Danny Baker sacked

ugo.santalucia

Imposter wrote:

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..??

What is acceptable and funny and what is not keeps changing... would Peter Key's two up-two down joke still be acceptable in today's climate?
In their interest, they should make sure staff are aware of what is acceptable and what isn't...

rick_chasey

bradsbeard wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

So what was the joke about?

Really?? :roll:

Well plainly I'm seeing it the way most people are, but you seem to be intimating it's something else, so why don't you explain it?

kingstongraham

Pross wrote:

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'.

If his intention was not to cause offence, then the right thing to do once he was made aware it was offensive would be: Delete the tweet, Apologise, saying you are appalled at yourself for not realising. Then stay quiet.

slowmart

There are some amazingly innocent or naive views being expressed

I’ve not seen or heard racism at football so it doesn’t exist

Over reaction from the BBC


You really need to take a look in the mirror, those views are part of the problem.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

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.

Who's deciding he's racist? Well, that's kinda irrelevant. The point is he tweeted something that is widely interpreted as racist, via a very common racist trope. Why is that stretching plausibility? The whole black/monkey thing is centuries old. I don't understand why people are so quick to assume that he clearly must not have meant it that way. It's not like he did it for any of the other royal babies.

as for your solutions; I guess that's up to HR and not me. I'd propose that we don't know how much diversity training has gone on behind the scenes, though I would hazard a guess the BBC is fairly hot on that.

I would imagine the BBC also has a fairly well defined code of conduct for its staff on social media. I would even suggest it's fairly likely the tweet will have contravened that.

I don't think putting him in modern stay stocks for the public to maul him is a particularly constructive way for HR to handle it. Particularly as the BBC, which has to represent the entire nation through its output, is uniquely sensitive to criticisms of minority discrimination.

He's not going to prison for it. He's probably broken the rules of his job, or at the very least, committed a large professional misjudgement, and in any job, that can be a sackable offence.

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In their interest, they should make sure staff are aware of what is acceptable and what isn't...

They already do that - which is why he got fired.. :roll:

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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?

I don't think the relativism is particularly helpful, but no probably not.

Then again, if Sugar lost his job as a result of that tweet I wouldn't lose much sleep over it, for the reasons I've just explained above.

The 'fairness' of one sacking over the other is a question for BBC HR.

I suspect the BBC's relationship with the royals when compared to the Nigerian football team probably has some relevance there.

Mad_Malx

Rick Chasey wrote:

bradsbeard wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

So what was the joke about?

Really?? :roll:

Well plainly I'm seeing it the way most people are, but you seem to be intimating it's something else, so why don't you explain it?

I thought the putative explanation was around the royal family being circus animals performing for our entertainment

ugo.santalucia

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In their interest, they should make sure staff are aware of what is acceptable and what isn't...

They already do that - which is why he got fired.. :roll:

Call me a trade unionist, but I don't like to take the eployer's part... I think the BBC have benefitted from a certain type of humour for many years, whilst discarding the said "comedians" when that humour became untrendy... plenty of recent examples

imposter2.0

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Imposter wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

In their interest, they should make sure staff are aware of what is acceptable and what isn't...

They already do that - which is why he got fired.. :roll:

Call me a trade unionist, but I don't like to take the eployer's part... I think the BBC have benefitted from a certain type of humour for many years, whilst discarding the said "comedians" when that humour became untrendy... plenty of recent examples

The BBC has evolved, in line with most other media organisations (apart from the Daily Mail), to reflect changing attitudes in society. Coincidentally, it looks as though Freddie Starr died today, as well...

rjsterry

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.

The fact that you are referencing witch hunts and the Inquisition tells you that it's not a modern phenomenon at all. Social media has just made it slightly easier to raise a mob and it's much easier to denounce someone if you don't have to look them in the face.

kingstongraham

https://twitter.com/prodnose/status/112 ... gr%5Etweet

IMO, that is how you apologise.

Matthewfalle

it is with interest that i read some of these posts saying that his post wasn't that bad and that its a witch hunt etc.

as you know, where i work is very, very non pc. i mentioned in passing to a group of fellas that he had been sacked. one asked why. i explained that he had posted a picture of a chimpanzee under the royal baby heading.

lets say there were some sharp intakes of breath and the general consensus that he's a racist idiot and the sacking was well deserved.

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

https://twitter.com/prodnose/status/1126782940590088192?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

IMO, that is how you apologise.

changed his tone from Friday, eh........

rick_chasey

It's an HR and "are you doing your job" question. A lot of the "this is an affront to free speech" tend to miss that bit.

Matthewfalle

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's an HR and "are you doing your job" question. A lot of the "this is an affront to free speech" tend to miss that bit.

what is?

#confused

rick_chasey

Matthewfalle wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's an HR and "are you doing your job" question. A lot of the "this is an affront to free speech" tend to miss that bit.

what is?

#confused

Whether Baker should get tinned or not.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is he tweeted something that is widely interpreted as racist, via a very common racist trope. Why is that stretching plausibility? The whole black/monkey thing is centuries old. I don't understand why people are so quick to assume that he clearly must not have meant it that way.

Possibly because he said he meant it a different way? But then he could simply have been lying, and after all the principle of law applied here is "guilty until proven innocent", isn't it?

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is he tweeted something that is widely interpreted as racist, via a very common racist trope. Why is that stretching plausibility? The whole black/monkey thing is centuries old. I don't understand why people are so quick to assume that he clearly must not have meant it that way.

Possibly because he said he meant it a different way? But then he could simply have been lying, and after all the principle of law applied here is "guilty until proven innocent", isn't it?

Why are you so hot on intention and not on the actual action?

If part of his job is to not post racist stuff, whether he meant it or not, he posted something that is widely interpreted as that, so he's not done his job properly.

We can't see inside his head.

We can see what he posts on twitter.

rick_chasey

You want to make this an argument about the "thought police", but the point is, people are acting on his actions, not his thoughts.

narbs

Surrey Commuter wrote:

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.

F**king hell.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

You want to make this an argument about the "thought police", but the point is, people are acting on his actions, not his thoughts.

So, the principle is that if the motivation for an action can either be innocent or malicious, we must always assume that it was malicious?

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You want to make this an argument about the "thought police", but the point is, people are acting on his actions, not his thoughts.

So, the principle is that if the motivation for an action can either be innocent or malicious, we must always assume that it was malicious?

Not really. It's more trivial then that.

If your job is to be an entertainer, like being a radio broadcaster, for a publicly funded broadcaster (from a fee people *must pay* if they want to watch TV...), then part of your job is making sure you avoid saying or doing things that can have you seen as being discriminatory to well known minorities.

With the privilege that his job offers comes the responsibility to know what will and won't go down well with the public.

rick_chasey

You think I wouldn't get the sack if I grossly offended a client with an e-mail where I didn't spot the *obvious* clanger?

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think I wouldn't get the sack if I grossly offended a client with an e-mail where I didn't spot the *obvious* clanger?

As always... it depends.

chris_bass

Has anyone actually heard what was said and what he said when he was "sacked"?

He seemed to not appreciate the BBC thinking he may have meant the tweet and so he told them to F off

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The point is he tweeted something that is widely interpreted as racist, via a very common racist trope. Why is that stretching plausibility? The whole black/monkey thing is centuries old. I don't understand why people are so quick to assume that he clearly must not have meant it that way.

Possibly because he said he meant it a different way? But then he could simply have been lying, and after all the principle of law applied here is "guilty until proven innocent", isn't it?

There's no law involved. An employer can sack someone without the reason being proved in a court of law. Most employment contracts have something to the effect that an employee must not embarrass their employer. Whether they intended to cause embarrassment is secondary. It was still their lapse of judgement that caused it.

bradsbeard

Chris Bass wrote:

Has anyone actually heard what was said and what he said when he was "sacked"?

He seemed to not appreciate the BBC thinking he may have meant the tweet and so he told them to F off

Yep that is what he said. He was offended that the BBC thought it was made with purpose.

We are all human and will make f**k ups and put our foot in it. Some in and on a more public scale than others. Thus though with the way this land you now cannot atone for our mistakes.

It will jumped on and blood demanded.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think I wouldn't get the sack if I grossly offended a client with an e-mail where I didn't spot the *obvious* clanger?

I think if you earned the company enough they would avoid sacking you.

BBC overlooked Clarkson and Sugar, Baker was expendable.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

You think I wouldn't get the sack if I grossly offended a client with an e-mail where I didn't spot the *obvious* clanger?

I think if you earned the company enough they would avoid sacking you.

BBC overlooked Clarkson and Sugar, Baker was expendable.

And they got a fair bit of stick for letting them off.