she calls him a monkey. he's black. organized protests outside the school, a delegation meets with the archbishop. that was quite a how-dye-do and i'll guess she never used that word again.

she wasn't racist, she was a greenhorn. the kid and the family deserved an explanation and an absolute promise that they'd never hear the word again, but it got me thinking about cultural centrality. did the kid and family accept that the word was not used racially? did they accept that the world is a big place with alot of different cultures in it (a thing especially on view in nyc) and that their reaction was a pillorying of a foreigner ignorant of american history but innocent of bigotry?

all of which is unlike the situation in the OP, that guy's a dingus.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Royalists now.  Yeah that's the real interest here.


----------



## tim (May 10, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> That’d be beyond the pale.




  Antisemitic cryptoTsarisism can get  you in a lot of trouble. The Cheka will be round to see you later.


Pale of Settlement - Wikipedia


----------



## mango5 (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> It is interesting that there's an expectation here among many that because someone works at the BBC they should have an intimate knowledge of the goings on in the royal household.


Knowing that the royal baby has a brown mother is hardly intimate knowledge.


----------



## Mation (May 10, 2019)

These tweets are still up, then. The ones that followed hot on the heels of his deleted tweet.







Anyone want to defend this as him not spotting how a chimp + a banana + a brown American ingredient + 'Monks', all posted on that day, might be viewed?

I _might_ just have bought it, if not for those.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can we just get one thing straight. DB knew full well who was having a baby here. That's the only 'intimate knowledge' he needed.



Yeah, I seem to remember Kate having one pretty recently, but not so close as to make that too plausible.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Poor Danny eh. Thrown under a bus.


----------



## Argonia (May 10, 2019)

We're all descended from apes.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

mango5 said:


> Knowing that the royal baby has a brown mother is hardly intimate knowledge.


I'm sorry, but yes it is.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, I seem to remember Kate having one pretty recently, but not so close as to make that too plausible.


FFS he tweeted a pic of them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm sorry, but yes it is.


All over the press for the last year since the wedding...wall to wall over the press before he tweeted that cuntiness. Yeah right.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm sorry, but yes it is.


No it isn't.


----------



## LiamO (May 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As the expression is used to signify something deeply unpleasant, it means that gay sex is deeply unpleasant, dirty, nasty; you choose.



No. It means that uninvited anal sex is bad. It is. 

And painful.

Consenting bum sex is tickety-boo.


----------



## Ponyutd (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Poor Danny eh. Thrown under a bus.


"Litteraly thrown under a bus" I may add.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 10, 2019)

Amazing how every time something like this happens we get the same comments saying "well when this was said in an entirely different context it was fine so what's wrong here".

Language is context-dependent. It's literally how it works. Words mean different things in different contexts. Nobody making these comments would be able to communicate properly without knowing this so I can't take it as just ignorance. It's as disingenuous as saying "well those rap guys say the n-word so why is it bad if I use it".


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Argonia said:


> We're all descended from apes.



We share a *common ancestor* with apes.

But that is irrelevant to the horrible racist trope.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Ponyutd said:


> "Litteraly thrown under a bus" I may add.


Everyone else's fault.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2019)

He's taking the piss out of people taking offence Mation


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> FFS he tweeted a pic of them.



Thanks for the information


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's as disingenuous as saying "well those rap guys say the n-word so why is it bad if I use it".



I’ve seen that done in a non-disingenuous way.  I gave him a right lashing over it, but it did happen and he didn’t do it again.


----------



## Favelado (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> I'm sorry, but yes it is.


God. People will argue anything here. That's called common knowledge mate.


----------



## Mation (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> He's taking the piss out of people taking offence Mation


An informative attempt!

So, even though he posted the above before he posted his 'apology', and without any sort of, 'is this offensive too, then?' commentary, your first conclusion is that his sense of humour is more sophisticated than I'm able to spot?


----------



## Favelado (May 10, 2019)

Mation said:


> These tweets are still up, then. The ones that followed hot on the heels of his deleted tweet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

Favelado said:


> God. People will argue anything here. That's called common knowledge mate.


Lots of people avoid reading the celebrity gossip stories.


----------



## Favelado (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Lots of people avoid reading the celebrity gossip stories.


Intimate knowledge would be private knowledge about your piles or Swiss bank account. Ah fucking hell come on. You're a clever bloke.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2019)

You said hot on the heels that was the context I responded to Mation


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Lots of people avoid reading the celebrity gossip stories.



Yeah, but the Royal kind of celebrity gossip does tend to attract a different level of prominence.  Especially with bodies like DB’s former employer.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Lots of people avoid reading the celebrity gossip stories.


Even people who tweet pictures of the people they are not avoiding reading about?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Even people who tweet pictures of the people they are not avoiding reading about?



Can’t deny you have a point here.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> You said hot on the heels that was the context I responded to Mation


So he said sorry for causing offense then took the piss out of those who were offended? Really?


----------



## Mation (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> You said hot on the heels that was the context I responded to Mation


Hot on the heels of when he posted the original tweet. Not hot on the heels of him deleting it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Must have really meant that first apology then.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Lots of people avoid reading the celebrity gossip stories.


I avoid all of that bullshit, and for the longest time I didn't even know there was a 'royal baby' on its way, or where it was coming from. But, despite my best efforts (and I don't watch the news or buy newspapers, and I don't mix with anyone who would know), I somehow managed hear that there was a mixed race royal baby due.
You'd have to live on a desert island to not know, FFS.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> Can’t deny you have a point here.


Are you sure? Maybe he was hacked and it wasn't him? I mean, that's got to be hasn't it. Poor ol' Danny!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> Lots of people avoid reading the celebrity gossip stories.


Come off it. I never ever read such things, avoid the news on tv, totally avoided all the news when these two got married, and I knew MM was mixed race. Of course I knew. As did Danny Baker, who is also a liar on this point - provably so, because he had previously posted shit about the royal baby name. He follows and thinks about this stuff in a way that I certainly don't. You're posting some bizarre stuff here.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> I avoid all of that bullshit, and for the longest time I didn't even know there was a 'royal baby' on its way, or where it was coming from. But, despite my best efforts (and I don't watch the news or buy newspapers, and I don't mix with anyone who would know), I somehow managed hear that there was a mixed race royal baby due.
> You'd have to live on a desert island to not know, FFS.



I’m guessing that during your blissful ignorance of nobility reproduction you managed to refrain from tweeting about it.


----------



## Argonia (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> We share a *common ancestor* with apes.
> 
> But that is irrelevant to the horrible racist trope.[/



If we all share a common ancestor with apes why do racists focus on black people and apes? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you sure? Maybe he was hacked and it wasn't him? I mean, that's got to be hasn't it. Poor ol' Danny!



Well, part of me thinks he should have been allowed to stew in the mess that foamed up around him while on a suspension (and part of me doesn’t).

The tweet doesn’t look to me like deliberate racism, but many will disagree. 

The “I didn’t think” thing seems plausible, I’ve seen it done a few times (not that it really excuses anything).

The “I wasn’t aware of the kid’s parentage” is a hell of a stretch, though.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2019)

Honestly people he made a point that he meant no offence then apologies to those he offended then got sacked it's ridiculous. 
You all love the royal family now?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Argonia said:


> If we all share a common ancestor with apes why do racists focus on black people and apes? Makes no sense to me.



It shouldn’t.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Honestly people he made a point that he meant no offence then apologies to those he offended then got sacked it's ridiculous.
> You all love the royal family now?


Yeah, that's it. You've caught us out. You and Magnus. Well done.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Honestly people he made a point that he meant no offence then apologies to those he offended then got sacked it's ridiculous.
> You all love the royal family now?


Yep. That's it. We are all secret royalists. You sussed us out though. Well done


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Poor Danny eh. Thrown under a bus.


literally


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Honestly people he made a point that he meant no offence then apologies to those he offended then got sacked it's ridiculous.
> You all love the royal family now?


He's 61 and made loads of money during his long career. Whether the sacking is right or wrong I'm not shedding any tears for him. He'll have a better early retirement than I can afford.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> He's 61 and made loads of money during his long career. Whether the sacking is right or wrong I'm not shedding any tears for him. He'll have a better early retirement than I can afford.



It makes me think a little less of the BBC if it’s true that they began with “we have decided you are a racist”, as opposed to “Danny, what the fuck were you thinking?”.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Honestly people he made a point that he meant no offence then apologies to those he offended then got sacked it's ridiculous.
> You all love the royal family now?


Strange as it may seem, I despise the whole concept of the royal family, yet I am still able to see racism where it exists. Who would have thunk!


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

Favelado said:


> Intimate knowledge would be private knowledge about your piles or Swiss bank account. Ah fucking hell come on. You're a clever bloke.


It's intimate knowledge. The fact it's widely known doesn't make it not intimate. It's pretty fucked that so many people do know so much about this family, but it's simply not true that everyone knows, or cares, or remembers these details when they roll their eyes and call them parasites on twitter.


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> It makes me think a little less of the BBC if it’s true that they began with “we have decided you are a racist”, as opposed to “Danny, what the fuck were you thinking?”.


Did you have such a high regard for the BBC before?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


> Did you have such a high regard for the BBC before?



Really, no.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's intimate knowledge. The fact it's widely known doesn't make it not intimate. It's pretty fucked that so many people do know so much about this family, but it's simply not true that everyone knows, or cares, or remembers these details when they roll their eyes and call them parasites on twitter.


Intimate means private or personal. The fact of her pregnancy has been neither.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

This must have been what good old Enoch meant eh? We are literally at the stage where an White English man can't get away with making racist jokes in his own country!!! How fucking awful.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Strange as it may seem, I despise the whole concept of the royal family, yet I am still able to see racism where it exists. Who would have thunk!


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


>


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Intimate means private or personal. The fact of her pregnancy has been neither.


Exactly. and he was commenting on it. Fine if he hadn't known, had no interest, etc. But he did know and did have an interest - he was posting shit on the internet about it, which demonstrates both of those things. I really don't get killer b on this point.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Intimate means private or personal. The fact of her pregnancy has been neither.


which is fucked.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> which is fucked.


Which is very fucking boring


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> which is fucked.


... which is an entirely separate point.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


>


Ditto


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

You can object to the intimate details of strangers lives dominating the news cycle without knowing everything about those strangers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> You can object to the intimate details of strangers lives dominating the news cycle without knowing everything about those strangers.


wtf are you on about with this 'everything'. All he needed to know was that the mother of the royal baby whose birth he was commenting on was mixed race. And he will have known that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

This is it indeed. This must be the Black man and woman and/or their descendents now with the  'whip hand' Enoch talked about, over the White Man who can't even make racist  jokes andl then lie about it  without being held accountable for it. Tough times. Under siege.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtf are you on about with this 'everything'. All he needed to know was that the mother of the royal baby whose birth he was commenting on was mixed race. And he will have known that.


I was only vaguely aware of it until yesterday tbh. I don't see why Baker should be any more conscious of the matter than I was.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> You can object to the intimate details of strangers lives dominating the news cycle without knowing everything about those strangers.


In this case I object to the lives of these strangers


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> I was only vaguely aware of it until yesterday tbh. I don't see why Baker should be any more conscious of the matter than I was.


Maybe cos he tweeted a shit joke for the baby's name based on its mother being American the day before, as posted earlier on this thread. And you only needed to be vaguely aware of it.

But he lied about not knowing who the parents are (provably), so all your posts on this matter are just totally beside the point.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> which is fucked.


Is it? If their lives are paid for by the common people, then the common people have a right to know anything and everything about them. If they don't like it, don't marry into a parasitic family.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2019)

only 17


----------



## Argonia (May 10, 2019)

Was quite pleased that the BBC news channel gave voice to people complaining about the royal coverage just now, particularly one guy who pointed out that climate change news was shunted off to a footnote.


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> only 17


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


>


just referring to a particular poster's posting style


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> just referring to a particular poster's posting style


If you have something to say, say it. Less of the cryptic, secret squirrel stuff.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2019)

17...


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> 17...



Well, glad that’s cleared everything up.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> If you have something to say, say it. Less of the cryptic, secret squirrel stuff.


You're asking for the moon


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> 17...


Is that your IQ or your mental age (in months)?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Number of posts killer b has made on this thread, perhaps, although that's 18 now.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

what?


----------



## 8ball (May 10, 2019)

killer b said:


> what?



19


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> 19


The average number of posts by a combat soldier in world war 2 was 26
In Vietnam it was 19


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Number of posts killer b has made on this thread, perhaps, although that's 18 now.


You'd think at this stage that Orang Utan would have learned how to quote the messages he's replying to.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 10, 2019)

You'd think


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The average number of posts by a combat soldier in world war 2 was 26
> In Vietnam it was 19


n n n n n 17


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> You'd think at this stage that Orang Utan would have learned how to quote the messages he's replying to.


I was just thinking how his contributions had improved


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I was just thinking how his contributions had improved


Really? I must have missed that post.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> n n n n n 17


Wish I was on that n 17


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> I was just thinking how his contributions had improved


It's nice, though, how he manages to constantly pull people up on their posting style, without a hint of irony or self-loathing.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Privilege theory collapses when we hit the actually privileged I’d have thought. Or is this where we’re at. Some talking head does an arguable error of judgement and we sacrifice him on the altar of Royal protection. Identities rule. Fucking hell, pass me the paracetamol.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Wish I was on that n 17


I saw what you did there


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Privilege theory collapses when we hit the actually privileged I’d have thought. Or is this where we’re at. Some talking head does an arguable error of judgement and we sacrifice him on the altar of Royal protection. Identities rule. Fucking hell, pass me the paracetamol.


You honestly believe this is about people protecting the royal family?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Privilege theory collapses when we hit the actually privileged I’d have thought. Or is this where we’re at. Some talking head does an arguable error of judgement and we sacrifice him on the altar of Royal protection. Identities rule. Fucking hell, pass me the paracetamol.


Yep that's it. It's because they are royal that we are all so offended. We wouldn't give a shit about his racist shite if it had been about some nobody. That's it entirely. And there's nothing 'arguable' about it. wtf are you trying to downplay it for? A few here doing that, trying to minimise/excuse it by inventing highly unlikely and/or provably untrue scenarios.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Yeah none of us are pissed off about this because of what it reflects about our own lives, families and experiences. We are just royalists.


----------



## IC3D (May 10, 2019)

He probably wouldn't have been sacked within hours if it wasn't a royal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> He probably wouldn't have been sacked within hours if it wasn't a royal.


Quite probably true. So what? We're not bbc executives are we. But if you think the real story here is the overreaction of the BBC cos they're royalist lickspittles, I would respectfully disagree. The real stories here are, imo, Baker's really shitty reaction to being called on it and the shit reaction it has produced in some posters here, including, and pretty much top of the list, you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep that's it. It's because they are royal that we are all so offended. We wouldn't give a shit about his racist shite if it had been about some nobody. That's it entirely. And there's nothing 'arguable' about it. wtf are you trying to downplay it for? A few here doing that, trying to minimise/excuse it by inventing highly unlikely and/or provably untrue scenarios.



I’m not downplaying anything - I said it was a spectacularly misjudged tweet in my very first post, go check - I’m just wondering about how this plays out with privilege theory and the fact some want a radio host aloft on a stick over it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

IC3D said:


> He probably wouldn't have been sacked within hours if it wasn't a royal.



You might be right but that is a reflection of their privilege not our feelings about racist jokes and why many of us think he was fucking out of order.

Any suggestion that we are merely protecting the royals is fucking insulting and bereft of any real understanding of the motivations and experiences of people on this thread.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah none of us are pissed off about this because of what it reflects about our own lives, families and experiences. We are just royalists.



Not what I meant.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Anyway, at least the whole affair has brought Urban out in support of the Royals.





Magnus McGinty said:


> Privilege theory collapses when we hit the actually privileged I’d have thought. Or is this where we’re at. Some talking head does an arguable error of judgement and we sacrifice him on the altar of Royal protection. Identities rule. Fucking hell, pass me the paracetamol.





Magnus McGinty said:


> Not what I meant.



Yeah okay.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Privilege theory collapses when we hit the actually privileged I’d have thought. Or is this where we’re at. Some talking head does an arguable error of judgement and we sacrifice him on the altar of Royal protection. Identities rule. Fucking hell, pass me the paracetamol.


Shut up ya bellend!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not what I meant.


Then please feel free to say what you meant.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah okay.



I meant not the way you were twisting it. But yeah, so what? This child will know nothing other than extreme privilege. I see no reason to rally around over a faux-pas ffs.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

The altar of liberalism has its sacrificial goat.
Meanwhile those selling every cunt down the river are still making off with the loot.
Wake me with something new.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I meant not the way you were twisting it. But yeah, so what? This child will know nothing other than extreme privilege. I see no reason to rally around over a faux-pas ffs.


There is every reason to rally around against disgusting racist tropes. How many mixed race or black kids were born in Britain yesterday? Every one of them is a reason to rally around against this shit, call it out, and call out the moron who posted it when he starts lying in a pathetic attempt to justify himself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I meant not the way you were twisting it. But yeah, so what? This child will know nothing other than extreme privilege. I see no reason to rally around over a faux-pas ffs.



The kind of faux pas/racism that has plagued my life and those lives of people like me? Fuck you and _YOUR_ privilege you absolute selfish twat. Cos he is the lad of a Royal it's okay to racialise  and insult him at birth? Seriously, fuck off with your apologism and minimising. Your insults and pretense that you actually give a fuck. Absolute joke of a anti-facist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The altar of liberalism has its sacrificial goat.
> Meanwhile those selling every cunt down the river are still making off with the loot.
> Wake me with something new.


Other issues may still exist... 

And yet here you are, posting total drivel on this thread.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (May 10, 2019)

I’m not posting drivel. The greatest issue facing black youth is whether they’ll see their 18th birthday or not. Not some faux-pas in the media ffs.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not posting drivel. The greatest issue facing black youth is whether they’ll see their 18th birthday or not. Not some faux-pas in the media ffs.


So you're saying that more black kids will die before their 18th birthday than will face racism in their lifetime?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Privilege theory collapses when we hit the actually privileged I’d have thought. Or is this where we’re at. Some talking head does an arguable error of judgement and we sacrifice him on the altar of Royal protection. Identities rule. Fucking hell, pass me the paracetamol.


You’ve probably got some valid point to make here but you should probably weesht until you’ve thought about it properly, there’s a number of different issues at play and in the interests of not being a cunt require more careful attention than ITS NOT RACIST IF ITS ABOUT THE ROYAL FAMILY.

FWIW I think Danny didn’t mean wrongdoing and we should take his apology at face value and as good as he’s been able to make it in his own words whilst acknowledging he’s been a cunt, I have a lot more to say about this; like see how people are getting away with horrendous BS right now cause they can claim “critical thinking”, whereas careless people that meant well are fucked over... but that essay is a work in progress, I don’t know what to think atm.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not posting drivel. The greatest issue facing black youth is whether they’ll see their 18th birthday or not. Not some faux-pas in the media ffs.


You don't give a shit about Black youth. You are too busy here minimising how if you have _one drop _of _Black blood_ you are seen as fair game and racialised from birth and ridiculed. Because this particular baby is a Royal so fuck him, fair game. That those of us that understand this and have experienced similar, fuck us too, we're just being royalists and supporting their privilege.

Those Black youth you pretend to care about...what do you know about them? Their varying experiences of racism? When and where it started? What it has done to their self esteem? Who their parents are? If you cared you'd know how racism intersects and influences the conditions and experiences of many Black youth. Seriously? You are ridiculous and utterly dishonest.

You just objectified and used _Black Youth_ as some kind of points winning trump card to make yourself feel good. You also just characteriesed them as all being the same. Have a word with yourself.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not downplaying anything - I said it was a spectacularly misjudged tweet in my very first post, go check - I’m just wondering about how this plays out with privilege theory and the fact some want a radio host aloft on a stick over it.


I don't think anyone's talking about privilege theory tbh (and haven't really here for years, apart from the occasional old man shouting at clouds). They're talking about racism.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I meant not the way you were twisting it. But yeah, so what? This child will know nothing other than extreme privilege. I see no reason to rally around over a faux-pas ffs.


 Ffs!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You don't give a shit about Black youth. You are too busy here minimising how, if you have _one drop _of _Black blood_ you are seen as fair game and racialised from birth and ridiculed. Those Black youth you pretend to care about...what do you know about them? Their varying experiences of racism? When and where it started? What it has done to their self esteem? Who their parents are? If you cared you'd know how racism intersects and influences the conditions and experiences of many Black youth. Seriously? You are ridiculous and utterly dishonest.
> 
> You just objectified and used _Black Youth_ as some kind of points winning trump card to make yourself feel good. You also just characteriesed them as all being the same. Have a word with yourself.


The idea that “not seeing your 18th birthday” is the top concern of all black youth in the UK is racist in itself, half my sons cousins on his dad’s side are black, living in Aberdeen, I don’t think such a thing has ever entered their heads up here.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not posting drivel. The greatest issue facing black youth is whether they’ll see their 18th birthday or not. Not some faux-pas in the media ffs.


Are you smoking something fancy?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I meant not the way you were twisting it. But yeah, so what? This child will know nothing other than extreme privilege. I see no reason to rally around over a faux-pas ffs.


You think racists should be given a hall pass, so long as their racism is aimed at royals?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> The idea that “not seeing your 18th birthday” is the top concern of all black youth in the UK is racist in itself, half my sons cousins on his dad’s side are black, living in Aberdeen, I don’t think such a thing has ever entered their heads up here.




Oh you don't mean someone who thinks of themselves as anti-racist can and does say racist things do you? That surely never happens...

Oh wait...


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (May 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh you don't mean someone who thinks of themselves as anti-racist can and does say racist things do you? That surely never happens...
> 
> Oh wait...


I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me or yelling at me here


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

3, 2, 1..._'but what about my reputation!?!'. _


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I can’t tell if you are agreeing with me or yelling at me here


Well you were agreeing with my point about not all _Black youth_ being the same and how fucking dodgey it is to even imply such nonsense to begin with so I think that's fairly obvious...


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not posting drivel. The greatest issue facing black youth is whether they’ll see their 18th birthday or not. Not some faux-pas in the media ffs.


But doesn't this faux pas serve to further dehumanise black children in some people's minds and thus impact on the issue you're arguing is important? Can't you see the two are linked?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I’m not posting drivel.


 yet your next sentence is 





> The greatest issue facing black youth is whether they’ll see their 18th birthday or not.


----------



## spanglechick (May 10, 2019)

Can I just clarify, as someone who works in a Lambeth secondary: black students have to face a shitload of unfair disadvantage on every fucking level, but those for whom violent crime is their top priority are vanishingly rare.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

So that's it...shit posting, calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a Royalist, using your own privilege as a White person to underminine the effects and multidimensional impact of racism, making up absolute nonsensical offensive crap about 'Black youth' and then running off to giggle in a corner? I can see why you came here to stick up for the likes of DB Magnus McGinty You came here and effectively did the same shit he did, identifying as an anti-racist all the while.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 10, 2019)

spanglechick said:


> Can I just clarify, as someone who works in a Lambeth secondary: black students have to face a shitload of unfair disadvantage on every fucking level, but those for whom violent crime is their top priority are vanishingly rare.



I think the only one here who needs this clarifying for them is Magnus McGinty so he should be tagged. No one else should have to feel like they are as idiotic tbh.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2019)

.


----------



## teuchter (May 10, 2019)

Mation said:


> These tweets are still up, then. The ones that followed hot on the heels of his deleted tweet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you saying he should have taken them down because retrospectively people might read some kind of coded message into them? Or are you saying that you think they were actually posted as some kind of coded message?


----------



## D'wards (May 10, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Are you saying he should have taken them down because retrospectively people might read some kind of coded message into them? Or are you saying that you think they were actually posted as some kind of coded message?


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> We share a *common ancestor* with apes.
> 
> But that is irrelevant to the horrible racist trope.


We are apes and we share a common ancestor with other apes.


----------



## Gromit (May 10, 2019)

A380 said:


> We are apes and we share a common ancestor with other apes.


----------



## A380 (May 10, 2019)

Gromit said:


>


Damm you, damm you to hell.


----------



## Humberto (May 10, 2019)

Well he has apologised properly. And has been sacked. Can one be guilty of the (surely lesser) crime of 'genuinely inadvertent racism'? That is to say, you understand the deserved reaction, whilst also asking that people consider that the erstwhile loudmouth isn't a terrible guy, or even racist, looking at it in context. That it's an unfortunate thing to happen for which a clarification and proper apology should be made, but DB is someone who in future should maybe be given the chance to bounce back?

Probably I and my post will get torpedoed but those are my thoughts on it.


----------



## D'wards (May 10, 2019)

What the fuck

Police investigate Danny Baker's royal baby tweet


----------



## GarveyLives (May 10, 2019)

With apologies for diverting the subject back to the stated subject of the thread but ...



GarveyLives said:


> He has just spent ten minutes on James O'Brien's LBC programme playing the victim ... which included a claim that _he was unaware that the Duchess of Sussex / Meghan Markle is of mixed race / bi-racial_.





littlebabyjesus said:


> Can we just get one thing straight. DB knew full well who was having a baby here. That's the only 'intimate knowledge' he needed.


I see.

Revealed: Danny Baker tweeted about royal baby two days before posting 'racist' monkey tweet - _despite trying to claim he 'didn't know it was Meghan who had given birth'_


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2019)

GarveyLives said:


> With apologies for diverting the subject back to the stated subject of the thread but ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeh auld hat

Also we've not really left the subject of the thread you patronising auld get

E2A you should add a warning before linking to the mail


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 11, 2019)

None of the scenarios: he knew what he was doing; he didn't know; he is a racist; he isn't; and so on and on and on, have any bearing on the fact that he should have been sacked.


----------



## Ponyutd (May 11, 2019)

Plod now involved. Specialist police are investigating the Danny Baker tweet.

After being informed about the investigation Baker said "who? The police! never heard of them, who are they."


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

Geoff Lloyd doing his show at the moment. Glad Louise Pepper has been kept on.

Geoff played the sound of an elephant trumpeting over the intro, and obviously didn't mention Danny.


----------



## tim (May 11, 2019)

Ponyutd said:


> Plod now involved. Specialist police are investigating the Danny Baker tweet.
> 
> After being informed about the investigation Baker said "who? The police! never heard of them, who are they."




Not so much a butterfly broken on a wheel, as a slug being crushed by by a flower pot.


----------



## Lurdan (May 11, 2019)

I'm sure the filth have a dedicated squad, specially trained in how to communicate with journalists, who can confirm that "a complaint has been received".







Meanwhile a poster boy for 90s throwbacks remains twagically twapped in the appalling limbo between well-paid jobs. A demographic weeps.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> It's intimate knowledge. The fact it's widely known doesn't make it not intimate. It's pretty fucked that so many people do know so much about this family, but it's simply not true that everyone knows, or cares, or remembers these details when they roll their eyes and call them parasites on twitter.


Does it count as "intimate knowledge" when the early photos of the child included this one?

The meaning behind Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor - CNN

I don't believe anyone who works for the BBC could be ignorant of the fact that Meghan has a black mother. 

It is not "private and personal" to know that when the person we are talking about has been at the centre of media stories for the last couple of years. It is not "closely acquainted or familiar" when it is an issue that has been addressed all over the media. 

I saw that photo and thought it was lovely but it also shows how far we have come as a society that Harry was allowed to marry a mixed race, divorced American. This would not have been allowed a generation ago.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> I was only vaguely aware of it until yesterday tbh. I don't see why Baker should be any more conscious of the matter than I was.


Seriously? He works in the media and used to spend his life commenting on things which appear in the media. He is a famous celebrity watcher. He knew. He has acknowledged that he knew.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

Ponyutd said:


> Plod now involved. Specialist police are investigating the Danny Baker tweet.
> 
> After being informed about the investigation Baker said "who? The police! never heard of them, who are they."



I think "Specialist Police" is just code for some deskbound cop to do a bit of Googling, scraping through twitter and the WayBack machine before writing a report saying nothing to see here.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2019)

xenon said:


> I think "Specialist Police" is just code for some deskbound cop to do a bit of Googling, scraping through twitter and the WayBack machine before writing a report saying nothing to see here.


It's the cops with two brain cells to rub together


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

He knew. He probably did not dedicate a great deal of brain processing time to the fact about the baby's mixed race mother because that's not of any consequence or interest to someone who's not greatly interested in the royal family. His main interest in the royal baby story will have been the media nonsense surrounding it. Hence his tweet the previous day making fun of the news story about what the baby's name would be. When he made the tweet, "mixed race baby" will not have been in his mind, rather something like "royal baby media circus". I don’t think anyone on this thread has suggested that it was not a major blunder not to think through all the possible implications of the image. But there is not really any major inconsistency in what he's said, beyond what happens with most people when pushed into a defensive mode in the aftermath of a mistake. Of course, no one who's decided he's guilty of deliberate racist comment is going to change their mind now; they will look for small bits of evidence to support their view. You could say the same of me of course. The evidence I select from consists of more than twenty years listening to him on the radio though.


----------



## A380 (May 11, 2019)

xenon said:


> I think "Specialist Police" is just code for some deskbound cop...



Sitting  at home wondering where their once promising detective career went so very badly wrong.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> It's the cops with two brain cells to rub together


And a third one to keep an eye on the two dangerous intellectuals.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> Does it count as "intimate knowledge" when the early photos of the child included this one?
> 
> The meaning behind Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor - CNN
> 
> ...


Absolutely it does count as intimate knowledge, of course. No-one is obliged to take an interest in these peoples lives. I've just seen that photo for the first time - it's a very nice bit of PR for the royal family, who're desperately trying to make themselves relevant to the modern world, so as not to lose their position of massive privilege. Fuck them.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> Absolutely it does count as intimate knowledge, of course. No-one is obliged to take an interest in these peoples lives. I've just seen that photo for the first time - it's a very nice bit of PR for the royal family, who're desperately trying to make themselves relevant to the modern world, so as not to lose their position of massive privilege. Fuck them.


I am not disputing their "massive privilege" or saying that we are "obliged to taken an interest" in them, or defending them in any way. I am disputing your use of the word "intimate" in this context. 

Whether we like it or not, the British royal family are public property as far as the media are concerned and there has been LOTS of discussion about the fact that Meghan Markle is of mixed race heritage. Odd as it might seem, it is of huge significance that a member of the royal family has married an American divorcee, never mind one of mixed racial heritage!

Unlike you, who may be ignorant of these facts, Danny Baker works in the mainstream media and is a known celebrity watcher. He turns up on programmes like Strictly It Takes Two to talk about the celebrities on there, and probably turns up on similar programmes like the One Show (which I don't watch) to do the same. 

Anybody and everybody who watches telly a lot and reads papers a lot, and even more so for those who work in the media, knows that Meghan is mixed race, American and was previously divorced. Danny Baker is not claiming that he didn't know this. He is claiming that it wasn't in his mind when he saw a photo of chimpanzee dressed in posh clothes. 

This feels like a weird argument, because it has turned into semantics. 

To (mis)quote the Princess Bride - I don't think that word means what you think it does.


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

Having pretty much buried the verbose egotistical cunt...the case for the defence.

I’ve never called Danny Baker a racist. Because he isn’t a racist. Yes, that doesn’t stop him doing an unthinking act associated with racism. But all he’s really guilty of, in my eyes, is being, is thinking of himself as being, bigger than anything that can bring him down like this. And boy has he learned his lesson the hard way. Good.

But he’s not a racist. And he does have verifiable accounts of active, anti-racism that yes, make this whole sorry episode even harder to fathom.

What am I on about? Well, this, for starters. Apologies for having to rely on the testimony of Julie Burchill. But I believe the story to be true.

In their early NME days Burchill and Baker were walking down Carnaby St doing a bit of window shopping. Suddenly they were confronted with a window display of a T-shirt, something along the lines of “Nazis Poland tour 1938” with swastikas abounding. To Burchill’s teenage embarrassment, Baker went into the shop, confronted the worker/manager on the display and, with his help, physically removed the offensive T-shirt from display.

This is not the action of a committed racist. It does not excuse any future unthinking actions with racist connotations. But let’s get our enemy clear shall we? Baker is an egotistical tosser. He isn’t the new wave of fascism. There has indeed been tilting at windmills, or at least much ire chucked in the wrong direction. (Though there has also been some quite desperate denial, on here, from people who seemingly didn’t want to admit ‘their’ good old Danny could have committed such a crass error. There are many who need to sort out their own shops).

Here’s the story in full.

Fascism bad, Communism good(ish)


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> Absolutely it does count as intimate knowledge, of course. No-one is obliged to take an interest in these peoples lives. I've just seen that photo for the first time - it's a very nice bit of PR for the royal family, who're desperately trying to make themselves relevant to the modern world, so as not to lose their position of massive privilege. Fuck them.


these people's lives are forced down our throats through fawning coverage in print, on radio and television let alone the Internet. The next head of state will come from their number. The monarch's head disfigures coins, banknotes, stamps, while the police, army and politicians swear allegiance to the foul sovereign. There is little chance of entirely ignoring their existence.


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

I've listened to him for years, and watched his occasional bbc4 shows. They really is nothing to suggest he's a racist at all in all that time.
He has interviewed countless black sports and music stars in his time. He's very friendly with Adam Duritz. 
Furthermore he does a podcast with the left wing Gary Lineker. 

It just makes no sense he would knowingly put a racist tweet out, knowing the likely reaction it would receive. He's got too much to lose.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

_Fuck 'em indeed and their sprogs. They are fair game, even when the insults are racist. 

Smash the rich! Solidarity! _


----------



## Gromit (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> Odd as it might seem, it is of huge significance that a member of the royal family has married an American divorcee, never mind one of mixed racial heritage!


It really isn't. Nothing the Royals do is really.


----------



## killer b (May 11, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> _Fuck 'em indeed and their sprogs. They are fair game, even when the insults are racist.
> 
> Smash the rich! Solidarity! _


Fuck taking an interest in the royal family. I don't think it's fair game to be racist, and have said nothing that suggests that. So fuck you too.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> I am not disputing their "massive privilege" or saying that we are "obliged to taken an interest" in them, or defending them in any way. I am disputing your use of the word "intimate" in this context.
> 
> Whether we like it or not, the British royal family are public property as far as the media are concerned and there has been LOTS of discussion about the fact that Meghan Markle is of mixed race heritage. Odd as it might seem, it is of huge significance that a member of the royal family has married an American divorcee, never mind one of mixed racial heritage!
> 
> ...


A member of the royal family marrying an American hardly unprecedented, let alone marrying a divorcée. Edward VIII famously married one


----------



## ska invita (May 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> it's a very nice bit of PR for the royal family, who're desperately trying to make themselves relevant to the modern world, so as not to lose their position of massive privilege. Fuck them.


I expect the general view of the aristocracy in the uk is not: oh what a good development to have a more representative royal family and help us keep the longevity of the system, but rather  "who let this gene pool in? its a disgrace". Aristocracy is all about gene pool hierarchy- its central to the ideology. They're institutionally racist and then some. As to classist there were even sounds-off that Kate was too "common".


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

Gromit said:


> It really isn't. Nothing the Royals do is really.


I didn't mean it is significant to you, or to me, but it is significant to the mainstream media and to royal watchers. In previous generations, the Queen's sister was not allowed to marry who she wanted to. Some rich playboy abdicated the throne so he could marry an American divorcee. 

These days, someone close to the British throne can, and did, marry a mixed race American divorcee. It is significant constitutionally, even if irrelevant in every other way. 

I don't read the gutter press, and I don't listen to Radio 5, but even I know that Prince Harry has married someone that his father would not have been allowed to marry.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

killer b said:


> Fuck taking an interest in the royal family. I don't think it's fair game to be racist, and have said nothing that suggests that. So fuck you too.


No fuck you B. If this had implications on your own kids and how they are seen and treated or your own life you'd see it differently, you and magnus and the other twits wouldn't be doing this crap...I couldn't give two fucks about the royal family, that is obviously not the case here. You know it isn't. It just like when you and others here justified calling a Black Tory MP 'Chalkie' but only saw how problematic that is whilst protesting the pejorative shit politics of calling White men 'gammon'. You don't care unless it effects you.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> A member of the royal family marrying an American hardly unprecedented, let alone marrying a divorcée. Edward VIII famously married one


Er, and abdicated because he was told he was not allowed to! 

In fact, to be brutally pedantic, he was no longer Edward VIII when he married her.


----------



## neonwilderness (May 11, 2019)

D'wards said:


> I've listened to him for years, and watched his occasional bbc4 shows. They really is nothing to suggest he's a racist at all in all that time.
> He has interviewed countless black sports and music stars in his time. He's very friendly with Adam Duritz.
> Furthermore he does a podcast with the left wing Gary Lineker.
> 
> It just makes no sense he would knowingly put a racist tweet out, knowing the likely reaction it would receive. He's got too much to lose.


I bet some of his best friends are black too  

Maybe it was just an honest mistake, but it was still racist and he was rightly pulled up on it. His back peddling hasn’t really helped though. He presented a radio show so surely he at least occasionally glanced at the news?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2019)

Peak Urban. Peak 2019. Peak tediousness. Turn on the Radio and if it's not about Brexit, then it's some middle class tit waffling on about their first-world identity crisis, or someone doing a terribly offensive thing on the Twitter. Anyone else tired of giving a fuck?


----------



## Favelado (May 11, 2019)

D'wards said:


> I've listened to him for years, and watched his occasional bbc4 shows. They really is nothing to suggest he's a racist at all in all that time.
> He has interviewed countless black sports and music stars in his time. He's very friendly with Adam Duritz.
> Furthermore he does a podcast with the left wing Gary Lineker.
> 
> It just makes no sense he would knowingly put a racist tweet out, knowing the likely reaction it would receive. He's got too much to lose.



This is the best one yet. He's interviewed black people politely.


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

neonwilderness said:


> I bet some of his best friends are black too
> 
> Maybe it was just an honest mistake, but it was still racist and he was rightly pulled up on it. His back peddling hasn’t really helped though. He presented a radio show so surely he at least occasionally glanced at the news?


From roughly 30 mins in he hosts a discussion about the important role music plays in black politics and vice versa. 
Danny is no slouch


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No fuck you B. If this had implications on your own kids and how they are seen and treated or your own life you'd see it differently, you and magnus and the other twits wouldn't be doing this crap...I couldn't give two fucks about the royal family, that is obviously not the case here. You know it isn't. It just like when you and others here justified calling a Black Tory MP 'Chalkie' but only saw how problematic that is whilst protesting the pejorative shit politics of calling White men 'gammon'. You don't care unless it effects you.



KB doesn't seem to be saying any of that though. He's just arguing, a little bizarrely, that knowledge of these royals racial herotige isn't mainstream. 

Clearly it was a racist image. And DB has correctly been sacked.

Magnus, well, Magnus is being Magnus.


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

neonwilderness said:


> I bet some of his best friends are black too
> 
> Maybe it was just an honest mistake, but it was still racist and he was rightly pulled up on it. His back peddling hasn’t really helped though. He presented a radio show so surely he at least occasionally glanced at the news?


Of course the tweet is utterly indefensible and his desperate attempts to "style it out" are ridiculous but I am certain he did not put out the tweet with any racist intent.


----------



## neonwilderness (May 11, 2019)

D'wards said:


> From roughly 30 mins in he hosts a discussion about the important role music plays in black politics and vice versa.
> Danny is no slouch



Oh that’s ok then, let him post whatever he likes on twitter with impunity.


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

The whole thing has huge echoes of the shitstorm over the clothing company who advertised a kids hoody with Cheeky Monkey on it by using a black child model.

Was it a blatantly and knowing racist statement or a terrible mistake? 

YOU decide


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

neonwilderness said:


> Oh that’s ok then, let him post whatever he likes on twitter with impunity.


Sigh. Straw geezers all over the gaff


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

xenon said:


> KB doesn't seem to be saying any of that though. He's just arguing, a little bizarrely, that knowledge of these royals racial herotige isn't mainstream.
> 
> Clearly it was a racist image. And DB has correctly been sacked.
> 
> Magnus, well, Magnus is being Magnus.



He absolutely is and hiding behind this 'fuck the royal family and the energy you lot are putting into this' argument as if any of us here are royalists.

The hertitage of Meghan and her family has been one of the main threads running through all of the commentary about her since her and Harry got engaged. It's bullshit to suggest Danny or any other media pundit didn't know. It's been continuous and ugly.

Not his problem. Yeah I get it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> Er, and abdicated because he was told he was not allowed to!
> 
> In fact, to be brutally pedantic, he was no longer Edward VIII when he married her.


The Duke of Windsor. No one expects Harry Hewitt to ascend the throne or he'd have met a similar fiat


----------



## D'wards (May 11, 2019)

Probably the only thing worse than being exposed as a racist in media these days is being exposed as a paedophile. 

Why oh why oh why would Danny expose himself as a racist knowing full well it's a stone cold career killer? 

What would that achieve for him?


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> The Duke of Windsor. No one expects Harry Hewitt to ascend the throne or he'd have met a similar fiat


Except that Princess Margaret was not allowed to marry who she wanted to, even though she was only 4th or 5th in line to the throne at the time. (I watched the Crown television series, so I am now an expert on everything to do with the current Royal family).


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

A380 said:


> We are apes and we share a common ancestor with other apes.



Yeah, you’re right.  I was being a bit careful with my wording, given how this thread has gone.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> He knew. He probably did not dedicate a great deal of brain processing time to the fact about the baby's mixed race mother because that's not of any consequence or interest to someone who's not greatly interested in the royal family...



It's also not of any consequence or interest to someone who's not greatly interested in whether or not someone is 'mixed race'.

It's quite possible to think of Megan Markle without the fact that she's mixed race immediately springing to mind, or the fact that she's American, or the fact that she's divorced, or the fact that she used to be an actress. I was aware of all those facts, in that I've read them at some point, with automatically thinking of her as the 'mixed race, American, divorced ex-actress, Megan Markle', like it's a package of characteristics.

At this point, to people who don't take more than a passing interest in such things, she's simply Megan Markle who married Prince Harry and has just had a baby, or she was, until all this shit storm reminded us again.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> He absolutely is and hiding behind this 'fuck the royal family and the energy you lot are putting into this' argument as if any of us here are royalists.
> 
> The hertitage of Meghan and her family has been one of the main threads running through all of the commentary about her since her and Harry got engaged. It's bullshit to suggest Danny or any other media pundit didn't know. It's been continuous and ugly.
> 
> Not his problem. Yeah I get it.



He, KB, just gone off on a tangent re personal intimate information verses public knowledge and media focus on Megan's racial background. I think he's daft in arguing you need to pay particular attention to the Royals to know this. You're right, it's been all over the media since Harry and Megan got together.

Danny Baker at least to the things I've heard has on one hand said he didn't know Megan is mixed race. He said this immediately after the media attention ISTR and whilst bollocks, I think it's a case of him making a flustered ill thought out response. He later says in the LBC interview if I recall, that yes he knows but that isn't what he had in mind when posting the image.

This rings true to me. 

FWIW I don't agree with Magnus thing earlier about this shouldn't matter because class / worse things happening to some black people. The background of racist imagery, tropes insinuations clearly is a thing with wide reaching negative effects. DB has rightly been sacked for adding to that Allbeit unconsciously IMO.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No fuck you B. *If this had implications on your own kids and how they are seen and treated or your own life you'd see it differently*, you and magnus and the other twits wouldn't be doing this crap...I couldn't give two fucks about the royal family, that is obviously not the case here. You know it isn't. It just like when you and others here justified calling a Black Tory MP 'Chalkie' but only saw how problematic that is whilst protesting the pejorative shit politics of calling White men 'gammon'. You don't care unless it effects you.


This is out of order, whatever else you may think of killer b's posts here


----------



## Orang Utan (May 11, 2019)

FTR i was only vaguely aware of Markle's heritage, even now would probably still pass her in the street and not notice. I had no idea she'd been married previously. Baker is still a fool though, yet i can believe he posted that tweet 'in good faith'.


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2019)

I'm gonna defend killer b here. I think.

I'm yet another who didn't know know Meghan's background. Like Orang Utan I could pass her in the street and have no clue which celeb she was.

Tbh I couldn't have told you which of the royals had a new baby. I was just reluctantly aware that one of them had. And that was more than I wanted to know.

I'm not saying anything about Danny Baker as I'm just as equally unaware of him too. Just agreeing with kB that that it's perfectly possible to have little knowledge of the details of royal sprogging.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> FTR i was only vaguely aware of Markle's heritage, even now would probably still pass her in the street and not notice. I had no idea she'd been married previously. Baker is still a fool though, yet i can believe he posted that tweet 'in good faith'.



Yeah, it was only when Guineveretoo posted about the divorcee thing that I was reminded of reading it somewhere a couple of years back, when they were also making a fuss about her (Meghan, not Guineveretoo ), being a couple of years older than Harry.


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

Orang Utan said:


> FTR i was only vaguely aware of Markle's heritage, even now would probably still pass her in the street and not notice. I had no idea she'd been married previously. Baker is still a fool though, yet i can believe he posted that tweet 'in good faith'.


Which tweet? The chimp one, or the banana one that followed a few minutes later, or the brown American ingredient one that followed a few minutes after that, or the freakishly compelling monks one that came next?


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> I'm gonna defend killer b here. I think.
> 
> I'm yet another who didn't know know Meghan's background. Like Orang Utan I could pass her in the street and have no clue which celeb she was.
> 
> ...


Of course it's possible for someone not to know.

Is it possible that _Danny Baker _didn't know? 

Of course it's fucking not. 

Stop helping him get away with it.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> Of course it's possible for someone not to know.
> 
> Is it possible that _Danny Baker _didn't know?
> 
> ...


I think that by now the thread has gone beyond simply arguing about whether DB knew, it's clear that he *did* know, and given the other tweets you and others have posted, I find it difficult/impossible to believe he wasn't referring to it.

But the question of whether it's impossible for anyone to be unaware of MM's mixed race status, as seems to have been suggested, is one which I think is reasonable for anyone who wishes to address, without being subjected to some of the shit kB has had thrown at him.


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

andysays said:


> I think that by now the thread has gone beyond simply arguing about whether DB knew, it's clear that he *did* know, and given the other tweets you and others have posted, I find it difficult/impossible to believe he wasn't referring to it.
> 
> But the question of whether it's impossible for anyone to be unaware of MM's mixed race status, as seems to have been suggested, is one which I think is reasonable for anyone who wishes to address, without being subjected to some of the shit kB has had thrown at him.


It hasn't gone beyond it. This is not the place to argue that it's possible not to know. Everyone knows that already. 

The concern here is about DB's racism and kB offered up his response in defence of DB. That's not ok. And take the fucking what ifs elsewhere.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> I'm gonna defend killer b here. I think.
> 
> I'm yet another who didn't know know Meghan's background. Like Orang Utan I could pass her in the street and have no clue which celeb she was.
> 
> ...


It is possible for people to be ignorant of all of that (well done, if you’ve managed to avoid it all!) but it’s just not feasible that Danny Baker was ignorant of it all. In fact, he has acknowledged that he knew. That’s where the killer b stuff bewilders me. This is not about who on Urban75 cares or who knows about Meghan Markle and Harry Wotsisname, but about Danny Baker, his tweeting of a photo which, in context, can be described as racist, his consequent sacking, and his pathetic, defensive reaction to that sacking.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> It hasn't gone beyond it. This is not the place to argue that it's possible not to know. Everyone knows that already.
> 
> The concern here is about DB's racism and kB offered up his response in defence of DB. That's not ok. And take the fucking what ifs elsewhere.


Apparently everyone does *not* know it already, given the way the conversation has progressed.

kB didn't offer the comment he's being attacked for up "in defence of DB", at least that's not my take on it.

And threads frequently move on to cover more than their initial subject. Nothing unusual about that, and no legitimate reason why you should attempt to dictate what can and can't be discussed.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

andysays said:


> I think that by now the thread has gone beyond simply arguing about whether DB knew, it's clear that he *did* know, and given the other tweets you and others have posted, I find it difficult/impossible to believe he wasn't referring to it.
> 
> But the question of whether it's impossible for anyone to be unaware of MM's mixed race status, as seems to have been suggested, is one which I think is reasonable for anyone who wishes to address, without being subjected to some of the shit kB has had thrown at him.


I don’t think anyone is saying that everyone on these boards/in this country has to know about Meghan Markle! 

And the only “shit” I have seen addressed to killer b was in direct response to him saying the same thing. 

I have been challenging his apparent suggestion that Danny Baker didn’t know that Meghan was mixed race.


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

andysays said:


> Apparently everyone does *not* know it already, given the way the conversation has progressed.
> 
> kB didn't offer the comment he's being attacked for up "in defence of DB", at least that's not my take on it.
> 
> And threads frequently move on to cover more than their initial subject. Nothing unusual about that, and no legitimate reason why you should attempt to dictate what can and can't be discussed.


Jesus. I'm not wasting any more time on you.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> Jesus. I'm not wasting any more time on you.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

Just FYI, Meghan Markle played the part of a paralegal in a very popular American tv series called Suits, which I watched. That’s how I know who she is. 

In the series, she has a Black father and a White mother. Nothing was made of this, because it’s not what the programme is about, but it was known that she was mixed race.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> Just FYI, Meghan Markle played the part of a paralegal in a very popular American tv series called Suits, which I watched. That’s how I know who she is.
> 
> In the series, she has a Black father and a White mother. Nothing was made of this, because it’s not what the programme is about, but it was known that she was mixed race.



Seems like a long time ago that people were talking about that, but in our office at the time, when it initially came out about her and Harry, people were saying stuff like “What? Meghan Markle?  As in the one from Suits?”.

The show was v popular in the office (I’ve still never seen it).

Didn’t know Adam Duritz was mixed race til this thread, despite being really into Counting Crows first album at the time (25 years ago - sheesh!) 

edit: sidetrack, but wiki mentions Duritz as having Russian Jewish ancestry, I kind of thought in the back of my mind that he was Jewish.  Of course, we all have *lots* of ancestors...


----------



## chilango (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> Of course it's possible for someone not to know.
> 
> Is it possible that _Danny Baker _didn't know?
> 
> ...





Guineveretoo said:


> It is possible for people to be ignorant of all of that (well done, if you’ve managed to avoid it all!) but it’s just not feasible that Danny Baker was ignorant of it all. In fact, he has acknowledged that he knew. That’s where the killer b stuff bewilders me. This is not about who on Urban75 cares or who knows about Meghan Markle and Harry Wotsisname, but about Danny Baker, his tweeting of a photo which, in context, can be described as racist, his consequent sacking, and his pathetic, defensive reaction to that sacking.



I wasn't talking about Danny Baker.

I am only vaguely aware of him too, so have no idea what he might or might not know.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2019)

D'wards said:


> Probably the only thing worse than being exposed as a racist in media these days is being exposed as a paedophile.
> 
> Why oh why oh why would Danny expose himself as a racist knowing full well it's a stone cold career killer?
> 
> What would that achieve for him?



Whilst my views on DB not being a racist are well documented here...Fucking SHITLOADS of people are making a career now out of being a racist. Trump (and the far tight) obviously has emboldened/normalised them, but look at how Clarkson is a hero to twats because he "says things we're not allowed to say anymore", not to mention Farage making a fairly decent political career out of various dog whistles.

Maybe Danny woke up one day and thought he could get in on the far-right dollar?!


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

8ball said:


> Seems like a long time ago that people were talking about that, but in our office at the time, when it initially came out about her and Harry, people were saying stuff like “What? Meghan Markle?  As in the one from Suits?”.
> 
> The show was v popular in the office (I’ve still never seen it).
> 
> Didn’t know Adam Duritz was mixed race til this thread, despite being really into Counting Crows first album at the time (25 years ago - sheesh!)


I don’t know who Adam Duritz is. 

I didn’t know that Danny Baker was a radio presenter until all this happened, though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> Which tweet? The chimp one, or the banana one that followed a few minutes later, or the brown American ingredient one that followed a few minutes after that, or the freakishly compelling monks one that came next?


Be interesting to hear an attempt at an innocent explanation of that sequence. I can't think of one.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> I wasn't talking about Danny Baker.
> 
> I am only vaguely aware of him too, so have no idea what he might or might not know.


What’s this thread about?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

chilango said:


> I wasn't talking about Danny Baker.
> 
> I am only vaguely aware of him too, so have no idea what he might or might not know.


Well guess what, this thread is about Danny Baker, and kb's bizarre posts have been in defence of Baker and his possible ignorance, so this is all rather irrelevant.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> I don’t know who Adam Duritz is.
> 
> I didn’t know that Danny Baker was a radio presenter until all this happened, though.



Not knowing who Adam Duritz is, is the default state for almost everyone, I think. 

I thought Danny Baker was still on that Sport radio channel until all of this.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well guess what, this thread is about Danny Baker, and kb's bizarre posts have been in defence of Baker and his possible ignorance, so this is all rather irrelevant.



What’s the main source re: what he did and didn’t say about what he knew or not, by the way?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

8ball said:


> What’s the main source re: what he did and didn’t say about what he knew or not, by the way?


They've been linked to at various points on the thread. Have a look.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well guess what, this thread is about Danny Baker, and kb's bizarre posts have been in defence of Baker and his possible ignorance, so this is all rather irrelevant.


It's also about how that bizarre and other bizarre defences flatten  the wider implications of this dynamic on others and their lives.  To dismiss people as royalists and offer a newborn  being racialised in this horrible way  as 'fuck em fair game' as if  this is isolated  and only affects them  says a whole lot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It's also about how that bizarre and other bizarre defences flatten  the wider implications of this dynamic on others and their lives.  To dismiss people as royalists and offer a newborn  being racialised in this horrible way  as 'fuck em fair game' as if  this is isolated  and only affects them  says a whole lot.


I agree. And you were right to link this to the 'chalky' stuff a while back. Same thing. Urban75 doesn't do as well on this stuff as it should.


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

Mation what do you think is the significance of the Dorian Cope (Julian’s wife) retweet of The Monks song?

And how does it fit in with the previous tweet about Barbra Streisand selling t-shirts and the one before that about Ajax v Spurs?


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Mation what do you think is the significance of the Dorian Cope (Julian’s wife) retweet of The Monks song?
> 
> And how does it fit in with the previous tweet about Barbra Streisand selling t-shirts and the one before that about Ajax v Spurs?


I was puzzling about the monks one, thinking there was some kind of racial slur or connotation I was blindly oblivious to. I even looked it up. On urban dictionary. 

Then i realised... It's the first 4 letters of the word 'monkey'. I think that's it. 

Is that it? We are supposed to believe that's why DB posted it?


----------



## Lurdan (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> Which tweet? The chimp one, or the banana one that followed a few minutes later, or the brown American ingredient one that followed a few minutes after that, or the freakishly compelling monks one that came next?



Or indeed the one he had posted on the 6th







linking to a Daily Express story discussing possible baby names which apparently "Mr Race Blind" read without spotting the references to Alice Walker and Alexander Hamilton. And yet was still 'clever' enough to suggest the baby could be named Homer Wallis Simpson (do you see what he did there ? Wallis Simpson geddit tee hee).

Doubtless I'm totes over reading, but then I'm so ignorant I hadn't even understood that stuff is only of the slightest importance if I actually know about it.


----------



## Favelado (May 11, 2019)

I


teuchter said:


> I was puzzling about the monks one, thinking there was some kind of racial slur or connotation I was blindly oblivious to. I even looked it up. On urban dictionary.
> 
> Then i realised... It's the first 4 letters of the word 'monkey'. I think that's it.
> 
> Is that it? We are supposed to believe that's why DB posted it?



That one and the banana one and the brown one and the monkey one.

Fucking hell.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I was puzzling about the monks one, thinking there was some kind of racial slur or connotation I was blindly oblivious to. I even looked it up. On urban dictionary.
> 
> Then i realised... It's the first 4 letters of the word 'monkey'. I think that's it.
> 
> Is that it? We are supposed to believe that's why DB posted it?


Or the banana? or the 'brown' ingredient in an American product? All coincidence?

Afraid I can only draw one conclusion from that, which is the obvious one - baker isn't so thick as not to know that MM is mixed race and that posting an ape picture would be taken to be a reference to that. He knew what he was doing. Now it may be that we are mystified as to why he might do such a hateful thing, but there it is, he did it. Not our responsibility to explain why a racist does racist things.

Computer was hacked, it wasn't me. That's the only valid excuse I can think of.


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I was puzzling about the monks one, thinking there was some kind of racial slur or connotation I was blindly oblivious to. I even looked it up. On urban dictionary.
> 
> Then i realised... It's the first 4 letters of the word 'monkey'. I think that's it.
> 
> Is that it? We are supposed to believe that's why DB posted it?



I sincerely hope you’re wrong and he’s got something better than that because...fuck me.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They've been linked to at various points on the thread. Have a look.



Yeah, I saw links to the Mail and stuff, just trying to link back to source because I think the denials of knowledge are the most heinous part of his wriggling.  I'll check back through the thread...


----------



## Orang Utan (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> Which tweet? The chimp one, or the banana one that followed a few minutes later, or the brown American ingredient one that followed a few minutes after that, or the freakishly compelling monks one that came next?


The chimp one. I do not know about other tweets of his.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, I saw links to the Mail and stuff, just trying to link back to source because I think the denials of knowledge are the most heinous part of his wriggling.  I'll check back through the thread...


I thought that too, but after seeing his other tweets, on reflection I now think the most heinous part of this is the posting of the pics themselves. Innocent mistake my arse.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Or the banana? or the 'brown' ingredient in an American product? All coincidence?
> 
> Afraid I can only draw one conclusion from that, which is the obvious one - baker isn't so thick as not to know that MM is mixed race and that posting an ape picture would be taken to be a reference to that. He knew what he was doing. Now it may be that we are mystified as to why he might do such a hateful thing, but there it is, he did it. Not our responsibility to explain why a racist does racist things.
> 
> Computer was hacked, it wasn't me. That's the only valid excuse I can think of.


They are tweets that no one would blink an eye at, under other circumstances. 

Now of course, people are looking for stuff. Like numerology.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I thought that too, but after seeing his other tweets, on reflection I now think the most heinous part of this is the posting of the pics themselves. Innocent mistake my arse.



I meant that the posting of the pic was the 'crime' (if you will), but the worst part of the post-match wriggling was the denial of knowledge of it being Meghan who was the mother, or Meghan being mixed race.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> They are tweets that no one would blink an eye at, under other circumstances.
> 
> Now of course, people are looking for stuff. Like numerology.



I thought someone said that he posted these in quick succession after the blow-up.  Whereas if these are the result of trawling through his back catalogue then yes, that would be ludicrous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> They are tweets that no one would blink an eye at, under other circumstances.
> 
> Now of course, people are looking for stuff. Like numerology.


Those posts all came up within half an hour of the first one.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2019)

I admit to a level of naivety in that I saw the tweet, but it just didn't make any sense to me, so I continued browsing on to the next thing. 

Am I alone in being ignorant on first seeing it?


----------



## Favelado (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> They are tweets that no one would blink an eye at, under other circumstances.



Yeah but the fucking circumstances changed so now they do mean something. It's like a knife in a kitchen is fine, but a knife in a kitchen next to a dead body isn't.

This is the _clever_ forum I go on. Why are people being so thick?


----------



## klang (May 11, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Am I alone in being ignorant on first seeing it


you alone are the first ignorant being I see.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

8ball said:


> I thought someone said that he posted these in quick succession after the blow-up.  Whereas if these are the result of trawling through his back catalogue then yes, that would be ludicrous.


Same applies either way. Pattern hunting. Why people believe in UFOs. What are the chances!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> They are tweets that no one would blink an eye at, under other circumstances.
> 
> Now of course, people are looking for stuff. Like numerology.


People aren't looking for anything. Baker tweeted all of that stuff after getting sacked, just to prove he actually is a racist.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

Yep. All in our heads. Seeing what we want to.


----------



## weltweit (May 11, 2019)

littleseb said:


> you alone are the first ignorant being I see.


Do you think I am the only person who didn't immediately - get it? I doubt that myself.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Same applies either way. Pattern hunting. Why people believe in UFOs. What are the chances!



For a second I thought you hadn't caught up with a few posts and Favelado was being uncharitable.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

Favelado said:


> Yeah but the fucking circumstances changed so now they do mean something. It's like a knife in a kitchen is fine, but a knife in a kitchen next to a dead body isn't.
> 
> This is the _clever_ forum I go on. Why are people being so thick?


You know that 9/11 flight number? Which you can type in dingbats? If it was any other flight it wouldn't mean anything. But because it was *that* flight... <sinister music>


----------



## Favelado (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> You know that 9/11 flight number? Which you can type in dingbats? If it was any other flight it wouldn't mean anything. But because it was *that* flight... <sinister music>



Bollocks. It's not the same. People will argue ANYTHING. You frustrating bunch of cunts.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> You know that 9/11 flight number? Which you can type in dingbats? If it was any other flight it wouldn't mean anything. But because it was *that* flight... <sinister music>


  Your last few posts are a great example of why some people have been driven to despair and past caring so have written books like "why I am no longer speaking to White people about race'  and actually mean it.  Solidarity eh? Who needs it?


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Your last few posts are a great example of why some people have been driven to despair and past caring so have written books like "why I am no longer speaking to White people about race'. Solidarity eh? Who needs it?



I get your frustration (it's as if teuchter has previously put everyone who has mentioned the timing of the posts on ignore), but does everyone actually know the racial background of every other person on this thread?


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> People aren't looking for anything. Baker tweeted all of that stuff after getting sacked, just to prove he actually is a racist.



Hope you’re joking Saul and I’m missing the joke. Because those posts Mation are referring to were posted well before he was sacked.

I’d  like an explanation of what people think the Dorian Cope Monks tweet means. And the Streisand t-shirt tweet before that. And the Tottenham Ajax tweet before that. I mean, this is a sequence people are referring to isn’t it?

“No, no, he broke the sequence to throw you off the trail, don’t you get it?”


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Hope you’re joking Saul and I’m missing the joke. Because those posts Mation are referring to were posted well before he was sacked.



We have a whole bunch of posters saying they were posted after.  Oh, the confusion!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> You know that 9/11 flight number? Which you can type in dingbats? If it was any other flight it wouldn't mean anything. But because it was *that* flight... <sinister music>


What the fuck has that got to do with racism?

I can't believe the amount of racist apologism on this thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2019)

8ball said:


> We have a whole bunch of posters saying they were posted after.  Oh, the confusion!


That's what I understood from the posts here.


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

8ball said:


> We have a whole bunch of posters saying they were posted after.  Oh, the confusion!



You have a whole bunch of posters full of shit then.

Tottenham Ajax happened after he was sacked did it?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> You have a whole bunch of posters full of shit then.
> 
> Tottenham Ajax happened after he was sacked did it?


Time ebbs and flows differently on urban


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> You have a whole bunch of posters full of shit then.
> 
> Tottenham Ajax happened after he was sacked did it?



I know very little about kitchen cleaning products, but I took the contention as being that he re-tweeted some old tweets shortly after the chimp tweet in a fit of pique.


----------



## Gromit (May 11, 2019)

After three days of Urban debate...

Has Danny Baker been less sacked or more sacked yet?


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

8ball said:


> I know very little about kitchen cleaning products, but I took the contention as being that he re-tweeted some old tweets shortly after the chimp tweet in a fit of pique.



And that’s bollocks too.

Remember, I was one of the first here slagging him off for what he’d done. And I ain’t changed my mind. But fuck this Stalinist rewriting of history that anyone can check for themselves is bollocks.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

He didn't retweet those tweets. They were dug up someone trying to prove that he is racist. 

If this works, it is his twitter feed. 

Danny Baker (@prodnose) on Twitter


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Hope you’re joking Saul and I’m missing the joke. Because those posts Mation are referring to were posted well before he was sacked.
> 
> I’d  like an explanation of what people think the Dorian Cope Monks tweet means. And the Streisand t-shirt tweet before that. And the Tottenham Ajax tweet before that. I mean, this is a sequence people are referring to isn’t it?
> 
> “No, no, he broke the sequence to throw you off the trail, don’t you get it?”


Maybe you'd like to provide an explanation of the banana and the 'American product with brown in it' first. Seems to me that you're nitpicking here. Set the Monks to one side if you like. The point doesn't depend on that post being there - the two before it are more than enough. 'American product with brown in it' ffs.

I will give you the timeline to avoid further confusion.

6.09 pm 'Royal Baby leaves hospital

6.25 pm 'Contains brown'

6.37 pm Oh look me with a banana

7.08 pm Soz about the tweet, diseased minds etc


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Hope you’re joking Saul and I’m missing the joke. Because those posts Mation are referring to were posted well before he was sacked.
> 
> I’d  like an explanation of what people think the Dorian Cope Monks tweet means. And the Streisand t-shirt tweet before that. And the Tottenham Ajax tweet before that. I mean, this is a sequence people are referring to isn’t it?
> 
> “No, no, he broke the sequence to throw you off the trail, don’t you get it?”


I don't do twitter, so I just ran with what was posted here.


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

Answer my question you cunt lbj


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Answer my question you cunt lbj


You fucking what? 

Yet another idiot who doesn't get it. Fuck's sake.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> And that’s bollocks too.
> 
> Remember, I was one of the first here slagging him off for what he’d done. And I ain’t changed my mind. But fuck this Stalinist rewriting of history that anyone can check for themselves is bollocks.



Ok, then a bunch of people obv made the same mistake.  The rumour mill is in full effect, which is why I asked for sources on his two denials of key bits of knowledge (everything else is well documented),


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe you'd like to provide an explanation of the banana and the 'American product with brown in it' first. Seems to me that you're nitpicking here. Set the Monks to one side if you like. The point doesn't depend on that post being there - the two before it are more than enough. 'American product with brown in it' ffs.
> 
> I will give you the timeline to avoid further confusion.
> 
> ...


So the timeline is correct? They're not just tweets dug up from the past?


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You fucking what?
> 
> Yet another idiot who doesn't get it. Fuck's sake.



You haven’t read anything I’ve wrote. You’re a fucking keyboard warrior waste of space.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> So the timeline is correct? They're not just tweets dug up from the past?


That timeline is correct, yes - the same day. I just went to compile it to avoid further confusion. 

planetgeli has decided to lose it and turn into a complete twat, as have several others on this thread.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2019)

Aside from suggesting everyone wind it in a little, I’m going to refrain from any comment until facts are properly settled.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> You haven’t read anything I’ve wrote. You’re a fucking keyboard warrior waste of space.


I did read what you wrote. I said to consider the situation without that tweet in it. You've fucking lost it here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2019)

Well that escalated quickly.


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe you'd like to provide an explanation of the banana and the 'American product with brown in it' first. Seems to me that you're nitpicking here. Set the Monks to one side if you like. The point doesn't depend on that post being there - the two before it are more than enough. 'American product with brown in it' ffs.
> 
> I will give you the timeline to avoid further confusion.
> 
> ...


I think the timing of the Monks tweet - 7:31 pm - does matter. It's a final toot on his dog whistle that says: don't worry about that apology; I'm still with you.


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> So the timeline is correct? They're not just tweets dug up from the past?


Post #444, page 15 of this thread. The times of each tweet are shown.


----------



## ska invita (May 11, 2019)

Oh dear...class war reductionism gets it wrong again


----------



## ska invita (May 11, 2019)

.edit, seen above


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

I'm tempted to say, give me any date, I'll look through each of DB's tweets that day, and come up with a similar proportion of them where I've found something that could be a dog whistle somehow related to race, monkeys, or something else somehow connected at one or more removes to the original tweet. Not quite stupid enough to volunteer myself for that though. 

At least though we've established that yes, this is what he's accused of: dog whistle tweets that confirm his original tweet was posted with malicious intentions and that he's not sorry about it. 

I can't prove that this is not the case but it seems sufficiently implausible to me that I'm sticking with: nah.


----------



## Humberto (May 11, 2019)

The only thing I can find with my admittedly poor searching skills is this:

What does fired Danny Baker’s ‘red sauce’ comment mean in his tweet?


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

ska invita said:


> .edit, seen above


It's all there on his twitter feed.


----------



## The39thStep (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> He didn't retweet those tweets. They were dug up someone trying to prove that he is racist.
> 
> If this works, it is his twitter feed.
> 
> Danny Baker (@prodnose) on Twitter


I've read through that and tbh couldnt see anything that would remotely connect with the Royal Baby tweet. The Monks video has been used by Donn Letts, the reference to brown in the American beer is about heroin, and he's always posting up old pictures of himself .So what if he has a banana as a microphone , its corny slapstick TV prsenter humour. Tweet re the Royals was awful but all this hes a Millwall supporter so hes racist and this needless boring obssession with what could other tweets really mean is nuthouse stuff imo.


----------



## teuchter (May 11, 2019)

Anyone decided yet that the sausage sandwich game was a racist dogwhistle game all along?


----------



## tim (May 11, 2019)

BJ jk


Favelado said:


> View attachment 170549
> 
> 
> This is the best one yet. He's interviewed black people politely.



Manners maketh the man.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> Anyone decided yet that the sausage sandwich game was a racist dogwhistle game all along?


More straw men than you can shake a stick at.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2019)

So now he's a racist with a penchant for rather oblique hidden picture messages?


Humberto said:


> The only thing I can find with my admittedly poor searching skills is this:
> 
> What does fired Danny Baker’s ‘red sauce’ comment mean in his tweet?



Famously anti-brown (sauce).

(Which is incorrect, of course - red on bacon, brown on sausages, but a conversation for another day perhaps...)


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe you'd like to provide an explanation of the banana and the 'American product with brown in it' first. Seems to me that you're nitpicking here.



I wasn’t nitpicking, I was asking, for the second time, for an explanation of the Monks tweet. For which you, someone with a spectacular history of misreading my posts (even up until yesterday) whether they be straight or sarcasm, think you have a right to answer my request by making me try to justify something Baker may or may not have meant, which I cannot possibly know what he meant, while snidely accusing me of supporting some sort of racist position, against everything I’ve said in these Baker discussions which you apparently aren’t capable of reading - well sorry but that makes you a cunt in my eyes.

Ok?


----------



## Humberto (May 11, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> So now he's a racist with a penchant for rather oblique hidden picture messages?
> 
> 
> Famously anti-brown (sauce).
> ...



No that's not what I meant. My bad. I was wondering what they (thread commenters) were talking about. I thought they were making some 'dog-whistle' argument on the only thing I could find about what I somehow got the idea was a deleted post about a food/beverage product. So I hope that's confused everyone as much as it has me.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2019)

Humberto said:


> No that's not what I meant. My bad. I was wondering what they (thread commenters) were talking about. I thought they were making some 'dog-whistle' argument on the only thing I could find about what I somehow got the idea was a deleted post about a food/beverage product. So I hope that's confused everyone as much as it has me.



Sorry, I wasn't inferring anything on your part, btw.


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I'm tempted to say, give me any date, I'll look through each of DB's tweets that day, and come up with a similar proportion of them where I've found something that could be a dog whistle somehow related to race, monkeys, or something else somehow connected at one or more removes to the original tweet. Not quite stupid enough to volunteer myself for that though.
> 
> At least though we've established that yes, this is what he's accused of: dog whistle tweets that confirm his original tweet was posted with malicious intentions and that he's not sorry about it.
> 
> I can't prove that this is not the case but it seems sufficiently implausible to me that I'm sticking with: nah.


Why sufficiently implausible?

Racism isn't just the preserve of a few easily identifiable baddies who shout about it all the time. It can be there in people we like; people we know; famous people; funny people; people who seem sound on some other things we agree with; clever people; people with black and brown friends.

I wouldn't previously have suspected him of racism. I haven't paid any attention to his career or anything he's said or done over the past 15 years or so, but I used to love his show with Danny Kelly on Talk Sport. Cracked me up. I liked him.

I'm sad to see this in him, but I _do _see it.

As to why now... fuck knows. Maybe the general propensity we have as we age to think, fuck it, I'm just going to do and say the stuff I think and believe and want to (in domains where that's possible) has got the better of him. Maybe that plus the current climate and the knowledge that a load of people who aren't in the dog whistle target audience just won't believe it could be true will wave it away. I don't know.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 11, 2019)

i can believe that some people would not be aware of Meghan Markle's background and also that some people wouldn't have realised that photo was probably originally posted with racist intent, but I do not believe Baker is one of those people. Found it hard to believe his post-tweet bluster.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I'm tempted to say, give me any date, I'll look through each of DB's tweets that day, and come up with a similar proportion of them where I've found something that could be a dog whistle somehow related to race, monkeys, or something else somehow connected at one or more removes to the original tweet. Not quite stupid enough to volunteer myself for that though.


 
All that would infer, is that DB has spent his career posting messages with hidden racist undertones


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> All that would infer, is that DB has spent his career posting messages with hidden racist undertones




Just stop it you shit stirrer!

What is clearly true is he just didn't care enough not to offend this time. Maybe because like others here he thinks the royals are fair game for all insults including ones that have racist connotations.

Fuck 'em, fuck their newborn kid, fuck any and all of us that know what this is like and that know that he crossed the line this time. Yeah we get it.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

So those tweets, the banana and beer ones in particular, were posted after he deleted the original offensive one?

If so, that does look to me that he could have been trying to stick 2 fingers up at people who complained. Why dig out an old photo of yourself with a banana as a microphone at that point. Why put the word brown in quotes, referring to malt.


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

When was the original tweet posted? The beer one was at 
08/05/2019  18:25


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe you'd like to provide an explanation of the banana and the 'American product with brown in it' first. Seems to me that you're nitpicking here. Set the Monks to one side if you like. The point doesn't depend on that post being there - the two before it are more than enough. 'American product with brown in it' ffs.
> 
> I will give you the timeline to avoid further confusion.
> 
> ...





xenon said:


> When was the original tweet posted? The beer one was at
> 08/05/2019  18:25


----------



## Poi E (May 11, 2019)

Still, he's no Dave Lee Travis or Savile, so that's something, right?


----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Just stop it you shit stirrer!
> 
> What is clearly true is he just didn't care enough not to offend this time. Maybe because like others here he thinks the royals are fair game for all insults including ones that have racist connotations.
> 
> Fuck 'em, fuck their newborn kid, fuck any and all of us that know what this is like and that know that he crossed the line this time. Yeah we get it.



I was making light of the humorous potential logical conclusion of such an exercise. I certainly wasn't taking the piss (or de-legitimising) the furore around it all.

In any case, it is not 'clearly true' by any stretch. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post tbh. He dislikes the royals to such an extent he's going to be racist towards them?


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

This sequence if correct, does add weight to the idea he was knowingly being racially provocative, for want of better phrase. I saw Mation post earlier but couldn't see the timeline and thought they were tweets from random points in his twitter feed.

I don't know whwat the fuck he was playing at but yeah, that's not really the point is it.


----------



## Idris2002 (May 11, 2019)

teuchter said:


> I'm tempted to say, give me any date, I'll look through each of DB's tweets that day, and come up with a similar proportion of them where I've found something that could be a dog whistle somehow related to race, monkeys, or something else somehow connected at one or more removes to the original tweet. Not quite stupid enough to volunteer myself for that though.
> 
> At least though we've established that yes, this is what he's accused of: dog whistle tweets that confirm his original tweet was posted with malicious intentions and that he's not sorry about it.
> 
> I can't prove that this is not the case but it seems sufficiently implausible to me that I'm sticking with: nah.


I don't care what his intentions were, one way or the other.


----------



## scifisam (May 11, 2019)

xenon said:


> So those tweets, the banana and beer ones in particular, were posted after he deleted the original offensive one?
> 
> If so, that does look to me that he could have been trying to stick 2 fingers up at people who complained. Why dig out an old photo of yourself with a banana as a microphone at that point. Why put the word brown in quotes, referring to malt.



It was referring to heroin and it looks like he posted it because he was drinking it.

The other pictures were posted straight after he posted the racist monkey picture, before he was rightly told off and took it down, not after. He said he went looking in his images files for one to use and chose that one. I'd guess it's quite likely that monkey in a suit was filed near a Monks video and him holding a banana (being a monkey), so he posted those too. He does seem to post loads and loads of photos.

The monkey picture definitely was racist in its connotations, obviously, and it might have been intentional, at least a bit - like Rutita says, maybe he thought the Royals are fair game even for racist jokes. And then his first reaction was shit. It was a fair sacking.

But the other stuff does look like coincidence to me. Posting photos that probably have similar file names seems more likely than posting secret coded racist messages. Especially on a day when he appears to have been otherwise acting a bit thick. I know I'm going to get told I'm reaching here, but it just makes more logical sense than anything else.


----------



## Poi E (May 11, 2019)

scifisam said:


> It was referring to heroin.



Classic humour.


----------



## Mation (May 11, 2019)

xenon said:


> This sequence if correct, does add weight to the idea he was knowingly being racially provocative, for want of better phrase. I saw Mation post earlier but couldn't see the timeline and thought they were tweets from random points in his twitter feed.
> 
> I don't know whwat the fuck he was playing at but yeah, that's not really the point is it.


The sequence was: chimp tweet, banana and brown tweets, deletion and apology, Monks tweet. 

My apologies, though. The times were embedded in the tweets I posted upthread, and I didn't think about whether/how they would be interpreted (as text or an image etc) on here. If I'd included the times as text too, it would have been much clearer!


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 11, 2019)

What was the Monks tweet?


----------



## Ted Striker (May 11, 2019)

xenon said:


> This sequence if correct, does add weight to the idea he was knowingly being racially provocative, for want of better phrase. I saw Mation post earlier but couldn't see the timeline and thought they were tweets from random points in his twitter feed.
> 
> I don't know whwat the fuck he was playing at but yeah, that's not really the point is it.



Yup, pretty suspect, no doubt.

Monks though? Just...What sort of grown adult would even use that to do the dog-whistle bit (as accused).


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 11, 2019)

At risk of appearing really ignorant/naive, can someone explain all the references to "dog whistles"?


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

Mation said:


> The sequence was: chimp tweet, banana and brown tweets, deletion and apology, Monks tweet.
> 
> My apologies, though. The times were embedded in the tweets I posted upthread, and I didn't think about whether/how they would be interpreted (as text or an image etc) on here. If I'd included the times as text too, it would have been much clearer!



No worries. I can't normally read tweets at all on my phone. Checked from desktop later.





scifisam said:


> It was referring to heroin and it looks like he posted it because he was drinking it.
> 
> The other pictures were posted straight after he posted the racist monkey picture, before he was rightly told off and took it down, not after. He said he went looking in his images files for one to use and chose that one. I'd guess it's quite likely that monkey in a suit was filed near a Monks video and him holding a banana (being a monkey), so he posted those too. He does seem to post loads and loads of photos.
> 
> ...



I'm not disagreeing necessarily but the time line as is does look fishy. Maybe that's just post facto pattern matching but it's not as straight forward as I first thought.


----------



## Argonia (May 11, 2019)

What was the monks tweet?


----------



## xenon (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> At risk of appearing really ignorant/naive, can someone explain all the references to "dog whistles"?



It's where someone uses a phrase or inference that is usually senonamous with a particular political ideology, in order to drawer out support from adherents there of. The usage of the phrase may superficially seem innocent by casual observers.


You know, things like hwen mainstream politicians say we should restrict immigration because many incomers fail to integrate.


----------



## planetgeli (May 11, 2019)

Argonia said:


> What was the monks tweet?



An avant-garde piece of music retweeted from Dorian Cope. I daren't ask for the significance for a 3rd time for fear of LBJ accusing me of being a useful BNP idiot or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> An avant-garde piece of music retweeted from Dorian Cope. I daren't ask for the significance for a 3rd time for fear of LBJ accusing me of being a useful BNP idiot or something.


Don't get wound up by the useless liberal


----------



## Supine (May 11, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> At risk of appearing really ignorant/naive, can someone explain all the references to "dog whistles"?



It's where the pictures have a secret meaning that a target audience understands. Or where there is no secret meaning but somebody on the Internet can imagine one.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> the reference to brown in the American beer is about heroin,



On the bottle of beer the word next to brown is crystal. Did he toss a coin as to which drug reference he would go for, do you think?


----------



## The39thStep (May 11, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> On the bottle of beer the word next to brown is crystal. Did he toss a coin as to which drug reference he would go for, do you think?


Dunno mate, not a mind reader.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 11, 2019)

What the fuck have I stumbled into in this thread?


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2019)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> What the fuck have I stumbled into in this thread?


I'm just trying to catch up. It looks like Baker tweeted another couple of pictures which prove ... something; and there's something about Monks which is making planetgeli call littlebabyjesus a cunt.

Whatever's the case, all of this being investigated by the police is fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Argonia (May 11, 2019)

Don't the police have something better to do? Isn't the conviction rate for rape something like 5 per cent of all reported rapes or something? Jesus.


----------



## andysays (May 11, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Dunno mate, not a mind reader.


There are plenty of them on this thread already


----------



## Supine (May 11, 2019)

andysays said:


> There are plenty of them on this thread already



I knew you'd say that


----------



## scifisam (May 12, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'm just trying to catch up. It looks like Baker tweeted another couple of pictures which prove ... something; and there's something about Monks which is making planetgeli call littlebabyjesus a cunt.
> 
> Whatever's the case, all of this being investigated by the police is fucking ridiculous.



The police? Jesus Christ. I mean sometimes it is appropriate to investigate what people say online but this one? What on earth could he be charged with?


----------



## Ted Striker (May 12, 2019)

I read that (and most of these) as "Well, we've had a member of the public complain"
...Can't really not follow it up (institutionally racist etc)
...will likely be a 30 minute job - 1 min to decide no crime has been committed and 29 (and then some) mins to craft a PR friendly response.


----------



## Humberto (May 12, 2019)

He's 61, never said a word construed as racist before on public record? That's some lead in to a... what? A meltdown where he lets it all out?


----------



## Humberto (May 12, 2019)

That gets him the sack when the right tabloids are after his blood for consistently not being a gobshite. Like them.


----------



## Humberto (May 12, 2019)

51 K tweets he's got


----------



## MrSpikey (May 12, 2019)

D'wards said:


> Furthermore he does a podcast with the left wing Gary Lineker.



Lineker denies his left wing associations:


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 12, 2019)

Here is what Billy Bragg is saying on Facebook. 

“Nobody should be surprised that Danny Baker has been sacked by the BBC from his job as a DJ on Radio 5Live for posting a photo of a posh couple holding a monkey dressed in human clothes captioned ‘Royal baby leaves hospital’. The use of such an obvious racist trope to comment on the birth of the first mixed race baby in the royal family has rightly cost him his job. Baker is a much-loved broadcaster and many are frankly surprised that he could be so insensitive. His style of humour isn’t malicious, but it clearly blinded him to the obvious connotations of using such an image in that context.

Baker’s shtick is based on banter with his audience. It was there in his reaction to being fired, when he tweeted ‘Just got fired from @bbc5live. For the record – it was red sauce. Always’. Any ideas why he mentioned the red sauce? No, me neither. Apparently it was a reference to the Sausage Sandwich Game, a popular feature on his Saturday morning radio show in which listeners are asked to guess what sauce Danny’s studio guest would put on a sausage sandwich. The guest then reveals their choice.

It’s a silly game that all involved treat with a mock seriousness that makes the whole thing even more silly. Danny, his guest and listeners are all in on the joke. It’s the kind of banter that Baker excels at; his free-association sense of humour can result in his live theatre show running for four hours. But the problem with banter is that it relies on everyone being in on the joke. When expressed outside of the initiated, as in his 'just got fired' tweet, it risks causing confusion or, in some extreme cases, offence.

Banter is a form of social lubricant. Among tight-knit groups who live or work together it offers a means of getting through what may be mundane or difficult situations. We banter a lot on the road. Five guys stuck in a van for hours each day travelling to gigs, we use it in conversation to keep ourselves entertained.

However, the key feature of banter is mock humiliation, ‘taking the mickey’ out of each other. Knowing that you can say things about the behaviour of a mate that would otherwise be hurtful – and being able to take the same treatment in response - has the effect of creating a bond among the group. Our friendship is so great that we can say these transgressive things about one another (I’m not talking about racism or sexism or other bigoted discourse – which is never acceptable, even among friends; I’m referring here to general piss-taking).

The trouble arises when that banter comes into contact with the outside world. Those not within the group, unaware of the permissive bond between members, can only take what’s being said at face value. As a result, statements that participants recognise as being in jest can sound hostile, derogatory, racist.

Apparently Baker has a running joke on his show about monkeys dressed in human clothes. It may be that he was making assumptions about how his tweet would be viewed based on that thread. Whatever it was that blinded him to the racist nature of his post, I don’t think it was intentional. Why? Because he has no previous. 

Compare his reaction to being called out for a racist remark with that of Boris Johnson. Baker has spent the past days apologising profusely for the offence he caused, at first maybe a little begrudgingly, but the sincerity of his Twitter thread mea culpa on Friday was clear. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson has still not apologised for comparing Muslim women to letterboxes, a racist slur that was just the latest in a litany of bigoted statements about people of colour. 

I’m willing to give Baker the benefit of the doubt, to recognise, that, although he made a racist statement, it was a massive error of judgement rather than the product of a racist mindset. I don’t have the same sympathies for Johnson, who clearly believes he can get away with his dog whistles to bigotry. Give me Danny’s embarrassed contrition any day over Boris’ entitled sense of impunity.

That said, Baker has no grounds for complaining that he has lost his job and should reflect that, for all his love of banter, it doesn’t matter what you intended with your remark, it’s how others, those from outside of your trusted group of initiates, perceive what you have said. 

In the febrile discourse of online debate, it’s perception, not intention that must be considered when posting a comment. It is a lesson that we should all take on board.”


----------



## scifisam (May 12, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> Here is what Billy Bragg is saying on Facebook.
> 
> “Nobody should be surprised that Danny Baker has been sacked by the BBC from his job as a DJ on Radio 5Live for posting a photo of a posh couple holding a monkey dressed in human clothes captioned ‘Royal baby leaves hospital’. The use of such an obvious racist trope to comment on the birth of the first mixed race baby in the royal family has rightly cost him his job. Baker is a much-loved broadcaster and many are frankly surprised that he could be so insensitive. His style of humour isn’t malicious, but it clearly blinded him to the obvious connotations of using such an image in that context.
> 
> ...



I dunno. The bit about "Apparently Baker has a running joke on his show about monkeys dressed in human clothes" does make it sound like it was a genuine mistake.

I thought we were all assuming that wasn't really true? Because it sounds weird. But scrolling back through his twitter posts he does post some weird photos. 

I suppose then we get down to his first apology being pretty shit, which it was, and that's what he's really been fired for.


----------



## Chilli.s (May 12, 2019)

That's it with banter and bantz, it's morphed into a free pass to be a cunt.


----------



## Plumdaff (May 12, 2019)

It is absolutely 100% true that Baker has a very long running joke about monkeys dressed up as famous people. That's one of the parts of this not for dispute.


----------



## D'wards (May 12, 2019)

scifisam said:


> But scrolling back through his twitter posts he does post some weird photos.


These are his two most posted photos. Usually in comment about football.
House points for those who can name all three subjects.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 12, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> It doesn’t matter what you intended with your remark



And this right here is the crux of the matter. A moral and philosophical gulf exists between the worldview that says intent _does_ matter and the worldview that says it doesn't.


----------



## 8ball (May 12, 2019)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> And this right here is the crux of the matter. A moral and philosophical gulf exists between the worldview that says intent _does_ matter and the worldview that says it doesn't.



I would say such a gulf has *opened up*.  More nuanced views are available.


----------



## Balbi (May 12, 2019)

One of those is Suarez


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 13, 2019)

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/danny-b...-ovation-twitter-photo-royal-baby-sacked-bbc/



> *Danny Baker gets standing ovation at first live tour show since being sacked over royal baby tweet*
> *The broadcaster told the audience: 'When life deals you lemons, you chuck them at people calling you a racist'*



His apologies are really sincere. So sincere in fact he will further attempt to ridicule those that called him on behaving like a racist. He is so, so sorry for what he didand then lied about doing but don't call him a 'racist' for behaving like one. Oh no and don't rush the stage cos he's an hard nut 'millwall fan with a snooker cue.' Fuck off Danny.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

His apologies seem sincere so he's clearly getting the benefit of any doubt. 

I reckon it's 50/50 between Talksport and LBC for his next job.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> His apologies seem sincere so he's clearly getting the benefit of any doubt.
> 
> I reckon it's 50/50 between Talksport and LBC for his next job.



The latter, I reckon.


----------



## D'wards (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon it's 50/50 between Talksport and LBC for his next job.


He's not serious enough for LBC.

His whole schtick on radio is that he ignores current events and doesnt let the wicked world infiltrate his show one bit


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

D'wards said:


> He's not serious enough for LBC.



But Farage is?


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

8ball said:


> But Farage is?


Katie Hopkins.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Katie Hopkins.



If we go with the story that Baker did that tweet in order to launch his career in the far right, LBC seems like the obvious choice.


----------



## D'wards (May 13, 2019)

You both have obviously never listened to his radio shows. 

I mean he doesn't like to discuss serious subjects. 

He likes things like "why have you hidden as an adult".

Lbc has no room for levity these days


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> His apologies are really sincere. So sincere in fact he will further attempt to ridicule those that called him on behaving like a racist. He is so, so sorry for what he didand then lied about doing but don't call him a 'racist' for behaving like one. Oh no and don't rush the stage cos he's an hard nut 'millwall fan with a snooker cue.' Fuck off Danny.


Yeah, but no one would expect you to take a reasoned view of this, tbf. What if you're wrong?


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

D'wards said:


> You both have obviously never listened to his radio shows.
> 
> I mean he doesn't like to discuss serious subjects.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure "why have you hidden as an adult?" strictly counts as Sport either.
Maybe Radio 2?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, but no one would expect you to take a reasoned view of this, tbf. What if you're wrong?


I wouldn't expect anything less from you, someone  who's friends make paki and nignog jokes and defends them, so you can fuck off too.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I wouldn't expect anything less from you, someone  who's friends make paki and nignog jokes  defends them, so you can fuck off too.


 You silly woman.


----------



## klang (May 13, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Danny


everytime somebody types 'Danny' on this thread I feel a bit shocked and scroll back a few pages to see if danny la rouge has said something really outrages


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> ...What if you're wrong?


I'm not sure that's really a possible option here, is it?


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

littleseb said:


> everytime somebody types 'Danny' on this thread Ifeel a bit shocked and scroll back a few pages to see if danny la rouge has something really outrages



I did that a few times earlier on.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I wouldn't expect anything less from you, someone  who's friends make paki and nignog jokes and defends them, so you can fuck off too.


----------



## joustmaster (May 13, 2019)

I've just tried to read the last couple of pages here, to work out if people think he is a racist or not. Classic example of Urban. 

I didn't get what the fuss was to start with as I didn't know the woman was brown. But I now recall it being mentioned when they got married. Seems like stupid post to make though.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> I've just tried to read the last couple of pages here, to work out if people think he is a racist or not. Classic example of Urban.
> 
> I didn't get what the fuss was to start with as* I didn't know the woman was brown*. But I now recall it being mentioned when they got married. Seems like stupid post to make though.



WILL YOU STOP NOT KNOWING THE WRONG BLOODY THING!!!


----------



## joustmaster (May 13, 2019)

8ball said:


> WILL YOU STOP NOT KNOWING THE WRONG BLOODY THING!!!


I'm trying as hard as I can.

I was about 65% sure Baker was a racist when I saw what he'd done. Then there was a mention of Millwall. I used to live a couple of minutes from their ground. So then I went o 85% chance of being a racist.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

andysays said:


> I'm not sure that's really a possible option here, is it?


Are you asking if it's a possibility that DB is being truthful about his motives for posting the image? Initially I thought not and called for him to be hung, drawn and quartered, but I didn't know much about Baker. The more I've read and heard over the last days leaves me inclined to go along with the likes of Billy Bragg, Majid Nawaz, et al, and give him the benefit of the doubt. It's most certainly possible


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

joustmaster said:


> I'm trying as hard as I can.







joustmaster said:


> I was about 65% sure Baker was a racist when I saw what he'd done. Then there was a mention of Millwall. I used to live a couple of minutes from there ground. So then I went o 85% chance of being a racist.



Yeah, I've gone back and forth a little with this too.


----------



## Guineveretoo (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Are you asking if it's a possibility that DB is being truthful about his motives for posting the image? Initially I thought not and called for him to be hung, drawn and quartered, but I didn't know much about Baker. The more I've read and heard over the last days leaves me inclined to go along with the likes of Billy Bragg, Majid Nawaz, et al, and give him the benefit of the doubt. It's most certainly possible


I didn’t read Billy Bragg’s post as being that clearly in Baker’s favour. He says he believes it was right for Baker to have been fired.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Are you asking if it's a possibility that DB is being truthful about his motives for posting the image? Initially I thought not and called for him to be hung, drawn and quartered, but I didn't know much about Baker. The more I've read and heard over the last days leaves me inclined to go along with the likes of Billy Bragg, Majid Nawaz, et al, and give him the benefit of the doubt. It's most certainly possible



I started from your position then drifted the other way a bit, then back a little.  Not that it should matter to anyone whether I think a DJ that I don't listen to is a racist.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> I didn’t read Billy Bragg’s post as being that clearly in Baker’s favour. He says he believes it was right for Baker to have been fired.



Considering that a lot of other opinions were in favour of it being right for Baker to have been fired _into the side of a mountain_, I think it was quite favourable.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> I didn’t read Billy Bragg’s post as being that clearly in Baker’s favour. He says he believes it was right for Baker to have been fired.


I do too. They had to fire him. As I said, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt based on a complete lack of form for 40 odd years, not exhonerating him.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Are you asking if it's a possibility that DB is being truthful about his motives for posting the image? Initially I thought not and called for him to be hung, drawn and quartered, but I didn't know much about Baker. The more I've read and heard over the last days leaves me inclined to go along with the likes of Billy Bragg, Majid Nawaz, et al, and give him the benefit of the doubt. It's most certainly possible


I think I agree with you on that, but I was referring to the poster in question being wrong, or at least of them considering the possibility of being wrong.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

andysays said:


> I think I agree with you on that, but I was referring to the poster in question being wrong, or at least of them considering the possibility of being wrong.



Careful, now.


----------



## danny la rouge (May 13, 2019)

littleseb said:


> everytime somebody types 'Danny' on this thread I feel a bit shocked and scroll back a few pages to see if danny la rouge has said something really outrages


I unreservedly apologise. Unless I meant it.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I unreservedly apologise. Unless I meant it.



You meant it, alright.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

andysays said:


> I think I agree with you on that, but I was referring to the poster in question being wrong, or at least of them considering the possibility of being wrong.


You're doubting that it's possible for her to be wrong?

I don't understand what you're on aboout, tbh.


----------



## andysays (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You're doubting that it's possible for her to be wrong?
> 
> I don't understand what you're on aboout, tbh.


I'm doubting she's capable of considering the possibility that she's wrong


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

andysays said:


> I'm doubting she's capable of considering the possibility that she's wrong


Ah, I see. On this subject I'd agree. It's always _agree with me or burn in hell_.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 13, 2019)

Ah look, a couple of my all time favorite people saying nice things about me _again_. Bless.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

Oh, I see. Andysays is on your fan list too!


----------



## Cid (May 13, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> I didn’t read Billy Bragg’s post as being that clearly in Baker’s favour. He says he believes it was right for Baker to have been fired.



It's in favour in that he doesn't seem to think he's actually racist, just did something very stupid. I mean even Baker in his apology implies it's right that he was fired. 

Coming away from this not being remembered as a massive racist is about the best thing Baker can expect.


----------



## Wilf (May 13, 2019)

Fwiw, my pure guess is that his intention was to do whatever he normally does when tweeting and the rest. In this case he wanted to post an edgy sleb orientated, vaguely anti-monarchist thing. Problem was he can't plausibly deny he knew the significance of monkey stuff and to be honest, he's told a few porkies as to what he did and didn't know. That adds up to having a primary purpose, to be slightly edgy - and that somehow overriding or turning off the bit of his brain that was screaming at him that it was clearly racist. That's not saying it was _less_ racist or pushing it down to _'category 2 racism'_ or anything. In fact that process is _exactly_ what goes on when people spout racist, sexist, homophobic or other offensive shit.  He's not Nick Griffin or tommy Robinson, he's just someone coming out with common or garden racism - with a large social media following. Again, that's not an excuse for racism, it's saying that it _is_ racism.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Fwiw, my pure guess is that his intention was to do whatever he normally does when tweeting and the rest. In this case he wanted to post an edgy sleb orientated, vaguely anti-monarchist thing.



It's barely edgy in its (alleged) intended form (ie. had it been about one of Kate's sprogs).  I doubt it would have attracted comment from anyone.


----------



## Wilf (May 13, 2019)

8ball said:


> It's barely edgy in its (alleged) intended form (ie. had it been about one of Kate's sprogs).  I doubt it would have attracted comment from anyone.


Yeah, I knew that didn't quite capture it. Presume it's just his run of the mill shtick.


----------



## Cid (May 13, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Fwiw, my pure guess is that his intention was to do whatever he normally does when tweeting and the rest. In this case he wanted to post an edgy sleb orientated, vaguely anti-monarchist thing. Problem was he can't plausibly deny he knew the significance of monkey stuff and to be honest, he's told a few porkies as to what he did and didn't know. That adds up to having a primary purpose, to be slightly edgy - and that somehow overriding or turning off the bit of his brain that was screaming at him that it was clearly racist. That's not saying it was _less_ racist or pushing it down to _'category 2 racism'_ or anything. In fact that process is _exactly_ what goes on when people spout racist, sexist, homophobic or other offensive shit.  He's not Nick Griffin or tommy Robinson, he's just someone coming out with common or garden racism - with a large social media following. Again, that's not an excuse for racism, it's saying that it _is_ racism.



I dunno... I mean if that is the case, then yeah, it is absolutely racist. It's just weird that someone with no previous form (even with 51k tweets and 35 odd years of broadcasting) would suddenly trot out one of the most virulently racist tropes out there.


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Cid said:


> I dunno... I mean if that is the case, then yeah, it is absolutely racist. It's just weird that someone with no previous form (even with 51k tweets and 35 odd years of broadcasting) would suddenly trot out one of the most virulently racist tropes out there.



Better offer from LBC combined with contractual obligations?


----------



## Wilf (May 13, 2019)

Cid said:


> I dunno... I mean if that is the case, then yeah, it is absolutely racist. It's just weird that someone with no previous form (even with 51k tweets and 35 odd years of broadcasting) would suddenly trot out one of the most virulently racist tropes out there.


Like others, I could be persuaded of that. Never heard him on the radio, but got the impression of someone on the side of the angels, if prone to spats (and sackings). That's about all I know of him. I just move away from that possible explanation after the not very impressive way he handled the crisis.


----------



## ska invita (May 13, 2019)

Guineveretoo said:


> Billy Bragg: "Baker has spent the past days apologising profusely for the offence he caused, at first maybe a little begrudgingly, but the sincerity of his Twitter thread mea culpa on Friday was clear."


I think what Billy Bragg wrote is given benefit of the doubt likely true, but only up to the point of the apology. From there it all unravels.

The understatement that he apologised "At first maybe a little begrudgingly" is the tip of Danny Baker's not-that-sorry attitude iceberg. He basically brushed it off as his turn to get picked on by the PC brigade. Its all about him you see. Nothing to do with people who have rightly and justifiably been upset and offended by his tweet - particularly those people who have been on the end of 'jokes' like this their whole lives.

IIRC littlebabyjesus already made this point upthread: I would expect anyone without a diseased mind would be so sickened to be misconstrued this way they would've bended over backwards to set the record straight and to undo the hurt that had already been done. That didn't happen - that wasnt his impulse - to me it shows he doesn't understand it. After some out and out lie-telling came the eventual "apologising profusely", which also centred a lot in himself, how its the worst day for him, etc . I wasn't impressed by it.

And now his throw the lemons back at people calling me racist shtick adds to the picture he doesn't really care about anyone but himself. He's the victim now, fighting back. That comment resonates nicely with the "you cant make any jokes anymore without getting called a racist" brigade.  Standing ovations all round. Throw in a bit of Millwall and threats of violence for good measure for anyone not on board - its banter you see. Maybe Billy Bragg can explain the latest joke to us all.

Anyone who has listened to him knows hes an ego maniac who talks over everyone else and loves the smell of his own farts. Now he's shat his pants and laid a racist turd - accidentally or otherwise - he still refuses to admit how much it stinks. Frankly he deserves his nose rubbed in it till he works it out.


----------



## hot air baboon (May 13, 2019)

I see a few tickets left for his live shows

( that was a public service posting for everyone on here except Ska Invita )

Danny Baker Tickets


----------



## Augie March (May 13, 2019)

A couple of hours after the Boston marathon bombing he tweeted this:



Fuck him


----------



## 8ball (May 13, 2019)

Augie March said:


> A couple of hours after the Boston marathon bombing he tweeted this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck him




All your own work, or have a group of you been doing this?


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2019)

Augie March said:


> A couple of hours after the Boston marathon bombing he tweeted this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck him



What's wrong with that?


----------



## kebabking (May 13, 2019)

Augie March said:


> A couple of hours after the Boston marathon bombing he tweeted this:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck him




Are you say that what he said isn't true?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 13, 2019)

hot air baboon said:


> I see a few tickets left for his live shows
> 
> ( that was a public service posting for everyone on here except Ska Invita )
> 
> Danny Baker Tickets



Yeah go and support the unsorry prick. Join in the standing ovation as he laments not being able to make racist jokes without being called a racist. Poor love.

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/danny-b...-ovation-twitter-photo-royal-baby-sacked-bbc/


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 13, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What's wrong with that?



He does appear to be saying that the people of Boston have no right to complain when some people in the city raised funds for the IRA in the years before any of those killed by the bomb were born.


----------



## jarndyce (May 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah go and support the unsorry prick. Join in the standing ovation as he laments not being able to make racist jokes without being called a racist. Poor love.
> 
> https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/danny-b...-ovation-twitter-photo-royal-baby-sacked-bbc/


Not every white person thinks in advance about how each off the cuff remark they say affects how every non-white person feels about it. Substitute person for whatever and white for whatever.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Not every white person thinks in advance about how each off the cuff remark they say affects how every non-white person feels about it. Substitute white for whatever.


Oh really? Fancy that. You must be like an oracle or something.

You should get your own show,


----------



## Humberto (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Not every white person thinks in advance about how each off the cuff remark they say affects how every non-white person feels about it.



That doesn't parse mate. The evidence is flimsy though if it's once every 61 years that he apologises for supposed race hate.


----------



## jarndyce (May 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh really? Fancy that. You are like an oracle or something.


Yeah, maybe. Or maybe you want to find racists where they ain’t


----------



## A380 (May 14, 2019)

littleseb said:


> everytime somebody types 'Danny' on this thread I feel a bit shocked and scroll back a few pages to see if danny la rouge has said something really outrages


I wonder if the mother of dragons is going to turn up and burn my town  down.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Yeah, maybe. Or maybe you want to find racists where they ain’t


Yeah that must be it. Finding racism when someone does or says something racist is clearly where I'm going wrong. Thank you random for clearing that up.


----------



## jarndyce (May 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah that must be it. Finding racism when someone does or says something racist is clearly where I'm going wrong. Thank you random for clearing that up.



...racist according to you.


----------



## Humberto (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> ...racist according to you.


 
It WAS racist.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> ...racist according to you.


Yes clever clogs, racist jokes are racist. Now off you fuck. Newbie my arse.


----------



## jarndyce (May 14, 2019)

Humberto said:


> It WAS racist.



I disagree. I think Baker was lampooning class not race.


----------



## The39thStep (May 14, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He does appear to be saying that the people of Boston have no right to complain when some people in the city raised funds for the IRA in the years before any of those killed by the bomb were born.


Does he ?


----------



## Humberto (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> I disagree. I think Baker was lampooning class not race.



Using a racist trope even inadvertently is a racist act though. You have to admit that.


----------



## jarndyce (May 14, 2019)

Humberto said:


> Using a racist trope even inadvertently is a racist act though. You have to admit that.


IMO: Only racist if you think he was seriously  negatively comparing a chimp with a human.


----------



## Humberto (May 14, 2019)

Using a racist trope, whatever the supposed intention, is a racist act. If people don't know better that is not the unintended (?) victim's fault in an unfair society.


----------



## scifisam (May 14, 2019)

Humberto said:


> Using a racist trope even inadvertently is a racist act though. You have to admit that.



Yeah, it was. Even if it was accidental it still has the same effect. 

Intent counts, though, largely because it means you can say whether it's likely to happen again.

I do worry a little, though. Is everyone except horrible racists going to turn away from Danny Baker now? It sort of looks that way. Is he going to sort of pushed into a racist fold? I mean he's just a DJ, he's not my friend, I'm not crying buckets for him or anything, but it's not like he's the only person who's ever going to be in such a situation. 

And I'm not sure it's a good idea to create such a huge divide between racists and non-racists where one way to step over into the racist side is to post a stupid picture with racist implications, lose your job, get investigated by the police, and be forever excluded from the non-racists, with racists their only friends. It's probably a pretty good way of pushing people much further into racism than they otherwise would have gone.

But then if that happens people will say see, told you so, he was a massive racist all along.


----------



## treelover (May 14, 2019)

Is this 'debate' raging elsewhere or just on urban?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 14, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, it was. Even if it was accidental it still has the same effect.
> 
> Intent counts, though, largely because it means you can say whether it's likely to happen again.
> 
> ...


People in the media tend to be held to higher standards than us mere mortals. It's the reason they have to think about everything they say and do. Unfortunately, Baker forgot to remember this.


----------



## Humberto (May 14, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, it was. Even if it was accidental it still has the same effect.
> 
> Intent counts, though, largely because it means you can say whether it's likely to happen again.
> 
> ...



I don't think he will fall into that fold, because it's my opinion that he is not a shitbag. That said I'm not going to hitch onto Danny Baker. I think, although people are saying WTF? are we talking about this man, that it is worthwhile saying that using a racist trope (be it an unintentional off the cuff tweet or a dog-whistle attempt at populism) should be called out and at the very least a full apology demanded.


----------



## Humberto (May 14, 2019)

* edited to try and be readable


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 14, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Does he ?



Yes, he does.


----------



## Athos (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> IMO: Only racist if you think he was seriously  negatively comparing a chimp with a human.



I think he's accepted the picture was racist, albeit he says he's not.


----------



## Augie March (May 14, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He does appear to be saying that the people of Boston have no right to complain when some people in the city raised funds for the IRA in the years before any of those killed by the bomb were born.



Yep that's exactly what he's saying and only hours after what had happened too. I remember reading it and thinking "what a pathetic fucking ghoul".

As I said: fuck him.

Anyway, I'm just glad to have contributed to this already stellar thread. Here's to another 30 pages of it


----------



## mango5 (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You silly woman.


 you silly man


----------



## cantsin (May 14, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> Baker has been sacked from his BBC post for Tweeting a picture of two people and a chimpanzee under the heading of 'Royal baby leaving hospital', or similar.
> 
> What a fucking arsehole.
> 
> ...



you're a total fraud, always have been


----------



## Poi E (May 14, 2019)

He'll feel better when he shakes off a bad case of British nationalism.


----------



## cantsin (May 14, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I think what Billy Bragg wrote is given benefit of the doubt likely true, but only up to the point of the apology. From there it all unravels.
> 
> *The understatement that he apologised "At first maybe a little begrudgingly" is the tip of Danny Baker's not-that-sorry attitude iceberg. He basically brushed it off as his turn to get picked on by the PC brigade. Its all about him you see. Nothing to do with people who have rightly and justifiably been upset and offended by his tweet - particularly those people who have been on the end of 'jokes' like this their whole lives.*



 the main bit in the initial apology that seemed to piss everyone off was ( paraphrase ) ' racial overtones hadn't occurred to me - don't have diseased mind ' - and whilst I can see how this just looks like blaming everyone else for seeing racism where, in his mind, there was none, as I said elsewhere, any racial element hadn't personally occurred to me when first sent the photo, so can see what he's trying to say, however clumsily.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Yeah, it was. Even if it was accidental it still has the same effect.
> 
> Intent counts, though, largely because it means you can say whether it's likely to happen again.
> 
> ...



I find the _what if _imagining of this a bit odd scifisam tbh. Does anyone actually live in this binary imagined place where people are simply racist or non-racist?

That isn't a world I recognise at all. It is far more complicated and human than that in my experience. This conversation hasn't even touched on the interesting bit IMO. We've all internalised racist ideas and beliefs, it's impossible to have escaped them in the society you and I live in with the history it has. It's how we deal with that fact that is the important thing IMO. That counts.

Repeating parts of earlier posts...

What is an actual racist? Someone who identifies as one?

Racism isn't a final destination type of thing. People who don't identify as racist can and do/say racist things.

People who are otherwise sound, who you look up to for other reasons, who you love, your friends, who you drink with, who have Black partners and colleagues and think of themselves as anti-racists can and do say a wide range of things that are racist. BAME people themselves can and do say shit that is racist too...None of us have escaped this fucking plague on all of our houses/minds.

Are there levels of racism, that a person has to do or say x, y, z for it to be racism and for them to be racist and called out as such? That someone either is or isn't racist?

How unthinking and offensive does someone have to be and how often to actually get the racism card handed to them so they can fuck off and work on their issues for a day, week, month, year?

I could give you countless examples of people saying racist shit even though they didn't/don't identify as racists...the idea that calling them out for it will lead them into the arms of card carrying/self-identified goons is a strange one. Because that's all it would take? Really?


----------



## Wilf (May 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> Is this 'debate' raging elsewhere or just on urban?


Well, yes, I imagine it is. And if your implication is that we shouldn't be up to 28 pages+ on it, I think you are wrong. The discussion about whether seemingly decent and sound people can actually be racist and/or do racist things is quite useful. I don't care about it as a sleb type issue and I've never actually heard Baker's radio show(s), but as a discussion of what amounts to racism it _is_ valuable.


----------



## scifisam (May 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I find the _what if _imagining of this a bit odd scifisam tbh. Does anyone actually live in this binary imagined place where people are simply racist or non-racist?
> 
> That isn't a world I recognise at all. We've all internalised racist ideas and beliefs, it's impossible to have escaped them i the society you and I live in. It's how we deal with that fact that is the important thing IMO.
> 
> ...



I'm not entirely sure what you mean but would like to.

It looks like you're saying there have always been otherwise nice people who have sometimes said racist things? And it doesn't mean the racist shit they say isn't racist. It still has the same effect.

But there _is_ a binary line these days. Danny Baker posted one racist tweet. He lost his job over one tweet. And now he'll be unfollowed by anti-racists and followed by more racists.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

scifisam said:


> I'm not entirely sure what you mean but would like to.


 What are you not sure of? What is confusing about what I have written above exactly?



> It looks like you're saying there have always been otherwise nice people who have sometimes said racist things? And it doesn't mean the racist shit they say isn't racist. It still has the same effect.


 Yes. That is one small part of what I have said above but not all of it.



> But there _is_ a binary line these days. Danny Baker posted one racist tweet. He lost his job over one tweet. And now he'll be unfollowed by anti-racists and followed by more racists.


 No I disagree,  people choosing not to continue to follow DB because of this isn't the same as saying someone simply _is or isn't a racist_ type of binary. People can choose not to trust him anymore, that doesn't mean they think he's racist to the core, it's because they feel he should've/could've done better. That they've decided to get their entertainment from elsewhere. Just like I chose not to continue a friendship with the Urbanite that called me a nigger mid joking banter during a night out. Or the other urbanite that posted a thread and threw the word nigger around for the lulz some years back because her then animus claimed to be Mixed and then when she apologised, many chose to give her the benefit of the doubt because she was their mate, a drinking buddy etc because she claimed to 'miscegenate' and not really be a racist . Some of us chose not to though because we have the choice and don't have to put up with that shit.


----------



## ska invita (May 14, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well, yes, I imagine it is. And if your implication is that we shouldn't be up to 28 pages+ on it, I think you are wrong. The discussion about whether seemingly decent and sound people can actually be racist and/or do racist things is quite useful. I don't care about it as a sleb type issue and I've never actually heard Baker's radio show(s), but as a discussion of what amounts to racism it _is_ valuable.


I think the reason the thread is running long is because it turns out there isnt a lot of agreement about it - thats what generates debate.
Treelover just started a thread about online abuse of people with disabilities...theres not much to talk about there as everyone is in agreement about it on here,


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

scifisam said:


> Danny Baker posted one racist tweet. He lost his job over one tweet. And now he'll be unfollowed by anti-racists and followed by more racists.



I can't see the latter sticking around if they need to wait half a century or so for each racist tweet.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> the main bit in the initial apology that seemed to piss everyone off was ( paraphrase ) ' racial overtones hadn't occurred to me - don't have diseased mind ' - and whilst I can see how this just looks like blaming everyone else for seeing racism where, in his mind, there was none, as I said elsewhere, any racial element hadn't personally occurred to me when first sent the photo, so can see what he's trying to say, however clumsily.


Initially I was the other way round and couldn't see how anyone could see it as anything _but_ racist. Over the last days though I've read more and more people, reasonable people, who like you, have said they didn't see it as racist at first blush either, and that's the element of doubt along with the fact that he has absolutely no track record of racial prejudice whatsoever. He's lost his job and attracted national opprobrium. If, as he maintains, it was a terrible mistake, that's an enormous price to pay. If it wasn't, he's got what he deserved.


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Well, yes, I imagine it is. And if your implication is that we shouldn't be up to 28 pages+ on it, I think you are wrong. The discussion about whether seemingly decent and sound people can actually be racist and/or do racist things is quite useful. I don't care about it as a sleb type issue and I've never actually heard Baker's radio show(s), but as a discussion of what amounts to racism it _is_ valuable.



One thing I found interesting was I took a look on the ARR-SE forum (an army forum that *hates* u75 - I’ve broken the name to avoid any potential boardwar nonsense), and found one post in a ‘latest snowflake bollocks’ thread which had no responses, and a thread devoted to it which was almost entirely unanimous in agreement with the sacking.

Edit:  to clarify, not on royalist grounds, aside from one deranged-sounding poster iirc


----------



## cantsin (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Initially I was the other way round and couldn't see how anyone could see it as anything _but_ racist. Over the last days though I've read more and more people, reasonable people, who like you, have said they didn't see it as racist at first blush either, and that's the element of doubt along with the fact that he has absolutely no track record of racial prejudice whatsoever. He's lost his job and attracted national opprobrium. If, as he maintains, it was a terrible mistake, that's an enormous price to pay. If it wasn't, he's got what he deserved.



exactly


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Initially I was the other way round and couldn't see how anyone could see it as anything _but_ racist. Over the last days though I've read more and more people, reasonable people, who like you, have said they didn't see it as racist at first blush either, and that's the element of doubt along with the fact that he has absolutely no track record of racial
> prejudice whatsoever. He's lost his job and attracted national opprobrium. If, as he maintains, it was a terrible mistake, that's an enormous price to pay. If it wasn't, he's got what he deserved.



I didn’t see it until after I’d been told it was racist, so ran it past a friend.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Initially I was the other way round and couldn't see how anyone could see it as anything _but_ racist. Over the last days though I've read more and more people, reasonable people, who like you, have said they didn't see it as racist at first blush either, and that's the element of doubt along with the fact that he has absolutely no track record of racial prejudice whatsoever. He's lost his job and attracted national opprobrium. If, as he maintains, it was a terrible mistake, that's an enormous price to pay. If it wasn't, he's got what he deserved.


I'm with Mation on this that the subsequent posts matter here, regardless of the original intention. The timeline is important. He has 500,000 followers, so we can safely assume that he was pulled up on the original tweet within a minute, probably within seconds. Certainly by the time the second tweet with the banana was made, he was already well aware that people were taking his first tweet to be a racist trope. The most charitable interpretation I can think of of that series of tweets is that he objected so strongly to being called on the first tweet that he thought he would post a series of other tweets showing that there was nothing racist about the first one: pc gone mad, I can't even hold a banana, or whatever. That's an awful response, really fucking awful, even if the first tweet had been an innocent mistake, while the third 'contains brown' tweet was downright nasty in the context. Any sympathy or inclination to give the benefit of the doubt from me is drained to zero from that point on.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> I didn’t see it until after I’d been told it was racist, so ran it past a friend.


This is what those of us who are aware of it don't/didn't get. How can you possibly not know about the monkeys/black people thing? But I tried asking lots of people at the weekend and was met by shrugs and confused looks by quite a few. Black people understand it, so do many football fans (which Baker is) but outside of that it's not as well known as I thought it was.


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is what those of us who are aware of it don't/didn't get. How can you possibly not know about the monkeys/black people thing? But I tried asking lots of people at the weekend and was met by shrugs and confused looks by quite a few. Black people understand it, so do many football fans (which Baker is) but outside of that it's not as well known as I thought it was.



This friend knew about it (the trope) think he just didn’t draw the dots toward it (the chimp in the pic) being related to race *in that particular instance.  As opposed to meaning something else.  Which he couldn’t fathom either tbf.

I don’t think I’d have connected it either because both of the adults are white humans (which I took to represent the child’s parents). It seemed to me that a committed racist (or even someone just playing Clarkson, which frankly is just as bad) would work a little harder on it.

I think if you have personal painful experience of that particular trope it’s going to hit harder and faster.


----------



## Ted Striker (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is what those of us who are aware of it don't/didn't get. How can you possibly not know about the monkeys/black people thing? But I tried asking lots of people at the weekend and was met by shrugs and confused looks by quite a few. Black people understand it, so do many football fans (which Baker is) but outside of that it's not as well known as I thought it was.



It's not the Monkeys/Black people thing...It's Baby is MM's/MM has black heritage.

Equally bonkers of course, though I guess it's not outside the realms of possibilities for someone not to be in the _bubble_ (is it a bubble if the majority is involved?!) that is front and centre aware (as we all are) that MM has black heritage.


----------



## Fedayn (May 14, 2019)

Augie March said:


> Yep that's exactly what he's saying and only hours after what had happened too. I remember reading it and thinking "what a pathetic fucking ghoul".
> 
> As I said: fuck him.
> 
> Anyway, I'm just glad to have contributed to this already stellar thread. Here's to another 30 pages of it



Fuckinghell, you back again? It has been a while has it not?


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> It's not the Monkeys/Black people thing...It's Baby is MM's/MM has black heritage.
> 
> Equally bonkers of course, though I guess it's not outside the realms of possibilities for someone not to be in the _bubble_ (is it a bubble if the majority is involved?!) that is front and centre aware (as we all are) that MM has black heritage.



I’m pretty sure I’d have missed it, and I have one black grandparent just like the royal babby.  I’ve never been called anything related to monkeys or apes, though, that I recall (aside from a “cheeky monkey).

Now, if the pic included a golliwog I’ve no doubt I would have been incandescent.

Edit:  plus (and this may be a silly quirk just on my part), I always associate those chimps with those old tea adverts, where they always played class-based caricatures of white people iirc.


----------



## tommers (May 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> This friend knew about it (the trope) think he just didn’t draw the dots toward it (the chimp in the pic) being related to race *in that particular instance.  As opposed to meaning something else.  Which he couldn’t fathom either tbf.
> 
> I don’t think I’d have connected it either because both of the adults are white humans (which I took to represent the child’s parents). It seemed to me that a committed racist (or even someone just playing Clarkson, which frankly is just as bad) would work a little harder on it.
> 
> I think if you have personal painful experience of that particular trope it’s going to hit harder and faster.



I saw it at the time and thought "oh, it's another one of his weird pictures that I don't understand" and moved on to the next thing.  Didn't even cross my mind.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 14, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> I disagree. I think Baker was lampooning class not race.



Hi Firky.  

Seriously, dude I stood up for the newbie and you post stupid shit like this?  It was racist AF.  

You're making me do something I hate.  I have to admit that Rutita was right about you.


----------



## billy_bob (May 14, 2019)

With Rutita1 on this. I don't care whether he identifies as A Racist or not. If you do something racist unthinkingly, then you've bought into racist tropes that are endemic in society, then you're a racist whether you consciously think you are or not. It may not be your _fault _you have that stuff in your brain and don't have the wit and awareness to challenge it for yourself before you've posted it online - we're all at the mercy of the social context to _some _extent. But if you want a way out of the hole you've dug, saying it can't have been racist because you're Not A Racist is not it. Admitting that you've propagated a racist slur, even if it was unconsciously, and therefore you need to check your own assumptions and do better in the future might be a better stab in that direction. 

In fairness, though, this is what's always expected of celebs who've done a bigotry. Not, yes, I apologise because I accept that however I meant it, the thing itself was bigoted; but no, you've got it all wrong, it might have looked like bigotry but it can't have been, because I'm Not A Bigot.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> You're making me do something I hate.  I have to admit that Rutita was right about you.



What do you mean by this?


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

It’s very rare for a racist to actually identify as one (I can only think of full-on white supremacists, and it’s only even a minority with them!). I’m not aware anyone on this thread thought that identification (or not) was any kind of argument at all.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> It’s very rare for a racist to actually identify as one.  I’m not aware anyone on this thread thought that was any kind of argument at all.



Well that's the bloody point! Alongside the point that even if people are members/supporters of particular groups and commonly post certain stuff they will still say 'I'm not a racist but...'


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (May 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> What do you mean by this?



I hate admitting that you were right about the newbie being a troll.  I'm feeling pretty naive.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 14, 2019)

Humberto said:


> Using a racist trope, whatever the supposed intention, is a racist act.



I disagree that it's that simple. You have to look at things in context.

E.g. I was at a Specials gig once in LA and there was this black security guard telling everyone on the seating level of the theater to sit down. Around that point band member Lynval Golding (also black for those unaware) had a go at him and called him a 'monkey man' - and then the band played the track of the same name. Surely nobody would suggest that he, a black member of the Specials, calling a black guy a monkey was anything other than a reference to the track and ape-like bully bouncers. Nothing to do with race.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> I hate admitting that you were right about the newbie being a troll.  I'm feeling pretty naive.


Ah I see. I  try to keep an open mind about newbies however this one stunk very quickly in the join date/posts/who was liking their posts stakes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2019)

Yeah intention counts. It has to. If you really had never encountered the racist monkey comparison before, you might easily use an image like this in a context where it's misunderstood. Doesn't have to mean you're being 'subconsciously racist' either. That's where, in this case, Baker's longstanding Millwall association matters. As a Millwall fan, he _cannot_ have been unaware of such connotations.


----------



## billy_bob (May 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> It’s very rare for a racist to actually identify as one (I can only think of full-on white supremacists, and it’s only even a minority with them!). I’m not aware anyone on this thread thought that identification (or not) was any kind of argument at all.



Er yeah, that's the point. Identification as a racist is the criterion that people who have publicly done a racist thing have to prove themselves on. What's come to be expected of them is 'But I'm not one, so it can't have been'.


----------



## billy_bob (May 14, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> I disagree that it's that simple. You have to look at things in context.
> 
> E.g. I was at a Specials gig once in LA and there was this black security guard telling everyone on the seating level of the theater to sit down. Around that point band member Lynval Golding (also black for those unaware) had a go at him and called him a 'monkey man' - and then the band played the track of the same name. Surely nobody would suggest that he, a black member of the Specials, calling a black guy a monkey was anything other than a reference to the track and ape-like bully bouncers. Nothing to do with race.



Yes, but any kind of trope includes an understanding of the context in which it's replicated. The trope is white people comparing black people to monkeys as a result of white people traditionally considering black people inferior, not just anyone making any link between humans and monkeys. PG Tips weren't being racist. So clearly it's not the same thing when a black person compares a person, white or black, to a monkey. But equally it's clearly not enough for a white person to say, well, I wasn't thinking about that when I said it, so that's okay - which means that intent is at the very least secondary to the act and its context.


----------



## tommers (May 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah intention counts. It has to. If you really had never encountered the racist monkey comparison before, you might easily use an image like this in a context where it's misunderstood. Doesn't have to mean you're being 'subconsciously racist' either. That's where, in this case, Baker's longstanding Millwall association matters. As a Millwall fan, he _cannot_ have been unaware of such connotations.



As a West Ham fan I'm not unaware of those connotations.  I still didn't make the connection when I saw the picture. I mean, I guess it takes more effort to post it than just skim over it but it's that he didn't make the connection, not that he's completely unaware of the whole history of it.



billy_bob said:


> Er yeah, that's the point. Identification as a racist is the criterion that people who have publicly done a racist thing have to prove themselves on. What's come to be expected of them is 'But I'm not one, so it can't have been'.



He said it was racist and apologised to everybody who had been offended.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

tommers said:


> He said it was racist and apologised to everybody who had been offended.


 Then ridiculed those people during his live show.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 14, 2019)

tommers said:


> As a West Ham fan I'm not unaware of those connotations.  I still didn't make the connection when I saw the picture. I mean, I guess it takes more effort to post it than just skim over it but it's that he didn't make the connection, not that he's completely unaware of the whole history of it.


That's where the pic of him holding a banana 15 minutes later comes in. Soz, maybe he was just being thick with the first one (we all have moments...). No such excuse for the second.


----------



## ska invita (May 14, 2019)

cantsin said:


> the main bit in the initial apology that seemed to piss everyone off was ( paraphrase ) ' racial overtones hadn't occurred to me - don't have diseased mind ' - and whilst I can see how this just looks like blaming everyone else for seeing racism where, in his mind, there was none, as I said elsewhere, any racial element hadn't personally occurred to me when first sent the photo, so can see what he's trying to say, however clumsily.


Every stage of the apologies and lies of innocence was wrongheaded IMO, but as you say on the issue of 'diseased minds'  he's pouring salt on the wounds of people who have experienced just this kind of racism. Imagine you've been subject to monkey-related (or similiar) abuse throughout your life, you are offended by Dannys tweet, and then you get slurred as having a diseased mind for even seeing/feeling it? But it doesnt stop there - you then you get a lemon thrown at you and the threat of a proverbial snooker cue to follow for good measure to the sound of great applause.

We've already been over this, but if it didnt occur to you and then it was pointed out to you that you've just added a fat and widely seen insult to whats already a pile of racialised comment about Meghan and her baby how would you feel? Would you care only about yourself or would you be mortified and want to undo some of the extra race-hate thats been added to the social consciousness? From what I can see DB did the first not the second. And it comes across as telling.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

billy_bob said:


> But equally it's clearly not enough for a white person to say, well, I wasn't thinking about that when I said it, so that's okay - which means that intent is at the very least secondary to the act and its context.


Baker hasn’t just said that though has he? He’s said ‘sorry, sorry, sorry, it was a massive mistake etc etc’ along with ‘that’s not what’s I was thinking’.


----------



## billy_bob (May 14, 2019)

tommers said:


> He said it was racist and apologised to everybody who had been offended.



After much flailing about trying to find another way out of it, he accepted that if you took it on face value it obviously looked racist. It doesn't look like he would have done the second if the first had worked.


----------



## tommers (May 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's where the pic of him holding a banana 15 minutes later comes in. Soz, maybe he was just being really thick with the first one. No such excuse for the second.



Yeah, I can only think he was so angry about loads of people calling him a racist that he reacted to it.  But it was a shitty reaction.


----------



## billy_bob (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Baker hasn’t just said that though has he? He’s said ‘sorry, sorry, sorry, it was a massive mistake etc etc’ along with ‘that’s not what’s I was thinking’.



I was responding to skyscraper101 's comment to Humberto at the top of this page in the comment you've quoted, not directly to what Baker's done - I've come to this thread a little late to have anything original to say on that, and I'm trying to make a broader comment that it would be better if the public focus was on the racism certain words and acts connote, however they're meant, rather than on dividing people into racists and not-racists.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

tommers said:


> Yeah, I can only think he was so angry about loads of people calling him a racist that he reacted to it.  But it was a shitty reaction.


It was stupid. It was either him being a real racist and deciding ‘well fuck it, the mask has slipped, I may as well go all out now’, or a panic reaction to try to make light of things at the realisation of the gravity of what he’d posted. Really fucking stupid. He should have put the phone down and gone to bed.


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 14, 2019)

billy_bob said:


> Yes, but any kind of trope includes an understanding of the context in which it's replicated. The trope is white people comparing black people to monkeys as a result of white people traditionally considering black people inferior, not just anyone making any link between humans and monkeys.



I agree. That's what what I'm saying - context is key. It can't just boil down to "a black person being called a monkey = automatically racist" - it has to be considered who is the one doing the calling, and the context.

So were it not for Baker's long association with Millwall, I might've given him the benefit of the doubt as regards to the royal family/circus animals angle, but as things stand I'm not giving him that. Especially in wider context of his previous on the Boston marathon bombing, Trump era politics and monkey chants at football stuff happening at England games and elsewhere, he has to accept this. He's no newcomer to this. But I do insist that context is key.


----------



## Nanker Phelge (May 14, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> I disagree that it's that simple. You have to look at things in context.
> 
> E.g. I was at a Specials gig once in LA and there was this black security guard telling everyone on the seating level of the theater to sit down. Around that point band member Lynval Golding (also black for those unaware) had a go at him and called him a 'monkey man' - and then the band played the track of the same name. Surely nobody would suggest that he, a black member of the Specials, calling a black guy a monkey was anything other than a reference to the track and ape-like bully bouncers. Nothing to do with race.



The Specials version of that song has always been 'for the bouncers'


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Really fucking stupid. He should have put the phone down and gone to bed.



Still, at least it’s vanishingly improbable that anything remotely similar will ever happen on the internet ever again.


----------



## planetgeli (May 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> Still, at least it’s vanishingly improbable that anything remotely similar will ever happen on the internet ever again.



Indeed. But will we react to it. What has made us react to Danny Baker? Personally I had a dog in the race, can’t stand the egotistical cunt and have personal reasons for doing so (he’s a mate of my brother who I also don’t hold in high regard). But many here also made it a quite personal thing against Baker despite admitting virtually no knowledge of him. So, for all the protestations against ‘we are Urban, we don’t do Sleb’ - are you sure?

Anyway, about it not happening again. It has. Obviously. But because in not such a direct way, no monkey tropes this time, and not even a C-list, more D-list version of celebrity, will this make 30 pages? I think not.

Put the smartphone down Aggers old chap. This spat really isn’t cricket | Barney Ronay

I’m not going to tell you who Jonathan Agnew is, above and beyond BBC journalist. White. English. Middle class. Likewise, his adversary in this spat Jonathon Liew, a journalist for the Independent. Chinese. Middle class. The spat involves nothing so sexy as the royal family and a baby and a monkey trope. Just plain old racism from Agnew, questioning the ‘rushed’ introduction into the England cricket team of Jofra Archer. Black, Bajun. And how it will upset the ‘culture’of the side.

Liew dared to question the exact reasons for Agnew’s objections without ever raising, quite, the word racism. Agnew went ballistic, called Liew a cunt several times on Twitter (oh look, that again), questioned Liew’s mental health, and has been ‘reprimanded’ for his actions. No job losses here though.

See, monkey tropes, that’s racist, and we can all agree for he’s a jolly bad fellow. Present a racist argument in covered tones, possibly because you went to a nice school that taught you to say culture, not race, and you get to keep your job. And not get 30 pages on Urban. 

I don’t, and have never supported Baker’s position. Look at my posts. But I’m willing to bet Jonathan Agnew has never been in to a retail shop in the middle of London and torn down a Nazi themed window display.


----------



## 8ball (May 14, 2019)

I think you read too much into my post, I just meant that people will continue saying dumb things on the internet, but that deserves a sacking as much as a well-worn trope reference in my book (at least, going by your post, and not knowing anything about the parties involved).


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Indeed. But will we react to it. What has made us react to Danny Baker? Personally I had a dog in the race, can’t stand the egotistical cunt and have personal reasons for doing so (he’s a mate of my brother who I also don’t hold in high regard). But many here also made it a quite personal thing against Baker despite admitting virtually no knowledge of him. So, for all the protestations against ‘we are Urban, we don’t do Sleb’ - are you sure?
> 
> Anyway, about it not happening again. It has. Obviously. But because in not such a direct way, no monkey tropes this time, and not even a C-list, more D-list version of celebrity, will this make 30 pages? I think not.
> 
> ...


This is comparing apples with oranges though. Agnew's a silly old cunt, the likes of whom are still around in cricket (and all sports) but are fortunately a dying breed. A generation from now they won't exist. He's far from alone in expressing that opinion (although he obviously doesn't realise that it's a racist one). Good on Liew for taking him on but you wouldn't expect the BBC to censor that kind of writing or punish him from holding such opinions. That's a question of freedom of expression. He's free to write like that, as indeed are Katie Hopkins, et al, and a fuck load of columnists of all political shades whose writings cause offence. We in turn are free to call them fuckwits.


----------



## planetgeli (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is comparing apples with oranges though. Agnew's a silly old cunt, the likes of whom are still around in cricket (and all sports) but are fortunately a dying breed. A generation from now they won't exist. He's far from alone in expressing that opinion (although he obviously doesn't realise that it's a racist one). Good on Liew for taking him on but you wouldn't expect the BBC to censor that kind of writing or punish him from holding such opinions. That's a question of freedom of expression. He's free to write like that, as indeed are Katie Hopkins, et al, and a fuck load of columnists of all political shades whose writings cause offence. We in turn are free to call them fuckwits.



Sorry Spy, I kinda disagree while being obviously on the same side as you. I don’t think it’s apples and oranges and, as the spat followed on Twitter, I don’t see how it’s any different and a ‘freedom of expression issue’. Baker, if anything, is from an older generation than Agnew, and so will not be around even quicker. The BBC has punished him with a reprimand, however that goes onto a BBC contract.

We certainly agree he’s a fuckwit.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Sorry Spy, I kinda disagree while being obviously on the same side as you. I don’t think it’s apples and oranges and, as the spat followed on Twitter, I don’t see how it’s any different and a ‘freedom of expression issue’. Baker, if anything, is from an older generation than Agnew, and so will not be around even quicker. The BBC has punished him with a reprimand, however that goes onto a BBC contract.
> 
> We certainly agree he’s a fuckwit.


There's a difference though, isn't there? 

Do you think that all right wing columnists should be fired and no-platformed?


----------



## planetgeli (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> There's a difference though, isn't there?
> 
> Do you think that all right wing columnists should be fired and no-platformed?



I haven’t beaten my wife since at least last week.

Sorry Spy, shouldn’t have started something I can’t sustain (see Health thread).

All the best though.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> I haven’t beaten my wife since at least last week.
> 
> Sorry Spy, shouldn’t have started something I can’t sustain (see Health thread).
> 
> All the best though.


No worries at all. You're expressing an opinion that many in the cricketing media agree with. I just think there's a difference between someone deliberately being racially offensive (as Baker is accused of by some) and a columnist expressing honestly held, silly old fart opinions, which is what Aggers has done.


----------



## D'wards (May 14, 2019)

Joe Frazier had helped out Mohammed Ali finacially during the period he was banned from boxing for refusing to fight in the Vietnam War.

After the ban was up they were scheduled to fight each other. In the pre match build up Ali kept calling Frazier a gorilla, knowing full well the racial connotations. He did this cos he also labelled him a white man's bitch, so used an evil white racial term against him. Ali turned black America against Frazier.

Ali was a pretty unpleasant character, but no one seems to hold it against him these days

https://www.chicagotribune.com/opin...r-villain-perspec-0609-md-20160608-story.html


----------



## ffsear (May 14, 2019)

Are there any other certified examples of Danny Baker being a racist before this tweet ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Liew dared to question the exact reasons for Agnew’s objections without ever raising, quite, the word racism. Agnew went ballistic, called Liew a cunt several times on Twitter (oh look, that again), questioned Liew’s mental health,



Similar has happened to me here on urban many times over the years...no doubt it will again! 

It's one of the new _'but some of my friends are Black' and_ is to accuse you of calling someone a racist when you actually haven't for simply interrogating the meaning of what they have said, sometimes because it's clearly dodgey as fuck, other times because you think they are overlooking the connotations it has. Not because you want to label someone a racist but because you want people to think about the 'meaning' they are making. It's a common approach to shutting conversation down and trying to undermine the point being made. quite frankly, the idea that we are all either racist or not is not only bullshit, it also gives people a place to hide and attack from _'are you fucking calling me a racist' = attack mode_...not open to thinking about what is being said and why.



> See, monkey tropes, that’s racist, and we can all agree for he’s a jolly bad fellow. Present a racist argument in covered tones, possibly because you went to a nice school that taught you to say culture, not race, and you get to keep your job. And not get 30 pages on Urban.
> 
> .


 I don't follow cricket, know who these people are or use twitter much... I'd have come out batting for Liew on this every day of the week though...and no, old, colonial, institutionalised codgers do not get a hall pass. Hell fucking no.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

ffsear said:


> Are there any other certified examples of Danny Baker being a racist before this tweet ?



Why does this matter? Some people don't find him in the least bit funny but are you asking them for evidence that he has every been unfunny before? It's irrelevant for all of the reasons myself and others have taken time to example over and over again. Racism isn't a destination and for most of us being racist  isn't a permanent state.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and no, old, colonial, institutionalised codgers do not get a hall pass. Hell fucking no.


 Do you think anyone has suggested they should?


----------



## Santino (May 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Do you think anyone has suggested they should?


Sigh. Has anyone suggested that anyone has suggested that?


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

Santino said:


> Sigh. Has anyone suggested that anyone has suggested that?


Why mention it otherwise? It's not a question of them getting a pass but of whether or not they should be fired or censured for publishing their crusty old opinions, which is what Planetgeli meant.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

> Why mention it otherwise?





planetgeli said:


> I’m not going to tell you who Jonathan Agnew is, above and beyond BBC journalist. White. English. Middle class. Likewise, his adversary in this spat Jonathon Liew, a journalist for the Independent. Chinese. Middle class. The spat involves nothing so sexy as the royal family and a baby and a monkey trope. Just plain old racism from Agnew, questioning the ‘rushed’ introduction into the England cricket team of Jofra Archer. Black, Bajun. And how it will upset the ‘culture’of the side.





Spymaster said:


> Agnew's a silly old cunt, the likes of whom are still around in cricket (and all sports) but are fortunately a dying breed. A generation from now they won't exist. He's far from alone in expressing that opinion (although he obviously doesn't realise that it's a racist one). Good on Liew for taking him on but you wouldn't expect the BBC to censor that kind of writing or punish him from holding such opinions. That's a question of freedom of expression. He's free to write like that, as indeed are Katie Hopkins, et al, and a fuck load of columnists of all political shades whose writings cause offence. We in turn are free to call them fuckwits.





Rutita1 said:


> I don't follow cricket, know who these people are or use twitter much... I'd have come out batting for Liew on this every day of the week though...and no, old, colonial, institutionalised codgers do not get a hall pass. Hell fucking no.



Fucking mystery alright.


----------



## Spymaster (May 14, 2019)

You're not making any sense and seem to have misunderstood the point entirely.

Or are you agreeing with me?


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 14, 2019)

For those who are uncomfortable about DB losing his job. This happened recently...didn't make much news though.



> It’s 7am. I am on the Jeremy Vine show and he has just instigated the topic of race. Here we go again. Rather than doing the usual introduction to the show and discussing my book, I have just said that I have been held back in my career as a broadcaster because of the colour of my skin. I was immediately attacked by my two fellow panellists, both women. The first told me there are ‘loads of black female presenters’. I asked her to name one household name. She couldn’t. Instead I was told ‘there were Christmas adverts featuring mixed race couples’. Less than a few days after the episode, I was contacted by my agent with a message to say I had been dropped as the new face of one of the biggest multi billion pound companies in the world as ‘they have seen your clip on Jeremy Vine’ and ‘don’t want to be associated with racial controversy’.



I will not stop talking about the racism I face even if it means I lose jobs | Metro News

Watch the video of the interview in the link.

Talk about the racism that you face, how it has held you back and then get sacked for it. Because sssshhhhhhhhhh _racial controversy_.

On top of that, baited and insulted by some idiot who disagrees with you on the flimsy evidence that she can only think of one Black woman presenter and even then can't even remember her name. 

No anti-racist points for actually knowing who she was referring to. It's fucking obvious because _she_ was the only one, they were that few. Which is the point being made all along that this model/presenter has been punished/sacked for actually knowing and having the gall to say.


----------



## jarndyce (May 15, 2019)

Yuwipi Woman said:


> Hi Firky.
> 
> Seriously, dude I stood up for the newbie and you post stupid shit like this?  It was racist AF.
> 
> You're making me do something I hate.  I have to admit that Rutita was right about you.





Rutita1 said:


> Ah I see. I  try to keep an open mind about newbies however this one stunk very quickly in the join date/posts/who was liking their posts stakes.



I infer by this that you think I’m an ex-member whose username was Firky?

For the record, I’m not, despite whatever similarities we apparently share.

Besides which, yes — I’ve been a member for a few months and rarely post, but why is that some kind of “troll squatting” tactic? I only visit this site when I remember it exists and come to read and give my opinion on a few posts (even if those opinions aren’t shared by most). 

Apologies if I’m not following the correct etiquette. 

J


----------



## Gromit (May 15, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> I disagree. I think Baker was lampooning class not race.


Whether or not it was inadvertent racism it was still racist. He has admitted as much himself whilst stating it was inadvertent.


----------



## Pac man (May 15, 2019)

billy_bob said:


> With Rutita1 on this. I don't care whether he identifies as A Racist or not. If you do something racist unthinkingly, then you've bought into racist tropes that are endemic in society, then you're a racist whether you consciously think you are or not.


What a crock of absolute shit..Some really need to get the fuck out more, off their soap box and start enjoying life..


----------



## Pac man (May 15, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Why does this matter? Some people don't find him in the least bit funny but are you asking them for evidence that he has every been unfunny before? It's irrelevant for all of the reasons myself and others have taken time to example over and over again. Racism isn't a destination and for most of us being racist  isn't a permanent state.


 Just because you think youv'e explained "all" of the reasons over and over again, doesn't make any of them in anayway legitimate. I'd personally if i was you, target those "everyday" racists like Yaxley,,not the ones that hide in the closet for 60 fecking years..

oh yes and the friend that took the time to get to know you on here, the one you were out drinking with having a right good laugh, who said something fucking stupid by calling you ther N word..why not forgive him show a bit of compassion, he/she clearly liked you..you seem to be a very angry hateful person..

I had forgotten completely that MM was mixed race, that they had a mixed race baby, i couldn't give a fk what colour it is..i had no idea MM was even mixed race, i thought she had a nice tan until it was mentioned in the press..Even the other day when they were on telly i forgot..

Some of us don't spend our lives looking for shit to reinforce our confirmation bias..
I wish DB had the balls to admit there was nothing racist intended whatsoever, and therfore just an error and shouldnt loose his fucking job for something so daft..fucking pathetic but you seem happy for people to lose their jobs and livelyhoods over a silly mistake..you and many others have shown just how vengeful, spineless and cowardly people can be. Intent is everything, as for all your weasling around how people have to and should be more careful..fuck right off..thats right youv'e told enough people on this thread to fuck off yourself..i don't have a racist bone in my body but il'l be fucked if im going to moderate what i say to appease the PC brigade.."racism isn't a destination" what utter feckless garbage.

I live in a small village in north yorks, theres plenty of racists here, they hide it a bit better now is all..but still it comes out week in and week out, you cant drink in a pub here without experiencing it..I don't let it pass if its overt, i make enemies, people ostracise me because they think im some kind of snowflake..but fk them and fk you..your'e as bad as each other.


----------



## Poi E (May 15, 2019)

Pac man said:


> oh yes and the friend that took the time to get to know you on here, the one you were out drinking with having a right good laugh, who said something fucking stupid by calling you ther N word..why not forgive him show a bit of compassion, he/she clearly liked you..you seem to be a very angry hateful person..
> .



"Calm down, woman, you're being aggressive".

FFS Pacman.


----------



## Augie March (May 15, 2019)

Fedayn said:


> Fuckinghell, you back again? It has been a while has it not?



It has indeed. I have a "classic u75 thread" notification on my phone and when I saw this one, I thought I'd jump back in.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 15, 2019)

Oh look, another sleeper login has been reactivated to come and join in the fun.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 15, 2019)

It's very difficult for someone of Baker's age (or mine for that matter) to say that they were not exposed to vast amounts of routine racism back in the 60s and 70s. Years of  history classes about bringing civilization to our Commonwealth (which had been our Empire a short time before) or Monty Python's 'hilarious' name Mrs N...... If you don't remember that don't imagine I'm going to explain: not everybody got it as satire at the time.

So I find myself unthinkingly having these attitudes and then thinkingly saying to myself 'Come on John that's just the 70s talking, you can do better'.

Danny Baker is on balance of probability not a racist but he did do a racist thing, very very publicly. He could have policed himself better at the time, he's more or less managed up till now which makes me think he's not 'a racist' as such.  He could have resigned. He could have apologised properly straight away (that suggestion that he doesn't have a diseased mind means that I do?) and generally not have been such a dick about it. There's lots of things he could have done but didn't do. He deserved everything he got.

I don't accept that 'intent' has any bearing on this. You are punished for mistakes too.

Really his being or not being a racist is irrelevant.


----------



## billy_bob (May 15, 2019)

Pac man said:


> What a crock of absolute shit..Some really need to get the fuck out more, off their soap box and start enjoying life..



Thanks for your feedback


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2019)

So, to sum up; hardly any of us are in complete agreement about this!


----------



## JuanTwoThree (May 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> So, to sum up; hardly any of us are in complete agreement about this!



Agreed


----------



## skyscraper101 (May 15, 2019)

ffsear said:


> Are there any other certified examples of Danny Baker being a racist before this tweet ?



Dunno about racist, but there was this incredibly crass tweet he posted right after the Boston marathon bombing. Defended by the BBC at the time, and still undeleted from his twitter BTW.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2019)

For some reason zebedee, ermintrude and dougal keep coming to mind


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 15, 2019)

Pac man said:


> Just because you think youv'e explained "all" of the reasons over and over again, doesn't make any of them in anayway legitimate. I'd personally if i was you, target those "everyday" racists like Yaxley,,not the ones that hide in the closet for 60 fecking years..


 Everyday racists? I think with that description you have outed yourself as a bit of a twit tbh.  The kind of twit who thinks they know what they are talking about but doesn't. The kind of twit that can't think any deeper than the binary of people being _fully _racist or non-racist. Everyday racism isn't just the kind that Yaxley-lennon spouts at all although that is still common enough.

IME everyday racism comes in many guises, associations, shitty comparasons, careless phrasing, pathetic self preserving excuses, dismissive responses, the inability to listen and learn,  in the way we have all been taught to think of and value (or not) ourselves and each other, in the hierarchies we create, in attacking those that know and understand the dynamics better than you do, patting the head or abusing the very people who have had to put up with this shit their whole lives and have had no choice but to learn to understand and navigate it. Some of us still take an interest and care about this stuff so we aren't intimidated by people like you who try to undermine and insult us because _it makes you feel uncomfortable and you prefer not_ to engage with it.



> oh yes and the friend that took the time to get to know you on here, the one you were out drinking with having a right good laugh, who said something fucking stupid by calling you ther N word..why not forgive him show a bit of compassion, he/she clearly liked you..you seem to be a very angry hateful person..



Do you also tell little girls that boys are only hitting them because they like them? 

No, this person did not call me a nigger because they liked me. No, I do not have to put up with friends who call me a nigger. No, it was not just 'saying something stupid'. No, I am not a hateful person for having personal boundaries and not being interested in a friendship with anyone who thinks that they can use racial epithets. No, I do not lack compassion, in fact fucking that idiot off was an act of compassion towards myself.  So no, you do not get to dismiss me as a hateful, angry person because I put my own feelings and well-being before those of someone who not only called me a nigger but then went on to have a hissy-fit and centred their own feelings as if I had been the one who abused them. No. I couldn't give a rats behind if that pleases you or not tbh.

Angry? Yes, sometimes. apoplectic and proud. That is an appropriate, human response. Perhaps you think that implying that i'm just simply an  _angry black lady _will take the wind out of my sails and hurt m feelings? That I will be ashamed and silenced by such a common insult?  Dream on.



> I had forgotten completely that MM was mixed race, that they had a mixed race baby, i couldn't give a fk what colour it is..i had no idea MM was even mixed race, i thought she had a nice tan until it was mentioned in the press..Even the other day when they were on telly i forgot..
> 
> Some of us don't spend our lives looking for shit to reinforce our confirmation bias..


Tell someone who cares.




> I wish DB had the balls to admit there was nothing racist intended whatsoever, and therfore just an error and shouldnt loose his fucking job for something so daft..fucking pathetic but you seem happy for people to lose their jobs and livelyhoods over a silly mistake..you and many others have shown just how vengeful, spineless and cowardly people can be. Intent is everything, as for all your weasling around how people have to and should be more careful..fuck right off..thats right youv'e told enough people on this thread to fuck off yourself..i don't have a racist bone in my body but il'l be fucked if im going to moderate what i say to appease the PC brigade.."racism isn't a destination" what utter feckless garbage.



Am I supposed to be hurt by you telling me to fuck off?  Clean the spittle off of your computer screen and try harder. 

LOL 'PC brigade'. 'No racist bone in my body' Are you also colour-blind? 

You don't seem to understand  the varied dynamics of racism, it is far more complicated than you care to accept. We have all be affected by it because we internalise it whether we want to or not. Intent isn't everything. I haven't commented much on DB losing his job... don't care either way, I've also said that if it wasn't MM and PH's kid who he insulted he probably would have weathered this. I linked to an example of someone else losing their job because of racism above. What do you think about that? Do you care enough to comment? How do you imagine that woman feels about the fucked up way she has been treated?



> I live in a small village in north yorks, theres plenty of racists here, they hide it a bit better now is all..but still it comes out week in and week out, you cant drink in a pub here without experiencing it..I don't let it pass if its overt, i make enemies, people ostracise me because they think im some kind of snowflake..but fk them and fk you..your'e as bad as each other.



What I love about people like you is that you often round off rather silly verbal assaults like this with a story in which you are the _real_ hero in all of this, championing and challenging against all the odds and at great personal cost to yourself.  You think that anything you have said even comes remotely close to convincing me that my lifetime's experiences and those of others around me have led me/others to the wrong conclusions, but you, somehow magically know better?

Still at least you didn't use the 'but my Black friend/partner/child/relative says' variation, that's always nice. You think that just the _overt kind of _racism that you care about enough to acknowledge is all there is to it. You are wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> For some reason zebedee, ermintrude and dougal keep coming to mind


Dylan.


----------



## A380 (May 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> So, to sum up; hardly any of us are in complete agreement about this!


No! You’re wrong about that!!


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2019)

Police taking no further action as the threshold for criminal action has not been met. 

Some sense at last.


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Dylan.



You forgot Florence!


----------



## 8ball (May 15, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> You forgot Florence!



Everyone does.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Police taking no further action as the threshold for criminal action has not been met.
> 
> Some sense at last.


Unbelievable that resources were wasted on chasing it up.
I wonder who decided it would be in the public's interest to do so.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Unbelievable that resources were wasted on chasing it up.
> I wonder who decided it would be in the public's interest to do so.


I doubt there was much work done on it. Half an hour on the internet and a quick whoops down the back of a filing cabinet. I guess if some dickhead makes a complaint to the police they need to at least pay it lip service.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Police taking no further action as the threshold for criminal action has not been met.
> 
> Some sense at last.


it's not sense

It's just cops doing what they do for so much other reported crimes, saying 'nothing to see here' while they stuff doughnuts down their throats


----------



## Pickman's model (May 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I doubt there was much work done on it. Half an hour on the internet and a quick whoops down the back of a filing cabinet. I guess if some dickhead makes a complaint to the police they need to at least pay it lip service.


29 minutes of doughnut scoffing, 30 seconds utter panic and 30 seconds typing an email saying 'no crime has been committed'


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2019)

Not that surprising that someone took it at face racist value and complained. Police investigate racist monkey chants at football.


----------



## Athos (May 15, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Not that surprising that someone took it at face racist value and complained. Police investigate racist monkey chants at football.


Not quite the same, though, is it?  The cunts that do that are clearly being deliberately and explicitly racist, whereas he can at least argue that he wasn't (not defending him, or saying he shouldn't have been sacked, but we need some nuance to distinguish between out-and-out racists and people who - possibly inadvertently - do something that causes offence on the grounds of race).


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Not quite the same, though, is it?  The cunts that do that are clearly being deliberately and explicitly racist, whereas he can at least argue that he wasn't (not defending him, or saying he shouldn't have been sacked, but we need some nuance to distinguish between out-and-out racists and people who - possibly inadvertently - do something that causes offence on the grounds of race).


Far too reasonable.


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Not quite the same, though, is it?  The cunts that do that are clearly being deliberately and explicitly racist, whereas he can at least argue that he wasn't (not defending him, or saying he shouldn't have been sacked, but we need some nuance to distinguish between out-and-out racists and people who - possibly inadvertently - do something that causes offence on the grounds of race).


The whole point is that no doubt many people, particularly those at the sharp end of racism did experience it as exactly the same thing. That's why he got fired. And that's likely why someone complained to the police.

Not sure what Spy is on about,  he experienced it as such at first too.


----------



## Athos (May 15, 2019)

ska invita said:


> The whole point is that no doubt many people, particularly those at the sharp end of racism did experience it as exactly the same thing. That's why he got fired. And that's likely why someone complained to the police.
> 
> Not sure what Spy is on about,  he experienced it as such at first too.



Yeah, I get that. And that's why what he did was wrong, but surely it's nonsensical for intention not to be a factor in culpability (notwithstanding the impact on victims)?  By analogy, we don't typically consider a driver who's killed another as a result of a momentary (albeit culpable) lapse of concentration as being as guilty as somebody who's set out to murder someone, regardless of the fact that the impact on thr victim (and their family) might be the same.  That's not to exculpate Baker, but to point to the limits of your comparison with those making monkey chants.


----------



## ska invita (May 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yeah, I get that. And that's why what he did was wrong, but surely it's nonsensical for intention not to be a factor in culpability (notwithstanding the impact on victims)?  By analogy, we don't typically consider a driver who's killed another as a result of a monetary (albeit culpable) lapse of concentration as being as guilty as somebody who's set out to murder someone, regardless of the fact that the impact on thr victim (and their family) might be the same.  That's not to exculpate Baker, but to point to the limits of your comparison with those making monkey chants.


intention is for the police to work out
its not a surprise someone reported it to the police and its not a shock that they investigated* it is all im saying

*as much as the police investigate anything


----------



## jarndyce (May 15, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Everyday racists? I think with that description you have outed yourself as a bit of a twit tbh.  The kind of twit who thinks they know what they are talking about but doesn't. The kind of twit that can't think any deeper than the binary of people being _fully _racist or non-racist. Everyday racism isn't just the kind that Yaxley-lennon spouts at all although that is still common enough.
> 
> IME everyday racism comes in many guises, associations, shitty comparasons, careless phrasing, pathetic self preserving excuses, dismissive responses, the inability to listen and learn,  in the way we have all been taught to think of and value (or not) ourselves and each other, in the hierarchies we create, in attacking those that know and understand the dynamics better than you do, patting the head or abusing the very people who have had to put up with this shit their whole lives and have had no choice but to learn to understand and navigate it. Some of us still take an interest and care about this stuff so we aren't intimidated by people like you who try to undermine and insult us because _it makes you feel uncomfortable and you prefer not_ to engage with it.
> 
> ...



(Deleted hand wringing post)


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> I live in a racially diverse area and have done since birth. Most people with a London postcode have I expect.
> 
> What makes you think the average Londoner notices race these days? Or gender? Or faith?
> 
> ...


#notallsomethingsomething


----------



## jarndyce (May 15, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> #notallsomethingsomething



Assume you’re accusing me of #somethingsomething


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Assume you’re accusing me of #somethingsomething


Not at all. But I am suggesting that someone will be (would have been) along shortly to do so.


----------



## jarndyce (May 15, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Not at all. But I am suggesting that someone will be (would have been) along shortly to do so.



Why don’t you say what you mean rather than hiding behind bluster? Who is the someone, what will they do when they shortly arrive, and why should I be concerned?


----------



## jarndyce (May 15, 2019)

editor said:


> I've edited the title for clarity. But fuckighell. What a fucking cunt Baker is.



He might be a “fucking cunt”, but he’s not a”racist fucking cunt”. Honestly...


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 16, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Why don’t you say what you mean rather than hiding behind bluster? Who is the someone, what will they do when they shortly arrive, and why should I be concerned?


I said what I meant to say. Which part are you having a problem with?


----------



## jarndyce (May 16, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> I said what I meant to say. Which part are you having a problem with?


Who is the “someone” who is coming along shortly to accuse me of “something”?..and why should I be bothered?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 16, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Who is the “someone” who is coming along shortly to accuse me of “something”?..and why should I be bothered?


I'm not a psychic. Maybe you should contact septic Peg.


----------



## jarndyce (May 16, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Not at all. But I am suggesting that someone will be (would have been) along shortly to do so.


So you know nothing? Gotcha


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 16, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> So you know nothing? Gotcha


I know you're appearing a tad strange.


----------



## Athos (May 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> intention is for the police to work out
> its not a surprise someone reported it to the police and its not a shock that they investigated* it is all im saying
> 
> *as much as the police investigate anything



If that is all you were trying to say, then we agree.  My issue was with what looked liked an attempted parallel between what Baker did and monkey chants at football, and minimising intention as an ingredient of culpability, all of which is too much of a stretch.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Not sure what Spy is on about,  he experienced it as such at first too.


I was agreeing with Athos regarding the importance of nuance and context. Those of us who’ve been at the sharp end of racism, as you put it, should be well aware of the difference between racial epithets used that were often likely to be accompanied by, or followed up with, a good kicking, and those used in a jocular way perhaps even in solidarity. Similarly, my offence taken initially at Baker’s chimp picture was assuaged on further reading and understanding of where else it could have come from. I think it’s important that those of us who’ve experienced racism are able to step back and consider intent.

Rutita1 gets annoyed with me for letting a light-hearted “paki” comment from LiamO slide a while back but she ignores the context. I’ve been called that thousands of times. When it comes with vitriol you know about it. When it comes from a mate who’s spent half his life physically opposing racists, whose kids I’ve bounced on my knee, yeah I’ll let that go. It wasn’t the smartest comment to make on _these boards_ but we’re not talking about Albert Einstein here.

Athos’ parallel with drivers who intentionally and unintentionally kill is an apt one. It’s why there’s a difference between murder and manslaughter.


----------



## ska invita (May 16, 2019)

Athos said:


> If that is all you were trying to say, then we agree.  My issue was with what looked liked an attempted parallel between what Baker did and monkey changed at football, and minimising intention as an ingredient of culpability, all of which is too much of a stretch.


good , thats settled then
but its a good reminder that there will be people out there who will have experienced it as exactly the same thing, who wont have delved into his injoke history for context, read a 30 page thread etc etc
they might also have caught some of his unhelpful self serving lying apologies and counterattacks though 
thats the context of this whole thing


----------



## Athos (May 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> good , thats settled then
> but its a good reminder that there will be people out there who will have experienced it as exactly the same thing, who wont have delved into his injoke history for context, read a 30 page thread etc etc
> they might also have caught some of his unhelpful self serving lying apologies and counterattacks though
> thats the context of this whole thing



Absolutely, and that's why it was quite right that he paid a price.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

ska invita said:


> but its a good reminder that there will be people out there who will have experienced it as exactly the same thing, who wont have delved into his injoke history for context, read a 30 page thread etc etc


Every commentator on this thread has pretty much the same information now. 

Why aren't we all drawing the same conclusion?


----------



## planetgeli (May 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Every commentator on this thread has pretty much the same information now.
> 
> Why aren't we all drawing the same conclusion?



Lots of reasons probably?

Confirmation bias?

Because despite all reading the same things, we don’t actually all _read_ the same things?

Because that Boston tweet has been posted about a zillion times while my Julie Burchill link has probably been read a handful?

Because, a good point Rutita1 does make, is that racism and being a racist isn’t necessarily an end product, non racists sometimes do racist things?

Because despite that, some of us are more willing to declare ‘racist!’ than others.

Because despite this thread we still have differing levels of knowledge of Baker. Differing experiences of his levels of twattery that might inform our opinion?

Because we’re humans, and it’s what we humans do (differ, while being the same).


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Lots of reasons probably?
> 
> Confirmation bias?
> 
> ...


 So basically, because we're all different and have experienced things in different ways. 

People on this thread, stamping their feet, telling others to fuck off, and insisting that theirs is the right way, are not necessarily better informed than others. Just informed by different things.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> So basically, because we're all different and have experienced things in different ways.
> 
> People on this thread, stamping their feet, telling others to fuck off, and insisting that theirs is the right way, are not necessarily better informed than others. Just informed by different things.



Have we taken this in to account yet? 'Animal lover' martin Clunes... Martin Clunes dropped by animal charity 

Seems slebs are outing themselves all over the shop...


----------



## teuchter (May 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Repeating parts of earlier posts...
> 
> What is an actual racist? Someone who identifies as one?
> 
> ...



Aren't there different forms of 'racism card'?

One might say "you've done something that whatever your intentions were, had racial connotations and will have caused harm, and you should have thought before doing it, and you should make a serious attempt to make this inform your future actions"

Another might say "you posted something you knew was racist but didn't care, and you subsequently posted coded images to demonstrate to others who don't care about racism that you're on their side"

I'm fine with DB being handed the first card but not the second.

It seems that if anyone wants to argue that the second is not the right response, then there are some who want to label this as apologism for racism.

And in fact I think there's hardly anyone posting on this thread who would disagree with the first.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Have we taken this in to account yet? 'Animal lover' martin Clunes... Martin Clunes dropped by animal charity
> 
> Seems slebs are outing themselves all over the shop...


Well that's just a bit daft, isn't it? The patron of an AW charity getting on an elephant whilst commenting about the negative aspects of riding elephants.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I was agreeing with Athos regarding the importance of nuance and context. Those of us who’ve been at the sharp end of racism, as you put it, should be well aware of the difference between racial epithets used that were often likely to be accompanied by, or followed up with, a good kicking, and those used in a jocular way perhaps even in solidarity. Similarly, my offence taken initially at Baker’s chimp picture was assuaged on further reading and understanding of where else it could have come from. I think it’s important that those of us who’ve experienced racism are able to step back and consider intent.
> 
> Rutita1 gets annoyed with me for letting a light-hearted “paki” comment from LiamO slide a while back but she ignores the context. I’ve been called that thousands of times. When it comes with vitriol you know about it. When it comes from a mate who’s spent half his life physically opposing racists, whose kids I’ve bounced on my knee, yeah I’ll let that go. It wasn’t the smartest comment to make on _these boards_ but we’re not talking about Albert Einstein here.
> 
> Athos’ parallel with drivers who intentionally and unintentionally kill is an apt one. It’s why there’s a difference between murder and manslaughter.



A 'Light-hearted Paki' comment and not considering the context just isn't true at all. That suits your narrative and what makes you feel comfortable keeping him as a friend but it isn't all there is t it.

If you choose to let your mates racially abuse you that's your business. I don't care. The fact that your mates do this shit here on Urban is the context. When you excuse them doing it and argue their corner you throw the rest of us BAME urbanites under a bus, your expectation is that we should suck it up because you do. No.

The time you are referring to is here.
https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/ignore-the-nig-nog.362284/page-9

You were also referred to as a 'nignog' in that thread by another one of your mates whose impulse was to crack a 'light hearted' racist joke. You and Liam/or any of the people you personally call mates don't solely get to decide what is and isn't on in this community. If you want the individual boundaries of your friendship to remain your own business then don't bring them unto the boards in a way that draws attention and influences others here. Your feelings aren't the only one's that matter.

Also, that's not the only instance I remember either...I remember well the night you were pissed and started a thread just to tell us all that your friend had just called you a 'Paki'. _Hilarious _to you maybe. Again, if this stuff is played out on the boards because you bring it here don't expect people to ignore it.

More on context, the person you describe as 'fighting racism his whole life' is the very same that along with Casually Red and Frances has taken great pleasure in race-baiting and winding people up here over the years. Are we all supposed to forget that because you have bounced Liam's kids on your knee? We've heard all the excuses possible. Again, you don't care because their your mates but you don't get to tell everyone else how they should feel about it when you are literally rubbing our noses in it with all this for-the-love-of-bantz shit posting game you lot routinely play.

So more context yeah? Perhaps these friends of yours that have spent their lives opposing racism, who's kids you've bounced on your knee and you are happy to ignore their 'light-heared' racism are the same as or just like the other friends of yours that you described in your thread;

Why Does Football Make People Racist?

..._friends _that claimed to be antifascist but thought it's okay to call a black footballer a 'shiny nigger' because it's only football? Remembering that thread now, reminds me that you did once understand this in more detail, you did used to have a wider understanding of why it's not just 'intent' that counts.

My experience is that letting this stuff slip wears you down, you let people get away with it and then the next time you don't have the courage to challenge it or a leg to stand on, you become complicit and even when it makes you feel uncomfortable you make excuses for them, that they are old and know no better, that they're not really racist because x, y, z, that it's just a little joke and means nothing more, that it's no-one else's business anyway, that unless the're kicking your head in it isn't really racism, that you've bounced their kids on your knee even.

_'Oh come on, it's a joke'
'Oh not you, you're different'
'If I were really a racist would I have you stay in my home with my family'
'Oh don't be oversensitive, grow a thicker skin'
'You're just looking for things that aren't there'
'I've got loads of Black friends'
'I can't be racist my partner/children/grandfather/etc is a person of colour'
'I don't have a racist bone in m body'
'i'm colour blind and treat everyone the same'

ETA:
'You think your experience is the only one that counts'
''You bring it on yourself'
'You cause more problems than you solve' 
_
Murder or Manslaughter the result is the same.

Same as DB, if you want to have fun with mates and don't think others should have a say, keep it between you and your mates.

You can follow me around calling me race-card Rita for as long as you like, my boundaries are different to yours, I choose to engage with this subject more deeply than you do and 100% my life is better without people in it that I can't trust not to insult me racially for the lulz.

Don't tag me again. I want nothing more to do with you, as you already know.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> A 'Light-hearted Paki' comment and not considering the context just isn't true at all. That suits your narrative and what makes you feel comfortable keeping him as a friend but it isn't all there is t it.
> 
> If you choose to let your mates racially abuse you that's your business. I don't care. The fact that your mates do this shit here on Urban is the context. When you excuse them doing it you and argue their corner you throw the rest of us BAME urbanites under a bus, your expectation is that we should suck it up because you do. No.
> 
> ...


This whole post is negated by the fact that you simply don't get to choose what I or anyone else take offence at and what I don't. You stomp around here like you're the only poster who's ever experienced racism. Bollocks. Plenty of others have, just as much if not more than you. The thing is, yours are the only racial experiences and opinions that count, right??? Fuck you.

If you want to pull Liam on what he said, go ahead but don't you dare tell me how I should behave towards him.

You only exist here to manufacture shit to take offence at. You're fucking famed for it! Don't presume to tell me what I can and can't respond to either.



> Don't tag me again. I want nothing more to do with you, as you already know.



Fuck you again Rutita1 you sanctimonious twat. You cause more problems than you solve. I find a lot of what you post far more offensive than anything Liam does, but you know, it's a message board. People will make their own decisions about what they read.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 16, 2019)




----------



## andysays (May 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...



And yet you scream blue murder when it's pointed out to you that saying "don't be racist to me, I was born here", while understandable, is also potentially problematic as it tacitly condones racism against those who weren't 'born here'. You complain that you're being thrown under the bus, but you're happy to throw others, like my mother in law, under the bus and take offence when this is pointed out to you.

You clearly *do* believe that your experience, or that of others who you identify with, is the most important. You regularly demonstrate your inability to recognise that other people's experiences and points of view are just as relevant as yours, and are willing to accuse anyone who meet disagree with you as acting in bad faith or defending racists.

People reading this can make their own minds up, but as far as I'm concerned, you undermine the decent points and experiences you bring to Urban with your screechy egotistical offence taking and your hypocritical arrogance.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Why Does Football Make People Racist?
> 
> ..._friends _that claimed to be antifascist but thought it's okay to call a black footballer a 'shiny nigger' because it's only football?


This was just pointed out to me.

This was not a 'friend who claimed to be anti fash' at all. It was someone I barely knew who I kicked out of the house. You've mendaciously conflated two completely separate things to make people think it was Liam. It wasn't.

But you knew that didn't you? It's what you do.


----------



## mod (May 16, 2019)

Looks like his weekly podcast with Gary Linker has been pulled too. New one was due out yesterday....

Lineker & Baker: Behind Closed Doors on acast


----------



## Sweet FA (May 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This was not a 'friend who claimed to be anti fash' at all. It was someone I barely knew who I kicked out of the house. You've mendaciously conflated two completely separate things to make people think it was Liam. It wasn't.
> 
> But you knew that didn't you? It's what you do.


I don't think Rutita did that at all - she posted both links which everyone can read. It's clear (to me at least) that it's 2 separate events. Either way, it doesn't negate her points & she's not lied afaics. But you knew that didn't you? It's what you do. 

_"a couple of Antifa activists were prepared to let it slide because it's "only football"."
"I don't really know the geezer but a couple of my mates who do know him think I've over-reacted and again, that he was "just a bit pissed" and that "people say shit like that in football"."
_
Your 'friends' thought it was OK. 
_


_


andysays said:


> your *screechy* egotistical offence


 I see you.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> Your 'friends' thought it was OK.


Fair enough. I retract that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 16, 2019)

Sweet FA said:


> I don't think Rutita did that at all - she posted both links which everyone can read. It's clear (to me at least) that it's 2 separate events. Either way, it doesn't negate her points & she's not lied afaics. But you knew that didn't you? It's what you do.
> 
> _"a couple of Antifa activists were prepared to let it slide because it's "only football"."
> "I don't really know the geezer but a couple of my mates who do know him think I've over-reacted and again, that he was "just a bit pissed" and that "people say shit like that in football"."
> ...



Exactly.



> I don't really know the geezer but a couple of my mates who do know him think I've over-reacted and again, that he was "just a bit pissed" and that "people say shit like that in football".
> 
> Apart from the obvious idiocy of calling people nigger's in a black mans house ... am I missing something?
> 
> One of my best mates is now saying that I should let the fella back in for the penalty shootout (he's sitting on the drive).


----------



## LiamO (May 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck you again Rutita1 you sanctimonious twat. You cause more problems than you solve. I find a lot of what you post far more offensive than anything Liam does, but you know, it's a message board. People will make their own decisions about what they read.



Does Rutita1 get tagged twice if I quote this?


----------



## abstract1 (May 16, 2019)

LiamO said:


> Does Rutita1 get tagged twice if I quote this?



I doubt anyone cares tbf. Shows you up as an unimaginative dullard, mind.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2019)

andysays said:


> And yet you scream blue murder when it's pointed out to you that saying "don't be racist to me, I was born here", while understandable, is also potentially problematic as it tacitly condones racism against those who weren't 'born here'. You complain that you're being thrown under the bus, but you're happy to throw others, like my mother in law, under the bus and take offence when this is pointed out to you.
> 
> You clearly *do* believe that your experience, or that of others who you identify with, is the most important. You regularly demonstrate your inability to recognise that other people's experiences and points of view are just as relevant as yours, and are willing to accuse anyone who meet disagree with you as acting in bad faith or defending racists.
> 
> People reading this can make their own minds up, but as far as I'm concerned, you undermine the decent points and experiences you bring to Urban with your screechy egotistical offence taking and your hypocritical arrogance.



You introduce your mother-in-law into the discussion then complain about someone's 'egotistical offence taking'? 

Not Urban's finest moment, this thread, given the posters being picked on. Ugly stuff.


----------



## treelover (May 16, 2019)

Meanwhile the threads on the other oppressions: disabled people, LGBT in schools,  remain largely untroubled.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (May 16, 2019)

What a sorry state.


----------



## D'wards (May 16, 2019)

mod said:


> Looks like his weekly podcast with Gary Linker has been pulled too. New one was due out yesterday....
> 
> Lineker & Baker: Behind Closed Doors on acast


There has been no official statement but i think they might lay low for a few months until it all blows over, then maybe pick it up at the start of next season.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 16, 2019)

andysays said:


> And yet you scream blue murder when it's pointed out to you that saying "don't be racist to me, I was born here", while understandable, is also potentially problematic as it tacitly condones racism against those who weren't 'born here'. You complain that you're being thrown under the bus, but you're happy to throw others, like my mother in law, under the bus and take offence when this is pointed out to you.



So let me get this straight, you have a newly acquired foreign born mother in law and you are attempting to use that fact to misrepresent and undermine me? Because the fact that my own father, 3 of my grandparents, half my blood family, my partner and all of his family are all foreign born means jack shit to me? I've learnt nothing from that and here you are to show me? That I have spent most of my life having to defend myself and them against abuse because of the fact that many of my blood relatives were born elsewhere doesn't have a ounce of relevance to this discussion and my perspective? Even though some people will still say to me _oh I imagined you were from abroad_ when they read my name before they speak to me? Nah, you have acquired a MIL from elsewhere and you are suddenly an expert and will school me! 

Perhaps the silliest part of this is that you think you can post this kind of nonsense and I am going to let you create a story where you get to be billy big balls defending against something that didn't happen? I remember you trying to concoct this narrative and pin it on myself and others. It didn't wash then and it doesn't now.  But unlike you I will link to proof:

It was this thread 'A question for those who still support a Brexit'

You posted this on page 2 before I had even commented.



andysays said:


> They don't count because they're not European.
> 
> What we're talking about on this thread, apparently, is dead EUROPEAN babies in the Channel, thrown off the cliffs at Dover by you, me and every other Leave voter



....and it became clear on why you were saying that as some kind of revenge tactic to attack remain voters who had characterised leave voters as thick and racist.



andysays said:


> The claim about leavers being the only ones to throw around the words thick and racist, that claim, which I quoted for you when I first questioned you on it.
> 
> So, that claim, correct or not, what do you think?



That was post 101, I still hadn't posted on the thread.

My first post was post 113.



Rutita1 said:


> Warning of legal limbo for 3m EU citizens living in UK after Brexit
> 
> Nothing to worry about at all. Stop making a fuss about nothing much.



Not aimed at you but definitely at the rather shitty tone the thread was taking.

Same page post 119 you make this claim.



andysays said:


> And there appears to be a belief or assumption (unstated  and possibly unrecognised) among some that this shouldn't be happening in this particular case because these people are EU citizens, for goodness sake, and so should be immune to this sort of thing



To which LBJ responds (post 120):




littlebabyjesus said:


> Or you're making false assumptions. Not wanting bad things to happen to people who don't deserve to have bad things happen to them, who have been here in many cases for decades, and who came here under a very different belief about what coming here meant. What more motivation do you need to express opposition and see it as good reason in and of itself to oppose this brexit process?



I then respond to LBJ with (post 122):




Rutita1 said:


> It's not just a false assumption it's actually nasty. It is accusing anyone that is worried about this of only being so because now it's affecting Europeans, like concern on this issue is evidence of racism and previously holding a position of apathy wrt the treatment of people from elsewhere. It's a shitty argument and at best dismissive.
> 
> The other aspects of this like 'well duh, what did you think was going to happen' , 'suck it up, already happens to people from elsewhere' is a race to a very shitty bottom imo.
> 
> ...



You then quote me and (post 125)



andysays said:


> "You can't do this to me, I was born here"



Which I ignored because not only are you wildly misrepresenting what I posted. but I am simply used to you following me about and making shitty comments. You've done it twice now on this thread and when I didn't take the bait earlier you've come back and tried this shit, up the ante and didn't even have the gumption to link the thread in which you claim I did something that it's clear that I absolutely didn't....and wouldn't do for obvious reasons. Yet  you accuse me of 





> egotistical offence taking  and your hypocritical arrogance


 ...as if because you suddenly have a foreign born MIL you are now in charge of all there is to know and think? 




> You clearly *do* believe that your experience, or that of others who you identify with, is the most important. You regularly demonstrate your inability to recognise that other people's experiences and points of view are just as relevant as yours, and are willing to accuse anyone who meet disagree with you as acting in bad faith or defending racists.



This isn't true either. I do though get bored and frustrated with having to explain the same shit over, being patronised by posters who clearly don't understand and/or don't actually care and then there's the frequency of being baited by the likes of you with nonsense and offensive accusations like you've tried above. You know I ignore you but you persist like you have today. Why you or anyone else thinks you are entitled to do this shit is beyond me. You expect me to put up with it. I won't, not now, not ever.



> People reading this can make their own minds up, but as far as I'm concerned, you undermine the decent points and experiences you bring to Urban with your screechy egotistical offence taking  and your hypocritical arrogance.



To be absolutely clear, there is not one single cell in my being that cares what you think. My sense of decency and value is in no way connected with anything you may think and/or feel. It beggars belief that you could in anyway think otherwise. 

You've outed yourself and the nasty way you like to misrepresent and attack me on this thread in splendid fashion as far as i'm concerned.

People reading can and will make up their own minds indeed. Stop wasting my time.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> To be absolutely clear, there is not one single cell in my being that cares what you think.


Yet here you are


----------



## jarndyce (May 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> So let me get this straight, you have a newly acquired foreign born mother in law and you are attempting to use that fact to misrepresent and undermine me? Because the fact that my own father, 3 of my grandparents, half my blood family, my partner and all of his family are all foreign born means jack shit to me? I've learnt nothing from that and here you are to show me? That I have spent most of my life having to defend myself and them against abuse because of the fact that many of my blood relatives were born elsewhere doesn't have a ounce of relevance to this discussion and my perspective? Even though some people will still say to me _oh I imagined you were from abroad_ when they read my name before they speak to me? Nah, you have acquired a MIL from elsewhere and you are suddenly an expert and will school me!
> 
> Perhaps the silliest part of this is that you think you can post this kind of nonsense and I am going to let you create a story where you get to be billy big balls defending against something that didn't happen? I remember you trying to concoct this narrative and pin it on myself and others. It didn't wash then and it doesn't now.  But unlike you I will link to proof:
> 
> ...



Always the victim.

It’s like you want people to appear to discriminate against you so you can justify your combative attitude.

Guess what?

Most people these days couldn’t give a fuck about your colour.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 16, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Always the victim.
> 
> It’s like you want people to appear to discriminate against you so you can justify your combative attitude.
> 
> ...


Fuck off.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 16, 2019)

'Stop playing the victim.'
'You bring it on yourself''

Old but gold.


----------



## jarndyce (May 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fuck off.


Oh OK. She can just carry on blaming  everyone else for her own inability to cope with criticism and turn every argument into something race related instead. 

Well done.


----------



## jarndyce (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Stop playing the victim.'
> 'You bring it on yourself''
> 
> Old but gold.



Old and gold because it’s true. 

Why don’t you stop being so angry with other people and make your life better for yourself? 

Jx


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Oh OK. She can just carry on blaming  everyone else for her own inability to cope with criticism and turn every argument into something race related instead.
> 
> Well done.


Who were you then?

We can work our own beef out, thanks.

Fuck off.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Oh OK. She can just carry on blaming  everyone else for her own inability to cope with criticism and turn every argument into something race related instead.
> 
> Well done.





jarndyce said:


> Old and gold because it’s true.
> 
> Why don’t you stop being so angry with other people and make your life better for yourself?
> 
> Jx



I don't think you even understand what is going on here.  This is a conversation about racism. Did you imagine you were reading another thread? 

I think it makes you uncomfortable. Which is fine however you don't get to change the topic of the thread just because of that.

I have a great life, thank you. Oh and far from being the 'victim', I refuse to be, which is the bloody point really.

Do continue to post gibberish though, if you must.


----------



## jarndyce (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Who were you then?
> 
> We can work our own beef out, thanks.
> 
> Fuck off.



Seems like an angry place. Two “fuck offs” for suggesting the person who has a tendency to blame others should look at herself first.


----------



## jarndyce (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't think you even understand what is going on here.  This is a conversation about racism. Did you imagine you were reading another thread?
> 
> I think it makes you uncomfortable. Which is fine however you don't get to change the topic of the thread just because of that.
> 
> ...


Honestly, a conversation about racism doesn’t make me uncomfortable in the least.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 17, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Seems like an angry place. Two “fuck offs”


Make that 3.


----------



## xenon (May 17, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Oh OK. She can just carry on blaming  everyone else for her own inability to cope with criticism and turn every argument into something race related instead.
> 
> Well done.



 Seriously though who the fuck are you? Just fuck off you boring troll.  I mean it’s clear you didn’t have much to say about anything other than jumping on one or two posters quite obviously so.   If you are actually genuinely a new poster, go and piss about on the picture thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 17, 2019)

xenon said:


> Seriously though who the fuck are you? Just fuck off you boring troll.  I mean it’s clear you didn’t have much to say about anything other than jumping on one or two posters quite obviously so.   If you are actually genuinely a new poster, go and piss about on the picture thread.


Classic troll. No actual POV until someone posts something it can take offense to/at.


----------



## Humberto (May 17, 2019)

"Most people these days couldn't give a fuck about your colour"

That is simply bullshit. I know that much.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Can't editor or FridgeMagnet take a closer look at this jarndyce character, please? There's more than a whiff of a banned returner about them (and, even if not, they appear little more than a shit-stirring troll).


----------



## andysays (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...newly acquired foreign born mother in law...



Keeping up to your usual standards


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2019)

Yeah...you've blantantly lied, have  been exposed as misrepresenting my perspective, repeatedly baited me, have used your own  'new' mil as leverage in the very same  'egotistical offence taking" that you"ve  dishonesty accused me of but it"s my standards that need looking at? Seriously? 

This is why we can't have nice things....and why it's utterly pointless even engaging with you


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 17, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> Old and gold because it’s true.
> 
> Why don’t you stop being so angry with other people and make your life better for yourself?
> 
> Jx




Any chance you might just fuck off?


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 17, 2019)

My eyesight has really gone to pot.

I keep seeing jarndyce as jamdyce.
And thinking of rolling a dice made of jam...


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> A 'Light-hearted Paki' comment and not considering the context just isn't true at all. That suits your narrative and what makes you feel comfortable keeping him as a friend but it isn't all there is t it.
> 
> If you choose to let your mates racially abuse you that's your business. I don't care. The fact that your mates do this shit here on Urban is the context. When you excuse them doing it and argue their corner you throw the rest of us BAME urbanites under a bus, your expectation is that we should suck it up because you do. No.
> 
> ...



Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to wag your finger at others on the basis that it's impact rather than intention that's important?

I say that because you repeatedly used a recognised antisemitic slur towards a Jewish poster here.  And, when pulled up on it, rather than acknowledge the upset you'd caused and apologise (as you'd no doubt demand of others), you offered a defence based entirely on your lack of intention (and then doubled down by abusing her some more, albeit no longer in racist terms).

I don't think for a moment you're an antisemite, but it's undeniable you used an antisemitic slur (albeit I'm happy to accept you didn't understand it to be), which caused offence.  I think there's more parallels than you'd care to acknowledge with the conduct of others you're so eager to criticise.  Perhaps an understanding of your own failings might make you less preachy, which is one of the things that rubs a lot of people up the wrong way.

You don't have to respond, but, if you do, please address the content of my post (if you can), rather than launch into a(nother!) tirade of personal abuse towards me.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Can't editor or FridgeMagnet take a closer look at this jarndyce character, please? There's more than a whiff of a banned returner about them (and, even if not, they appear little more than a shit-stirring troll).


Please use the report post function rather than disrupt a thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2019)

Ah, well I was expecting _you_ so no surprise you have come at me with this... 



Athos said:


> Don't you think it's a bit hypocritical to wag your finger at others on the basis that it's impact rather than intention that's important?



So when I have an opinion it's 'wagging my finger' is it?  Great start to the pretend 'good faith' challenge. Not. No surprise there though eh?

Regardless, yes it would be hypocritical of me to argue that but no, I haven't argued that it is 'only' impact at all, I have repeatedly argued that both intent and impact matter.



> I say that because you repeatedly used a recognised antisemitic slur towards a Jewish poster here.  And, when pulled up on it, rather than acknowledge the upset you'd caused and apologise (as you'd no doubt demand of others), you offered a defence based entirely on your lack of intention (and then doubled down by abusing her some more, albeit no longer in racist terms).



Yes, in the past I repeatedly referred to Bimble as 'princess'. I did so _not_ because she's Jewish, as you well know, but because of what I experienced as a conceited posting style. Far from being a slur _I recognised_, as explained at the time  'princess' is a nickname I still use either as a term of endearment (like my late father used to me) or to wind people up when they are being conceited, manipulative or just cheeky/sneaky (usually with friends of mostly with my sister who is prone to this).

For me it's a term like 'precious' used to characterise someone who is being 'sensitive', it describes_ behaviour _not the actual person.

For context, after Bimble told me not to and why I didn't call her a 'princess' again regardless of the way I meant it because whatever my intent I had to accept that it impacted her in the way it did.

It's no surprise to me that you would bring this up though as it was you who first made the link, albeit you then deleted your post under the pretence that you didn't want to get involved. But the seed was planted, so your work was done regardless.

I can't link to the posts directly because the thread is now closed but i'll c&p below...

She laid it out to me in post 4737... she is responding to a conversation going on with MH where a few of us were suggesting that it is _hateful_ for her to repeatedly call a MtF transgender poster 'he' ...

I used the expression 'transwoman' in one of my posts to which Bimble did the faux outrage shocked face. Clearly shit stirring and I responded with this..



> Spit it out princess...no time to play games after a long day actually doing some work... what's the shockgaff that you are trying to shit stir about.
> 
> Should I have written transgender woman?



 She then wrote:



> Is it hateful of you to keep calling me that? Here, this is me asking you to stop. You may not be aware of it but 'princess' is a really bad choice of name for you to have picked out for me as its a typical slur against jewish women. So please* stop*.
> 
> This is the post you must have missed during your busy day:
> ↑
> _Sea Star posted: it's not pedantry - it's a crucial point that something called a transwoman cannot be a woman but "trans woman" is a woman who is trans. some people use transwoman out of ignorance but others use it deliberately to make precisely that point - that trans women aren't women._



I did stop.

I admit, I didn't respond to her with grace.



> I call you that because you have persisted in a butter wouldn't melt innocent act, nothing to do with you being Jewish as you damn well know. You've never asked me to stop before so don't give it the poor you either.
> 
> Yes I did miss that post by SS. Why not just refer to it rather than the feigned shock/horror/shitstirring...oh yeah...that butter wouldn't melt, shitstirring innocence act again. Fuck you.



I did not call her princess again however.

For context that happened here:

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

...the whole exchange and the shitty way yourself, Magnus and MIB did your _then_ usual tag teaming is also still all there.




> I don't think for a moment you're an antisemite, but it's undeniable you used an antisemitic slur (albeit I'm happy to accept you didn't understand it to be), which caused offence.  I think there's more parallels than you'd care to acknowledge with the conduct of others you're so eager to criticise


.

Well at least you do now concede i'm not an anti-semite...because for a while back there you did your best to paint me as such and encouraged others to see me that way too. So much so Bimble ended up telling you to stop using her as an excuse to attack me...



bimble said:


> please leave me out of this & grind your own axe Athos .



Your response:



Athos said:


> I didn't quote, tag, or even name you. There's no reason you can't stay out of it.



You didn't care about her or her feelings at all. You were using her again to get at me...she knew it too.

The whole exchange is readable on the 'gammon' thread and is part of a conversation where you one of the people attempting to _justify_ calling a Black Tor MP 'chalkie' and absolutely fail to see how your position on the term 'gammon' is therefore a hypocritical one even though you are accusing me of that. No surprise that yourself, MiB and magnus were tag teaming again...

You _do_ know your own shit stinks sometimes and other people can smell it don't you?

https://www.urban75.net/forums/thre...t-wing-white-men.358557/page-12#post-15558785



> Perhaps an understanding of your own failings might make you less preachy, which is one of the things that rubs a lot of people up the wrong way.



I am perfectly happy to consider my own failings. How about you? 

I never post with the intention of 'preaching' however for sure I have gotten way more involved and angry about stuff on here than I could have but I don't accept that characterisation is a fair one of me regardless of you insisting you speak for 'a lot of people'.



> You don't have to respond, but, if you do, please address the content of my post (if you can), rather than launch into a(nother!) tirade of personal abuse towards me.



This is classic you.  Ignoring all the backhanded insults you've made and less than honest way you've posted above but no, a plea that I deal with the contents of your post but leave 'innocent' old you out of it. Your snidey, interactions with me have been going on for years now and are well documented. In general I ignore you, you know this  Equally for sure I have given it to you both barrels a fair few times, I've taken the bait, I mostly forgive myself though.

Your pretend _man of logic and good faith_ persona doesn't convince half as may people as you  think it does btw. Others will make of it what they will.

You came with your big guns as expected. Well done.

That's all you are getting.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes, in the past I repeatedly referred to Bimble as 'princess'. I did so _not_ because she's Jewish, as you well know, but because of what I experienced as a conceited posting style. Far from being a slur _I recognised_, as explained at the time  'princess' is a nickname I still use either as a term of endearment (like my late father used to me) or to wind people up when they are being conceited, manipulative or just cheeky/sneaky (usually with friends of mostly with my sister who is prone to this).
> 
> For me it's a term like 'precious' used to characterise someone who is being 'sensitive', it describes_ behaviour _not the actual person.



So when it's you doing it, it's all about _intent_ then.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Ah, well I was expecting _you_ so no surprise you have come at me with this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For all this bluster, you're still a lying hypocrite. I'm happy for anyone to judge us on the evidence of the relevant posts.


----------



## LiamO (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> So when it's you doing it, it's all about _intent_ then.



Touché


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 17, 2019)

The thread has moved a fair wee way from the OP.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 17, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> The thread has moved a fair wee way from the OP.



Perhaps not so far, after all.  Depends what DB's intent was.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Sasaferrato said:


> The thread has moved a fair wee way from the OP.



Seems Dirty Den was a foul anti-Semite.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 17, 2019)

> So when it's you doing it, it's all about _intent_ then.



 Comedy.



> Regardless, yes it would be hypocritical of me to argue that but no, I haven't argued that it is 'only' impact at all, I have repeatedly argued that both intent and impact matter.





> For context, after Bimble told me not to and why I didn't call her a 'princess' again regardless of the way I meant it because whatever my intent, I had to accept that it impacted her in the way it did.



Deliberate misreading or not. A great example of how this is just about wasting time. Nothing else.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> So when it's you doing it, it's all about _intent_ then.



Hand on heart, had you ever heard the word princess being used derogatorily against Jewish people, or anyone other than ‘snowflakes’?


It is the vaguest of vague insults, if indeed it is an insult anywhere outside of the US. And very much a valid term of abuse against anyone who is acting in a prissy manner.

Rutita1 is very passionate on race issues, and, like all people of colour, including you, she has had a lifetime to experience it and deal with it. I haven’t, at all. And I massively welcome her perspective on it, seems there are many here who are very keen to shut her down at every opportunity, I don’t include you in them btw, but she educates me regularly on the plight of what it is like to grow up and live in the UK as someone who is not white. I am all ears for her views and experience, more power to her, not that she needs it off a cunt like me.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Deliberate misreading or not. A great example of how this is just about wasting time. Nothing else.


Oh do one you fucking hypocrite. When you've given your own house a good spring cleaning you can criticise others.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hand on heart, had you ever heard the word princess being used derogatorily against Jewish people, or anyone other than ‘snowflakes’?


It's a very well known derogatory term when towards Jewish women. The poster in question pointed this out to Race Card and asked her to stop it.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's a very well known derogatory term when towards Jewish women. The poster in question pointed this out to Race Card and asked her to stop it.



It all stems from Rutita1 being made to look silly by wrongly accusing that poster of lying about their race (for which she also failed to apologise).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's a very well known derogatory term when towards Jewish women. The poster in question pointed this out to Race Card and asked her to stop it.


fwiw I was reading the thread when that came up and I hadn't heard of it before either. But Rutita agreed to stop using it as soon as it was pointed out. Not sure what more you are expecting here.

Compare and contrast with Danny Baker's reaction to being called on his chimp tweet: Posting a tweet of a banana, then something American containing brown, then a mealy mouthed non-apology, then his 'monks' thing (some think that's tenuous, but in context, I don't think it is), then lying his arse off the next day about not knowing who was having a baby, then his latest bullshit from the stage about being a Millwall fan so don't mess (ironic or not, it continues the defiant shitty reaction still further).

There really is no comparison, is there?


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hand on heart, had you ever heard the word princess being used derogatorily against Jewish people, or anyone other than ‘snowflakes’?
> 
> 
> It is the vaguest of vague insults, if indeed it is an insult anywhere outside of the US. And very much a valid term of abuse against anyone who is acting in a prissy manner.
> ...



Know what, I actually agree with you to a point. Some of the stuff about nuance and the difference between being a racist and saying something that is racist on this thread was good. It's when she wags the finger at others it goes off track, especially when there's hypocrisy there.  Her keenness to jump down down other's throats for stuff she does herself.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I was reading the thread when that came up and I hadn't heard of it before either. But Rutita agreed to stop using it as soon as it was pointed out. Not sure what more you are expecting here.
> 
> Compare and contrast with Danny Baker's reaction to being called on his chimp tweet: Posting a tweet of a banana, then something American containing brown, then a mealy mouthed non-apology, then his 'monks' thing (some think that's tenuous, but in context, I don't think it is), then lying his arse off the next day about not knowing who was having a baby, then his latest bullshit from the stage about being a Millwall fan so don't mess (ironic or not, it continues the defiant shitty reaction still further).
> 
> There really is no comparison, is there?



She didn't stop the first time or was pointed out. And most people who'd inadvertently racially abused someone would apologise, rather than say "fuck you."


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Know what, I actually agree with you to a point. Some of the stuff about nuance and the difference between being a racist and saying something that is racist on this thread was good. It's when she wags the finger at others it goes off track, especially when there's hypocrisy there.  Her keenness to jump down down other's throats for stuff she does herself.



Do you accuse men of wagging fingers?


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw I was reading the thread when that came up and I hadn't heard of it before either. But Rutita agreed to stop using it as soon as it was pointed out. Not sure what more you are expecting here.


But she knew she was Jewish yet repeatedly called her a princess up to when she was specifically asked by that poster to stop. The point being that she probably had no intent to use it as a racial slur.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Do you accuse men of wagging fingers?



Yes



Athos said:


> Most of the response I've seen has been finger-wagging, telling working class people off for being racist, without offering anything else.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's a very well known derogatory term when towards Jewish women. The poster in question pointed this out to Race Card and asked her to stop it.



Maybe it is well known, I had never heard of ‘slope’ before Clarkson used it, picked it up in a few Vietnam films since.

Is princess a UK term of abuse against Jews? I have only heard as a term of affection or abuse, (lines of snowflake), google seems to suggest this is an American thing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> But she knew she was Jewish yet repeatedly called her a princess up to when she was specifically asked by that poster to stop. The point being that she probably had no intent to use it as a racial slur.



And the very moment she was told it was a racial slur, what happened?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes



Three directly to a woman, one potentially to men and women.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> It all stems from Rutita1 being made to look silly by wrongly accusing that poster of lying about their race (for which she also failed to apologise).


Indeed. Rather than simply admitting she got that wrong she has accused me of lying in confirming the other poster's position.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Three directly to a woman, one potentially to men and women.



Three to the same woman. Because she's the one I see doing it. 

Nice try, though.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And the very moment she was told it was a racial slur, what happened?


She told Athos to fuck off and defended it along the lines of 'that's not how I meant it' ('not my intention'). It wasn't until the poster it was aimed at told her to stop that she did so.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And the very moment she was told it was a racial slur, what happened?



Instead of apologising, she signed off her excuse with "fuck you."


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> But she knew she was Jewish yet repeatedly called her a princess up to when she was specifically asked by that poster to stop. The point being that she probably had no intent to use it as a racial slur.


Ok well I'm not going to make another person's argument for them. (And I'm bored of discussing other posters like this.) I think intent matters here, of course it does. And ignorance _is _an excuse when it comes to use of language/symbolism. But two things I'd say to that would be: 1. Baker can't say he doesn't know the ape racism symbolism so really should have twigged what he was doing even if he didn't do it with racist intent. Doesn't make him evil but does mean he was being very dense and he should have a think about why that might be in someone as media-savvy and experienced as him. and 2. Your subsequent reaction to being called on something matters. Baker fails that test really miserably, and ultimately it is everything he's done since posting that tweet that condemns him, regardless of his original intent. I'm past caring about his original intent, tbh. Fuck him either way.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok well I'm not going to make another person's argument for them. (And I'm bored of discussing other posters like this.) I think intent matters here, of course it does. And ignorance _is _an excuse when it comes to use of language/symbolism. But two things I'd say to that would be: 1. Baker can't say he doesn't know the ape racism symbolism so really should have twigged what he was doing even if he didn't do it with racist intent. Doesn't make him evil but does mean he was being very dense and should have a think about that. and 2. Your subsequent reaction on being called on something matters. Baker fails that test really miserably, and ultimately it is everything he's done since posting that tweet that condemns him, regardless of his original intent. I'm past caring about his original intent, tbh. Fuck him either way.


Just to clarify, this didn't kick off just because of Baker. It's about her repeatedly sticking the boot into me for not dumping Liam as a mate for the "paki" comment, and my position being that there was no intent to offend when he made it.


----------



## petee (May 17, 2019)

for the record, and not taking any side in this ugly demonstration, "princess" by itself was not restricted to jewish women over here. the term for that was JAP (Jewish American Princess) which, come to think of it, i haven't heard for a long time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Three to the same woman. Because she's the one I see doing it.
> 
> Nice try, though.



So in the nearly 16 years you have been here you have only used 'finger wagging' directly against one person and that person happens to be a woman.

It may not be your intent, but that's sexist and when she called you out on it you repeated it


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So in the nearly 16 years you have been here you have only used 'finger wagging' directly against one person and that person happens to be a woman.
> 
> It may not be your intent, but that's sexist



Err... no it's not.

That wasn't even a nice try.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Eh? "Finger wagging" is sexist now?


----------



## Sweet FA (May 17, 2019)

Fucksake.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Eh? "Finger wagging" is sexist now?



Did you not get that memo?

Tell me of a time when you have ever heard a male being accused of finger wagging.


----------



## Santino (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Did you not get that memo?
> 
> Tell me of a time when you have ever heard a male being accused of finger wagging.


Stop nagging him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Santino said:


> Stop nagging him.



/fishwife , harridan , bint


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tell me of a time when you have ever heard a male being accused of finger wagging.



Just a quick search.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Just a quick search.



It must have been a very quick search, have you read the context of the thing you are providing as your killer evidence, Rumpole?


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Nope. But search it. I can't be arsed. There are hundreds of them.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Did you not get that memo?
> 
> Tell me of a time when you have ever heard a male being accused of finger wagging.



Bernie Sanders is accused of it _ad infinitum_. 

Desperate stuff.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Bernie Sanders is accused of it _ad infinitum_.
> 
> Desperate stuff.



Diseased minds


----------



## ska invita (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Did you not get that memo?
> 
> Tell me of a time when you have ever heard a male being accused of finger wagging.


I prefer "finger wagging screechy silly woman incapable of taking a reasoned view" (see recent pages)


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Diseased minds


A much underrated punk band.  Particularly liked the jazz-punk fusion stuff they did with Ruddy Yurts, especially 'Fuck The Time Signature.'


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. But search it. I can't be arsed. There are hundreds of them.



Finger Wagging gets 36 pages of replies. When you _can_ be arsed to check, have a look at how many of them are said by men at men. Clue, the number resembles Humpty Dumpty's shape, if he were an egg, which he weren't.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> When you _can_ be arsed to check ...


Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I prefer "finger wagging screechy silly woman incapable of taking a reasoned view" (see recent pages)



All we need is some bottom patting and a nice, 'now run along petal'.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Finger Wagging gets 36 pages of replies. When you _can_ be arsed to check, have a look at how many of them are said by men at men. Clue, the number resembles Humpty Dumpty's shape, if he were an egg, which he weren't.



That's simply not true.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> That's simply not true.



It is, Humpty Dumpty was a cannon, not an egg.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is, Humpty Dumpty was a cannon, not an egg.



Still wrong. Humpty Numpty.


----------



## planetgeli (May 17, 2019)

It’s all getting a bit hysterical boys. Calm down.


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

I AM FUCKING CALM!!!11!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2019)

ska invita said:


> I prefer "finger wagging screechy silly woman incapable of taking a reasoned view" (see recent pages)


Being said to a black woman about the way she talks about and deals with racism! 

The cumulative effect can be quite startling. I would add that mix on this thread the often well-meaning but misjudged way two black people's posts about Baker have repeatedly been pulled up in an attempt to give Baker the benefit of some doubt. I think there can be an impulse among white people to somehow want racism not to be as all-pervasive and insidious as it is, and so to seek alternative explanations for it when it is pointed out in surprising (to them) places. And then there can be a defensive reaction when it is suggested that you were doing that, because you genuinely didn't think you were - it certainly hadn't been your conscious _intention_. Maybe, just maybe, some posters might post a bit differently next time, even if they don't admit to getting it a bit wrong here.


----------



## brogdale (May 17, 2019)

Chances this thread still going by the time baker gets his job back?


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe, just maybe, some posters might post a bit differently next time, even if they don't admit to getting it a bit wrong here.


Who would they be then?

I reckon opinion here is about 50/50 on this (Baker). People are entitled to their views you know?


----------



## 8ball (May 17, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Perhaps not so far, after all.  Depends what DB's intent was.



Or does it?


----------



## Ted Striker (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Rutita1 is very passionate on race issues, and, like all people of colour, including you, she has had a lifetime to experience it and deal with it. I haven’t, at all. And I massively welcome her perspective on it, seems there are many here who are very keen to shut her down at every opportunity, I don’t include you in them btw, but she educates me regularly on the plight of what it is like to grow up and live in the UK as someone who is not white. I am all ears for her views and experience, more power to her, not that she needs it off a cunt like me.



That's where I'm trying to be. It's where most of us want to be, as a fan of generally trying to avoid further foot-in-mouth episodes and y'know, be a decent person. Rutita's perspective is incredibly valuable. It doesn't mean it can't be questioned, and no-one gets a pass against acting a cunt against people disagreeing (albeit only initially!) in good faith.

Taking no glee, but the princess hypocrisy is an unfortunate comical diversion. Again. Almost word-for-word she uses the DB defence.

But anyway...Anyone going tonight? 7:30 Hackney Empire...


----------



## Athos (May 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Being said to a black woman about the way she talks about and deals with racism!
> 
> The cumulative effect can be quite startling. I would add that mix on this thread the often well-meaning but misjudged way two black people's posts about Baker have repeatedly been pulled up in an attempt to give Baker the benefit of some doubt. I think there can be an impulse among white people to somehow want racism not to be as all-pervasive and insidious as it is, and so to seek alternative explanations for it when it is pointed out in surprising (to them) places. And then there can be a defensive reaction when it is suggested that you were doing that, because you genuinely didn't think you were - it certainly hadn't been your conscious _intention_. Maybe, just maybe, some posters might post a bit differently next time, even if they don't admit to getting it a bit wrong here.



The only one of those I've accused her of is finger wagging.  And I stand by it.  It's not particularly in respect of her posts regarding racism; she's like it on lots of subjects. I've not sought to give Baker the benefit of thr doubt; I said from the outset he should be sacked.


----------



## 8ball (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Maybe it is well known, I had never heard of ‘slope’ before Clarkson used it, picked it up in a few Vietnam films since.
> 
> Is princess a UK term of abuse against Jews? I have only heard as a term of affection or abuse, (lines of snowflake), google seems to suggest this is an American thing.



I got called a racist earlier for worrying about using an American racial trope.
This thread delivers in buckets*. 

* - phew!


----------



## 8ball (May 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Chances this thread still going by the time baker gets his job back?



I'll take that bet, but it will need good odds.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon opinion here is about 50/50 on this (Baker). People are entitled to their views you know?



50% morons who as you say, are quite entitled to their moronic views. On Baker:

Harry and mixed-race Meghan have a baby. Baker posts picture entitled Royal baby leaves hospital with a picture of the baby being a monkey. Some people argue that is not racist. They are morons.


----------



## ska invita (May 17, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> It’s all getting a bit hysterical boys. Calm down.


And it is Boys around here isn't it. I wonder why?


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 50% morons who as you say, are quite entitled to their moronic views. On Baker:
> 
> Harry and mixed-race Meghan have a baby. Baker posts picture entitled Royal baby leaves hospital with a picture of the baby being a monkey. Some people argue that is not racist. They are morons.


Nobody has actually argued that though, to my knowledge.


----------



## teuchter (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody has actually argued that though, to my knowledge.


Much to the disappointment of finger-wagging rich white male, Bahnhof Strasse.


----------



## maomao (May 17, 2019)

Ted Striker said:


> But anyway...Anyone going tonight? 7:30 Hackney Empire...



No need. Can see twats talking shit all day for free on Urban75.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody has actually argued that though, to my knowledge.



That jarndyce character has tried to.

Sorry to disappoint you teuchter


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

He’s not 50% though, tbf


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> He’s not 50% though, tbf




Edit, oh, you said nobody, they are somebody.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

You said 50% are morons


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You said 50% are morons



They are. Regardless of whether they find Baker’s tweet to be racist or not.


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2019)

Can’t argue with that


----------



## Ted Striker (May 17, 2019)

50% is pretty low for here


----------



## T & P (May 17, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> It’s all getting a bit hysterical boys. Calm down.


Where is tobyjug when you need him?


----------



## teuchter (May 17, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sorry to disappoint you teuchter


With this apology you set a good example for the rest of urban75.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2019)

teuchter said:


> With this apology you set a good example for the rest of urban75.



Yeah, perhaps if others can be fucked they’ll also disappoint you by disproving whatever pathetic point it is that you are trying to make, but I fear apathy will make most folk not be so committed as I.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> The only one of those I've accused her of is finger wagging.  And I stand by it.  It's not particularly in respect of her posts regarding racism; she's like it on lots of subjects. I've not sought to give Baker the benefit of thr doubt; I said from the outset he should be sacked.


Well done you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Who would they be then?
> 
> I reckon opinion here is about 50/50 on this (Baker). People are entitled to their views you know?


You haven't understood the point of the post, which wasn't to call people out. That's ok. But I'm not going to explain it further.


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You haven't understood the point of the post, which wasn't to call people out.


Which post, Einstein?

Let's do this. I'm going to rip you to fucking pieces.

You put up a spirited defence of 'two black people'	 ... but don't give a fuck about my (half black) views cos Indians and Irish don't count, right?  

When your back's against a wall and you have to have a pukka race fight, one LiamO is worth ten thousand Race Card Ritas.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 18, 2019)

That's an easy thing to think at 1.22am.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 18, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That jarndyce character has tried to.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you teuchter


That's not a real person. It's a trollbot.


----------



## LiamO (May 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> When your back's against a wall and you have to have a pukka race fight, one LiamO is worth ten thousand Race Card Ritas.


----------



## jarndyce (May 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Rather than simply admitting she got that wrong she has accused me of lying.



I think Spymaster has hit the nail


----------



## jarndyce (May 18, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's not a real person. It's a trollbot.



I am a real person. And I stand by my opinion that Baker was lampooning class, not race.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Which post, Einstein?
> 
> Let's do this. I'm going to rip you to fucking pieces.
> 
> ...


You think I was talking primarily about you, it appears. I wasn't.


----------



## extra dry (May 19, 2019)

What was the photographer thinking? It must have been an original jab at Charles Darwin?


----------



## jarndyce (May 19, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody has actually argued that though, to my knowledge.





Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That jarndyce character has tried to.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you
> teuchter



I did suggest that, yes. 

Obviously Baker could do with some PC tips...but the guy has spent his life unhindered by racist motivations and accusations so maybe should get a pass for a mistake he admits and which cost him his job.


----------



## andysays (May 20, 2019)

jarndyce said:


> I did suggest that, yes.
> 
> Obviously Baker could do with some PG tips...but the guy has spent his life unhindered by racist motivations and accusations so maybe should get a pass for a mistake he admits and which cost him his job.


Yeah, let's all calm down and have a nice cup of tea.


----------



## Poi E (May 20, 2019)




----------



## GarveyLives (Aug 5, 2019)

D'wards said:


> Danny defends himsen
> 
> Danny Baker's First Interview Since Being Sacked By BBC Over "Racist" Tweet - LBC



Further self-pity courtesy of LBC:

Danny Baker hired bouncers for tour after 'racist' royal baby tweet


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 6, 2019)

Get off the internet, people. It's sunny outside and there's probably a nice park or stretch of lawn we can lie on.


----------



## xenon (Aug 6, 2019)

It's raining.


----------



## mod (Aug 6, 2019)

Interviewed by James O'Brien here.

Full Disclosure With James O'Brien: Danny Baker Is This Week's Guest - LBC


----------



## mod (Aug 6, 2019)

The podcast with Gary Lineker is back in 2 weeks.


----------

