Danny Baker

Heartfeltdawn

..

Heartfeltdawn

Still not funny. Damn me.

Bellycaster

Heartfeltdawn said:

Barnezy said:

Isn’t everyone racist to an extent? We’re also all classist, ageist, sexist etc. It’s the world we’ve all been bought up in, making judgements of other people based on what we see externaly. The line in A Time to Kill sums it up perfectly "The fact is you are just like all the rest of them. When you look at me, you don't see a man, you see a black man.". 

Now I don’t think anyone can self proclaim themselves as not racist. Yes he might not be proactively racist, but he does have unconscious bias. What does exist is being conscious of your bias so you can challenge it and be aware how your words or actions might be percevied by others. If your a considerate person you will be able to manage this.

Clearly posting a picture of a monkey is offensive and everyone knows this. Baker must have decided to do this anyway, which goes to show the type of character he is. Basically an egotistical arrogant twat. 

'Racist' is as defined here:

"a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another."

You believe that nobody can self proclaim themselves as not racist. Unconscious bias can lead a person toward making racism statements and then it is either down to the individual  to become conscious of the contentious nature of the statements either by their own discovery or through the intervention of others. 

If people are unable to self-determine that they are not a racist, how would that apply to self-determinism and gender? If a claim to be non-racist has to be judged by people external to the individual, then does a self-proclamation about also have to be judged accordingly? 

*yes this has fuck all to do with Danny Baker

I am clearly a Racist according to that as I think that Black Long Distance Runners are far superior to White Long Distance Runners 

As for Danny Baker, I doubt he is a Racist, but he should have known better and thought before he acted.

crunchman

Apparently the police are now investigating. While the tweet was utterly stupid, it doesn't require a police investigation.

prowla

In this day and age you have to be extremely careful about what you say, because there is always someone waiting to be racially offended if anything at all could possible be construed to be interpreted to be impinging upon any race, creed, colour, social grouping, or other demographic.

When I was little, kids could be called "cheeky little monkeys", but you would be ill-advised to do that today.

As for the performing monkey observation, there is some element of truth to that as far as the Royals go, where they pop out of their gilded cages to do carefully selected public duties, with carefully selected elements of the media present by arrangement.

However, I think that Mr Baker thought that he was being clever and a bit edgy in this case, but he was wrong and he stepped over the line.

VimFuego

crunchman said:

Apparently the police are now investigating. While the tweet was utterly stupid, it doesn't require a police investigation.

thing is, and while not defending the tweet nor condemning the police, for them it's an easy investigation. It'll cost virtually nothing (they don't even need to leave their desk) and it gives them a chance to tick a box on a home office form somewhere. OFC it won't make the streets any safer, but it'll probably be good for someones career. 

SRich

crunchman said:

Apparently the police are now investigating. While the tweet was utterly stupid, it doesn't require a police investigation.

(Probably) deserves a Royal pardon......I’m sure the new edgy Royal couple have a sense of humour, and Archie can’t be offended at this early age. Just wait till he gets to school / Eton......

Danny was being arch and laddish, but it’s not a basis for public pillory.

Iamnobody

After claiming he didn’t know which royal couple had a baby it turns out a couple of days before he’d retweeted a photo of them and suggested a silly name.

What a stupid man...

ICBM

crunchman said:

Apparently the police are now investigating. While the tweet was utterly stupid, it doesn't require a police investigation.

I think the law requires that a complaint of racism must be investigated - all it takes is for someone to make a formal complaint and they have no choice. They may decide to take no action, but they still have to respond.

Iamnobody

I don’t think he’s a racist, he’s a cunt and a liar and many things. I think if the police investigate it will be an over the top response

Meanwhile Danny was photographed early this morning at his home...

Tone71

Im actually rather gutted, his Saturday podcast was alway my Monday morning wake up, anyone who thinks that post was racist needs a reality check, it was just poorly thought out.

FFS the guy is a Milwall supporter, thinking before doing isn't top of their list..........As for a police investigation, this country has gone mad.

ICBM

To be fair, his latest statement sounds like much more of a proper apology and that he does realise that his first response actually made it worse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48226247

Heartfeltdawn

Bellycaster said:

I am clearly a Racist according to that as I think that Black Long Distance Runners are far superior to White Long Distance Runners 

As for Danny Baker, I doubt he is a Racist, but he should have known better and thought before he acted.

That's simply a statement without stating why they are superior. 

If you say "Black long distance runners are superior because of advantageous genetics and physiology to white runners" then you have a wealth of long distance running records to support that view. Articles like this support that view. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/

So what you said isn't racist. 

Heartfeltdawn

prowla said:

In this day and age you have to be extremely careful about what you say, because there is always someone waiting to be racially offended if anything at all could possible be construed to be interpreted to be impinging upon any race, creed, colour, social grouping, or other demographic.

And back in the day you didn't have to be careful. You could say what you like, chuck bananas at black people on football pitches, make comments about poofs and women...

The years of 'Political Correctness' are nowhere near to outnumbering the years of discrimination. 

p90fool

Tone71 said:

Im actually rather gutted, his Saturday podcast was alway my Monday morning wake up, anyone who thinks that post was racist needs a reality check, it was just poorly thought out.

FFS the guy is a Milwall supporter, thinking before doing isn't top of their list..........

That's a very good point, in fact an awful lot of them have such terrible forward planning that they suddenly realise they did the whole month's banana shopping on the way to the ground instead of on the way home, and can't for the life of them think where they're going to put them for the next 90 minutes. 

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

To be fair, his latest statement sounds like much more of a proper apology and that he does realise that his first response actually made it worse.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48226247

But even then he has to throw in the phrase "dog whistle" at the end of his statement.  Just shut up, Danny.

Jonathangus

I have no strong feelings about Danny Baker the man either way - don't think I've ever listened to his show - but does anyone genuinely think it was meant as a racial slur?  I mean, seriously?

Consider these three scenarios:

Scenario A

- Er, Danny?  Your tweet about the royal baby.  You don't think it's a bit, well, racist?

- What?  Bloody hell, no!  That never entered my mind.  I was trying to make the point about how the baby's like some kind of perfoming animal to be paraded in front of the media circus, just because the parents are rich and privileged.

- Ah, right.  I see what you mean.  You may have a point.

Scenario B

- Er, Danny?  Your tweet about the royal baby.  You don't think it's a bit, well, racist?

- What?  Bloody hell, no!  That never entered my mind.  I was trying to make the point about how the baby's like some kind of perfoming animal to be paraded in front of the media circus, just because the parents are rich and privileged.

- Mate, you're racist.  RACIST!!!  (Runs to Facebook and unlocks the pitchfork cupboard.)

Scenario C

- Er, Danny?  Your tweet about the royal baby.  You don't think it's a bit, well, racist?

- Yeah, I know.  What of it?  Bloody n------ soiling our royal family.

Thankfully we, as a society, have (mostly) got away from C.  But we've ended up at B, when we should really aspire to be at A.

Under the current climate, though, it was undeniably incredibly stupid and thoughtless.  The BBC had no choice but to sack him, because they'd never hear the end of it if they didn't.  But that probably says more about the current climate than whether it was necessarily the right thing to do.

Bridgehouse

- Er, Danny? You know football supporters throwing bananas at black footballers is a racist slur as it compares black people to primates?
- What?! Bloody hell, no! I assumed it was because they wanted the players to slip over on them vaudeville comedy hall style and gain a playing advantage! Racist? Never occurred to me.
- Mate, you’re a twat.

ICBM

Philly_Q said:

But even then he has to throw in the phrase "dog whistle" at the end of his statement.  Just shut up, Danny.

Yes, I saw that too. He still doesn't quite understand that a full, absolutely unreserved apology is what's wanted.

Jonathangus

The point I'm trying to make is that we should possibly focus more on the genuine motivation behind speech or actions, and less on the (sometimes erroneous) interpretation of them.  The throwing of bananas by certain football 'fans' is clearly racially motivated, clearly disgraceful, and should be stamped out.   There's no other interpretation of that.  Where there's genuine abuse of others because they're black/asian/Polish/gay/Muslim/whatever, it's obviously unacceptable.

The question is - do we really think that the tweet was racially motivated, or just very, very stupid?  If you actually think he's just trying to cover up a deliberate racial slur by offering another interpretation, he deserves all he gets.  If on the other hand, he's just been unbelievably thoughtless, and the question of the baby's ethnicity genuinely never entered his head, should people not just accept his (eventual) apology, and move on?