Ousetunes Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 So do I, but that doesn't appear to be the situation in relation to Carol Thatcher. She didn't back down when challenged and caused an off screen argument, that resulted in other guests walking out. Which, IMO is better than offering a hollow apology which she clearly wouldn't mean. This took place in the 'green' room didn't it? Maybe the BBC ought to call it something else to avoid offending the Jolly Green Giant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Yes, you blooming well are (I do hope Jo Brand - who, I have say, has never been offensive in her life unless you a person who finds people of a certain size offensive). She's a comedian (or should that be commedienne?) - and they never, ever offend anyone... Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of the same paper defending CT campaigning for Jo Brand to be sacked for the remark she made about posting poo through BNP letterboxes (something I know BNP supporters do to their opponents). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Yes, you blooming well are (I do hope Jo Brand - who, I have say, has never been offensive in her life unless you a person who finds people of a certain size offensive). She's a comedian (or should that be commedienne?) - and they never, ever offend anyone... I once found her offensive. I used to live round the corner from her and while shopping in the local Somerfields, caught sight of her and very nearly vomitted into the frozen food section. I was in the fresh fruit and veg section at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Which, IMO is better than offering a hollow apology which she clearly wouldn't mean. This took place in the 'green' room didn't it? Maybe the BBC ought to call it something else to avoid offending the Jolly Green Giant. And if she is unaware of the offensiveness of her remarks then quite frankly we are better off without our subscriptions being wasted giving her air time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Apart from the obvious hypocrisy of the same paper defending CT campaigning for Jo Brand to be sacked for the remark she made about posting poo through BNP letterboxes (something I know BNP supporters do to their opponents). So you support an eye for an eye too. Goodness Wildcat, and here was I thinking you were a tolerant liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beer Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Yes, you blooming well are (I do hope Jo Brand - who, I have say, has never been offensive in her life unless you a person who finds people of a certain size offensive). She's a comedian (or should that be commedienne?) - and they never, ever offend anyone... Jo Brand is a woman? Well you learn something new everyday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 As expected ,you would be at the forefront of this sort of debate. Forgive me, is that a positive or a negative statement?? Presumably, I'd be justified in making an equally irrelevant statement like 'as expected, you would be at the forefront of this sort of debate'? The names most of us have called throughout our lives are just words and nothing more. I'm sure there are things that I could call that you would take exception at. What exactly have you not acheived by you having an ethnic background? Again, why is that relevant? But to answer your question, how would I know what I havent achieved, since I am who I am, I may have achieved more, I may have achieved less if I were a different person. Probably about the same as me because I did not come from a rich family so could not afford to go to Eton. You don't know much about my background stew, other than Im a black male. We have all started life with some kind of disadvantage.Accept who you are and just get on with your life as it is. Fairly patronising statement dont you think? I'm completely happy with who I am and have got on with my life ok without the need for your approval. It's the principle I'm defending, my skin colour is irrelevant and should not be used to trivialise my argument. So let me ask you a simple question. Do you think it's right that people can say things to people that they know could be construed as being offensive, whatever colour they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beer Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 And if she is unaware of the offensiveness of her remarks then quite frankly we are better off without our subscriptions being wasted giving her air time. I think half the population don't think her remarks were offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minimo Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 What would be most interesting is the reaction of the person the remark was about. If they said they weren't bothered, and were not offended in the least, would that make any difference. After all that person is really the only person entitled to be offended, aren't they. She didn't say all black people look like *******, just that this one person had hair like a golly. I honestly fail to see what is wrong with that. I am extremely short, and have been the butt of many jokes over the years. You know what, the best way to shut up people who made remarks was to laugh. If we could all lighten up a little, more effort could be focussed on real vicious racial discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Presumably demanding an inquiry seeking her reinstatement! Yes! Jeremy it's just common sense isn't it, if a word has some negative historic significance, then its best to bear on the side of caution. Sure, but, to expand on your example below about your partner and her(?) daughter - to one the adjective is fine, to the other, it is offensive - yet, it is the same word and it carries with it whatever historical baggage it does. There could reach a point in time, if we're not too careful, where virtually every word is unuseable. I think of medical words used to describe specific conditions - which are now taboo and considered 'offensive'. Yet, they actually describe a medical condition!!! (I will refrain from recounting them here, though I am sure you can guess the words that I mean. To use the running example, I know some redheads who are sensitive to being described as 'ginger', my partner doesn't mind, but her equally red daughter does, you dont have to know of the daughter's sensitivity to simply not use the phrase, there's other words that can be accurately used to describe redheads without risk of upsetting them, and it's no hardship on my part. Well I'm sure you're wonder is based on your own experiences as a white person, however I dont know what kind of relationship Ainslie enjoys with Gordon, but if it were likely to cause offence then it doesnt matter what colour the protaganists are. It actually wouldnt be too difficult to find out, his wife is a Sheffielder and may well be a member of SF! The thing is, whether you know what one person's relationship with another is or is not is of no consequence. How did Jo Brand know if CT had any kind of relationship with the tennis player she was describing to someone else? She may have made assumptions, but she could not possibly know, yet she took it upon herself to express her dislike at CT using the word and, when CT refused to apologise (and, for heaven's sake, why the hell should she apologise to Jo Brand?), Brand reported her and resulted in her sacking. Heaven help Jo Brand if she ever offends anyone! It's been covered earlier Jeremy, some black Americans describe white people they dont like as 'crackers', which sounds a pretty benign word, however the intention of the feeling behind the word is quite malicious apparently. To be honest, I would infer that I was being described as someone who was a bit mentally unstable or similar - to which I'd probably laugh. Maybe I'm either not that sensitive or I am 'crackers'. Either way, stick and stones. So I guess if you'd been brought up in an environment of mainly black folks, some of whom gratuitously referred to you as a 'cracker' then all my protestations that it is after all only a dry, savoury biscuit, would be of little consequence to you, it would still have a deep seated negative influence on your psyche. Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I spent almost my entire school life being called 'big ears' and when Queen brought out the song 'I Want To Ride My Bicycle', oh how I thanked Freddie and the guys for having the school bullies grab my ears and sing that song. What fun!! Sure, it affected me - I grew my hair long and covered my ears, I didn't mix with too many of my peers (although, the comments about my ears were only part of my desire to isolate myself from others back then). Then, as I got older, I thought 'what the hell - life's too short; if someone's insluting to my face, I'll deal with it. If I hear things second or third hand, who cares?. Maybe I'm just not that bothered about that kind of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts