Danny Baker sacked
Comments
-
Imposter wrote:DeVlaeminck wrote:Well you need to make your mind up you admit it may not have been intentional but say it can't be an innocent mistake - surely it is one or the other?
It's either crass stupidity, or blatant racism. The punishment was correct for either, imo..
He's either really stupid or a racist. If I'd seen it before it was explained I probably would have probably assumed a horrible racist joke to be honest so I'm not surprised it caused a huge reaction. I'm slightly inclined to believe him and go with the non-racist explaination as surely noone in the public eye would be stupid enough to intentionally make a racist joke like that these days...? If it was a mistake I think sacking was a tad harsh but then I don't really care, I don't think either joke was especially funny and I don't listen to him0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Your interpretation of his bio is very generous. He was a print journalist on NME, his current affairs work was at the Esther Rantzen end of the market.
My reading of his bio is entirely factual. He's been a media professional since 1977. I'm sure Esther Rantzen is familiar with the Royals..Surrey Commuter wrote:The spurs fan threw a banana skin which to me he threw what he had to hand rather than a premeditated act.
If that's how you see it, then that tells me a lot about you. Gotta hand it to those random banana-carrying football fans.0 -
orraloon wrote:Hey hey, popcorn time. Go on you 2, brighten up a foggy Friday morning...
It is going to take a while to find my racist postings so you may want to get a comfy seat
I am guessing “socially charged” is a snowflake expression so I will await a translation before getting annoyed about that.0 -
Imposter wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Your interpretation of his bio is very generous. He was a print journalist on NME, his current affairs work was at the Esther Rantzen end of the market.
My reading of his bio is entirely factual. He's been a media professional since 1977. I'm sure Esther Rantzen is familiar with the Royals..Surrey Commuter wrote:The spurs fan threw a banana skin which to me he threw what he had to hand rather than a premeditated act.
If that's how you see it, then that tells me a lot about you. Gotta hand it to those random banana-carrying football fans.
I don’t see the point in inflating his bio.
He threw a banana skin. This suggests to me that he took a snack to the game and ate it. In a moment of rage he threw the leftovers at a player.0 -
A black player by any chance?
Had he just eaten his snack or was he holding an empty skin waiting for the right moment? I guess we'll never know for sure and have to assume it was an, unfortunate coincidence that he just finished, got angry and threw it at a black player. Benefit of the doubt seems to be the in thing with some. Not the BBC for some reason.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:orraloon wrote:Hey hey, popcorn time. Go on you 2, brighten up a foggy Friday morning...
It is going to take a while to find my racist postings so you may want to get a comfy seat
I am guessing “socially charged” is a snowflake expression so I will await a translation before getting annoyed about that.
Not taking sides here but I basically switch off when people use that word...0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Saying that he should have known the reaction from the professionally outraged and has paid the price.
I think that's a bit much; I don't think the monkey/black comparison really has place anywhere anymore, joke or not, wouldn't you say?
My point is that he was not making that comparison. He was an idiot for presenting others with the opportunity to make it for him.
If the joke isn't a racist joke, then what is the joke?
As per above, that he's only made the joke now and not for any of the other royal babies suggests that an unfortunate coincidence is really pretty unlikely.
Class war
I do wonder how I would have interpreted the tweet if it was a D list celeb I did not know of.0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Saying that he should have known the reaction from the professionally outraged and has paid the price.
I think that's a bit much; I don't think the monkey/black comparison really has place anywhere anymore, joke or not, wouldn't you say?
My point is that he was not making that comparison. He was an idiot for presenting others with the opportunity to make it for him.
If the joke isn't a racist joke, then what is the joke?
As per above, that he's only made the joke now and not for any of the other royal babies suggests that an unfortunate coincidence is really pretty unlikely.
Class war
I do wonder how I would have interpreted the tweet if it was a D list celeb I did not know of.
Since when has a monkey been synonymous with working class (or simply not posh?)? I have never heard that once.
Baker's a football fan right? How would he have missed the more obvious connection?0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:A black player by any chance?
have you ever met a racist football fan? The thought that he would buy a banana to throw at a black player and then think that looks nicer than a burger and then ate it is ludicrous
It was Aubameyang at the Emirates this year if you want to check out how early the incident happened.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:
Saying that he should have known the reaction from the professionally outraged and has paid the price.
I think that's a bit much; I don't think the monkey/black comparison really has place anywhere anymore, joke or not, wouldn't you say?
My point is that he was not making that comparison. He was an idiot for presenting others with the opportunity to make it for him.
If the joke isn't a racist joke, then what is the joke?
As per above, that he's only made the joke now and not for any of the other royal babies suggests that an unfortunate coincidence is really pretty unlikely.
Class war
I do wonder how I would have interpreted the tweet if it was a D list celeb I did not know of.
Since when has a monkey been synonymous with working class (or simply not posh?)? I have never heard that once.
Baker's a football fan right? How would he have missed the more obvious connection?
Wrong way round - the people in the photo are Victorian posh and have dressed the monkey up in their likeness.
Check out the story behind the photo - it is more interesting0 -
Surrey Commuter wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:A black player by any chance?
have you ever met a racist football fan? The thought that he would buy a banana to throw at a black player and then think that looks nicer than a burger and then ate it is ludicrous
.
Err, this is exactly what they do do.
You know fulham broadway sainsbury's, as well as not selling booze during football matches, also clear the bananas off the shelf? I sh!t you not.
I know this as I lived 2 minutes away from that and Stamford Bridge and I like to buy bananas on my saturday shop to use for the Sunday morning club run.0 -
Bananas make for healthy snack. Although they also make for a good racist image to throw at black players.
I don't follow football and have no interest in it. Last time I watched a football game it was the semis in the Italian world Cup, 1990 I think and I only watched first 15 then right at the end. So I really can't comment about racism in football from a point of knowledge / experience. I would say that I've seen quite a lot of it reaching the TV news over the past few years. Stories of it happening in the UK and even national games being played behind closed doors without fans because of issues with ultra types with racism at their centre (with hooliganism).
With my ignorance of football and football fans are they all fat, beer swilling yobs whos only use for a banana is to throw at a black player? Do they live of burgers and hotdogs and pies at matches? Or are there likely to be some healthy fans? Could it really be a snack banana thrown in anger at a decision that happened to land near a black player?
It does seem that a lot of coincidence appears around racism.0 -
Pross wrote:orraloon wrote:Which one of Harry and Meghan is the commoner? Given the parentage...?
Good point, neither Diana or Hewitt were of royal blood so we are still waiting on the first mixed race royal wedding / birth.
Actually it is possible that Queen Victoria was not of Royal descent having been the daughter of Sir John Conroy outside her mothers marriage to the DUke of Kent.Concrete evidence [to the] paternity of Victoria could be achieved with a DNA test of her or her parents' remains, but no such study has been sanctioned by the Royal Family.0 -
There was a study of illegitimacy in the general population and in royalty. Apparently the chances of illegitimacy in royalty is double that in the general population. There's believed to be many kings of England who were really not the sons of their regal predecessor.0
-
I have often enjoyed Baker's radio shows but he is an odd character and it is hard to pin down his "politics" or his world view. He often presents views on his radio shows and in print which could be described as liberal or forward-thinking but always comes over as a bit of a prat on his twitter account.
Having said that, I find it hard to believe that Baker consciously, deliberately chose this image to make reference to the royal baby's ethnicity. His response to this suggestion - that he would have to have a diseased mind to have done so - strongly dismisses that he did; he doesn't, in my view, suggest that those reading his tweet must have a diseased mind to have seen such a connection as some commentators seem to have suggested.
However, the use of the image was crass, stupid, naïve, thoughtless, and unnecessary and his explanation for why he used the image and his apology very unconvincing. That he then felt able to criticise the BBC for their reaction exacerbated this and fuels the belief that he doesn't really understand what he did wrong.
Thus whilst I think it possible that Baker didn't mean this image in the way it has been interpreted, the BBC had little or no choice to respond in the way they did and social commentators are correct to vilify him because regardless of intent, regardless of whether he knew that Meghan Markle was black, etc., he was not having a laddish chat down the pub with a few mates but knowingly speaking to his large number of twitter followers.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:A black player by any chance?
have you ever met a racist football fan? The thought that he would buy a banana to throw at a black player and then think that looks nicer than a burger and then ate it is ludicrous
.
Err, this is exactly what they do do.
You know fulham broadway sainsbury's, as well as not selling booze during football matches, also clear the bananas off the shelf? I sh!t you not.
I know this as I lived 2 minutes away from that and Stamford Bridge and I like to buy bananas on my saturday shop to use for the Sunday morning club run.
my point is that they do not eat them0 -
Stan Collymore hits the nail on the head here in my opinion:
https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/statu ... gr%5Etweet
https://twitter.com/StanCollymore/statu ... gr%5Etweet
Although, the BBC could have said "Haven't you learnt from the last twice we've sacked you?"0 -
Having met and talked with Danny on several occasions I can tell you in no way is the man a racist.
Unfortunate use of a photo yes but I was not aware that the mother was from ethnic parentage. I don't follow royal chit chat and I think you'll find Danny the same!! I know he wouldn't have been aware of the parentage either.
In SE London we did and still do refer to our kids as 'little monkeys'. Mischievous behavior aligns this description.
Of course the BBC had to have word and he was right to tell them to f**k off.0 -
bradsbeard wrote:
Unfortunate use of a photo yes but I was not aware that the mother was from ethnic parentage. I don't follow royal chit chat and I think you'll find Danny the same!! I know he wouldn't have been aware of the parentage either.
.
I wasn't aware either, but I suppose working in media comes with the expectation that you should know these things.
It is sad that he will be branded as a racist and I hope he can take BBC to court and get compensation and an apology, but ultimately his "mistake" means he won't be able to work in media again.
My feeling is that this is a failure by the BBC to train staff on sensitive issuesleft the forum March 20230 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:bradsbeard wrote:
Unfortunate use of a photo yes but I was not aware that the mother was from ethnic parentage. I don't follow royal chit chat and I think you'll find Danny the same!! I know he wouldn't have been aware of the parentage either.
.
I wasn't aware either, but I suppose working in media comes with the expectation that you should know these things.
It is sad that he will be branded as a racist and I hope he can take BBC to court and get compensation and an apology, but ultimately his "mistake" means he won't be able to work in media again.
My feeling is that this is a failure by the BBC to train staff on sensitive issues
Still has a very successful stand up show plus one of the most popular podcasts with Gary Lineker. He's one the most successful script writers.
He'll be signed up for radio by one of the independents.0 -
So what was the joke about?bradsbeard wrote:Having met and talked with Danny on several occasions I can tell you in no way is the man a racist.
Unfortunate use of a photo yes but I was not aware that the mother was from ethnic parentage. I don't follow royal chit chat and I think you'll find Danny the same!! I know he wouldn't have been aware of the parentage either.
In SE London we did and still do refer to our kids as 'little monkeys'. Mischievous behavior aligns this description.
Of course the BBC had to have word and he was right to tell them to f**k off.0 -
Yet again - it's becoming one of the defining characteristics of our times - the astonishing "burn the witch" trigger reflex is set off.
I have never listened to Baker - I might just about have been able to say he was a presenter / DJ if you'd asked me - and have no opinion on his character or history.
It does seem slightly remarkable, and very stupid, for him not to know the racist connotations of a monkey image.
But the point is that in our secular holier-than-thou times there is no room for nuance, understanding or even a simple mistake - if the witchfinders-general smell the slightest whiff of heresy, you have no chance.
At least the Spanish Inquisition offered heretics the chance to recant: but these days, it seems, our ideological purity and zealotry are leagues ahead of those rather pathetic softies.0 -
bompington wrote:Yet again - it's becoming one of the defining characteristics of our times - the astonishing "burn the witch" trigger reflex is set off.
I have never listened to Baker - I might just about have been able to say he was a presenter / DJ if you'd asked me - and have no opinion on his character or history.
It does seem slightly remarkable, and very stupid, for him not to know the racist connotations of a monkey image.
But the point is that in our secular holier-than-thou times there is no room for nuance, understanding or even a simple mistake - if the witchfinders-general smell the slightest whiff of heresy, you have no chance.
At least the Spanish Inquisition offered heretics the chance to recant: but these days, it seems, our ideological purity and zealotry are leagues ahead of those rather pathetic softies.
This is all very well, but there's a simple question; are you comfortable with publicly funded broadcasters who are comfortable making (and are actually making) racist jokes - intentional or otherwise?
If not, then what are the BBC to do?
If you in your classroom said something racist, surely you would expect some consequences?0 -
FWIW Bom, I have some sympathy for less clear cut cases.
A career instagrammer has basically lost that career after she posted a video of her and her friends all in overly sized bathrobes and made a "look like the KKK" joke - she's since been hounded off.
I am in two minds. Firstly, her job is about appealing to folk online and her audience clearly is sensitive about those types of jokes, so it was professional misjudgement. Secondly, I get that it's fairly insensitive.
But I do also agree that the standards the mob sets are plainly not achievable by pretty much everyone, and the mob reaction is usually out of proportion with what has happened - in this instance, I think had they given it a bit more thought they might have not made the joke and will certainly now reflect on what jokes they make, but the consquences do seem out of proportion.
However I do think, ultimately, if your job is in the public eye you must recognise what the public will think of what you do. Danny is not going to jail for his tweet, nor should he. But he clearly miss-judged what the public think and part of his job is to judge that correctly.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:FWIW Bom, I have some sympathy for less clear cut cases.
A career instagrammer has basically lost that career after she posted a video of her and her friends all in overly sized bathrobes and made a "look like the KKK" joke - she's since been hounded off.
I am in two minds. Firstly, her job is about appealing to folk online and her audience clearly is sensitive about those types of jokes, so it was professional misjudgement. Secondly, I get that it's fairly insensitive.
But I do also agree that the standards the mob sets are plainly not achievable by pretty much everyone, and the mob reaction is usually out of proportion with what has happened - in this instance, I think had they given it a bit more thought they might have not made the joke and will certainly now reflect on what jokes they make, but the consquences do seem out of proportion.
However I do think, ultimately, if your job is in the public eye you must recognise what the public will think of what you do. Danny is not going to jail for his tweet, nor should he. But he clearly miss-judged what the public think and part of his job is to judge that correctly.
Do you think his tweet was worse than Alan Sugar's?0 -
I'm actually amazed that there are people on here claiming they didn't know Meghan is mixed race. You would have to have lived on another planet and had no access to any form of media to have not known that. It's almost like claiming you had never heard of Brexit or Donald Trump as the exposure to the subject has been so high.
I'm also not sure how someone who meets a person 'on several occasions' and be able to tell that they are in no way racist. Maybe he isn't and maybe he is but usually manages to hide it in public or maybe he's like a lot of us who say things we know we shouldn't but don't actually mean them who knows?
That said, I'm not sure whether apologising is the right thing to do if someone genuinely misconstrues your intentions. I sometimes wish people would stand their ground and say 'if you've chosen to interpret it that way that's up to you but it isn't what was intended'.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
So what was the joke about?bradsbeard wrote:Having met and talked with Danny on several occasions I can tell you in no way is the man a racist.
Unfortunate use of a photo yes but I was not aware that the mother was from ethnic parentage. I don't follow royal chit chat and I think you'll find Danny the same!! I know he wouldn't have been aware of the parentage either.
In SE London we did and still do refer to our kids as 'little monkeys'. Mischievous behavior aligns this description.
Of course the BBC had to have word and he was right to tell them to f**k off.
Really?? :roll:0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:bompington wrote:Yet again - it's becoming one of the defining characteristics of our times - the astonishing "burn the witch" trigger reflex is set off.
I have never listened to Baker - I might just about have been able to say he was a presenter / DJ if you'd asked me - and have no opinion on his character or history.
It does seem slightly remarkable, and very stupid, for him not to know the racist connotations of a monkey image.
But the point is that in our secular holier-than-thou times there is no room for nuance, understanding or even a simple mistake - if the witchfinders-general smell the slightest whiff of heresy, you have no chance.
At least the Spanish Inquisition offered heretics the chance to recant: but these days, it seems, our ideological purity and zealotry are leagues ahead of those rather pathetic softies.
This is all very well, but there's a simple question; are you comfortable with publicly funded broadcasters who are comfortable making (and are actually making) racist jokes - intentional or otherwise?
If not, then what are the BBC to do?
If you in your classroom said something racist, surely you would expect some consequences?
So who defines what is racist and what is not? The court of public opinion can be very fickle...
I am inclined to accept his explanation that the real target of the joke was the aristocracy. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can play the dog-whistle game - of course you could post it in full knowledge that the monkey thing is both a racist trope and capable of more innocent interpretation. Like I said, I don't know anything about Baker - but nobody seems to be able to find anything else he's said or done that can be interpreted as racist. And that's something that's quite hard to achieve in these hair-trigger times.
But hey, he's a gammon! He talks too much! On Raio 5 live! He's a football supporter forfuxake, Millwall even!
Therefore he must be a racist. QED.
Who's guilty of prejudice here? Who's is it that's jumping to conclusions based on lazy stereotypes?
But for the sake of argument, let's stretch plausibility and assume that it was a racist joke, so I can answer your question:Rick Chasey wrote:This is all very well, but there's a simple question; are you comfortable with publicly funded broadcasters who are comfortable making (and are actually making) racist jokes - intentional or otherwise?
If not, then what are the BBC to do?
Firstly, who said he was comfortable making a racist joke? The way it all happens suggest that, as soon as the reaction came in (it was up for 8 minutes!) he got very uncomfortable indeed.
But let's continue stretching plausibility, beyond breaking point if need be, and say that he was.
Here are a few things the BBC could do:
1. Send him, publicly and humiliatingly, for diversity training - surely the most hideous punishment possible if he really is a racist gammon, and if not, well, it might help him learn to be more careful in future.
2. Get someone to grill him live on air as to what on earth he was thinking. Perhaps even with the prior warning that he'd better show the appropriate contrition.
3. Support him. Make a statement that they are satisfied that there was no racist intent and they are taking no further action; but with a barbed addendum reminding him that the whole world is watching him now and there couldn't possibly be any excuse for going there again.
These, or any number of other variations, would still send the message that racism is not on, and that he should be careful what he says in future.
But that's not good enough, is it?
It all reminds me of the performative revolutionary virtue-signalling expected under Stalin and Mao - it's not enough not to break the rules yourself, for someone to demonstrate their loyalty they have to stand up and compete to denounce the traitor with ever-increasing levels of rhetoric.
We already see plenty enough echos of the show trials, where the miscreant has to pour out their apology and plead extravagantly and humiliatingly that they still have absolute loyalty to C̶o̶m̶r̶a̶d̶e̶ ̶S̶t̶a̶l̶i̶n̶ sorry, Twitter, but it will do no good, we all know the un-personing will still go ahead anyway.0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:I wasn't aware either, but I suppose working in media comes with the expectation that you should know these things.
Ignorance of current affairs (aka a high profile news story which has been running for around two years already) is not an excuse. As Pross points out, almost anyone ought to have an awareness of stuff like this.ugo.santalucia wrote:My feeling is that this is a failure by the BBC to train staff on sensitive issues
Does the BBC really need to 'train' a supposedly intelligent man in his 60s to make sure to read the news occasionally and not be a fvking idiot..??0 -
It's quite easy to not know much about royals if you have control of the TV remote or computer mouse or can choose what newspaper you read. Royals come on news or TV I turn over. Radio has some news on royals I tend to turn it off it turn over it put a CD on. I don't read paper copies of papers only online. I can very easily select not to read any royals.
That was why I only found out Ms Markle was the product of a white father and black mother. I found that out before the wedding when I was at someone's house and they had something on TV about her. I had no choice as it was a family gathering and one member wanted to see that.
BTW I still don't know of her name is Markel or Markle. I won't Google it because I'll end up seeing information on them and I really can't be bothered with that. However I'm a bit pedantic and want to get the spelling right.0
