Eh hold on a cotton picking minute….the fury over the Ross and Brand incident and they have the nerve to question this??? I do not know where to start!!!
The “BBC taking revenge on Thatcher” comes from that old crank Norman Tebbit. Like most things that come from Tebbit’s mouth it’s utter garbage; if the BBC wanted revenge on Thatcher they’d never have hired her daughter as a presenter in the first place. She’s not even been sacked from the BBC as a whole, just as a presenter on this one show.
I don’t agree with the sacking, I think a suspension a la Ross would have sufficed, but she really only has herself to blame for what’s happened. Trying to deflect the blame is childish nonsense.
Josh
They think like this because the BBC is a real threat to the DM, and other papers, who want their readers to see the world through their blue-tinted, middle-class glasses.
Is anyone else surprised “royal shops” were selling gollywogs? They’ve never actually been banned outright (despite the widespread and actually ridiculous assumption that they have – how would that be enacted and enforced exactly?) but given that their ability to cause offense (the actual reason you hardly see any in shops – shop owners don’t want to offend black customers) I’m genuinely surprised shops at tourist attractions would stock them. Or is it possible the palace gave the order to ban them from their shops even though there weren’t any in the first place?
“They think like this because the BBC is a real threat to the DM, and other papers, who want their readers to see the world through their blue-tinted, middle-class glasses.”
I don’t really agree with that. I think the Mail-crowd hate the BBC because they’ve convinced themselves that it’s a den of far-leftists and homosexuals and, because it’s publically owned, they’re under the impression that if it’s wound-up and sold-off it’ll come under the control of nice conservatives. Of course, it’ll do no such thing because (as I argued elsewhere) the broadcast media is largely left-leaning by default and any privately-owned replacement will be exactly the same. Only now there won’t be any charter or any real right-to-reply.
Thank God the BBC have got rid of Thatcher. For two reasons.
(1) To say what she said is unacceptable, period.
(2) It has got right up the noses of the DM.
@ Steve. It is perfectly acceptable to insult whole sections of society if you are a Tory. If you are a TV presenter who insults a nobody actor’s dubious grandaughter then that is an outrage worthy of a witch hunt that has been rumbling on for nearly five months.
I have to say, I’m going to have to avoid reading the comments on the DM wesite. They really have put me in a foul mood today.
I have an interesting question, when they were in power, did the DM venerate or critisise the tories to level that the current New Labour government receives from this ‘newspaper’?
I don’t have a clue what relevance Carol’s sacking bears to the BBC’s opinion of Maggie. Carol’s been working with them for a while; and didn’t she also make a documentary about her mother for the BBC? For any other newspaper it would be a very odd conclusion to jump to, but I suppose it serves their view that the BBC are even worse because they don’t like dear old Maggie.
I don’t know whats going on with the Thatcher thing. She said it in private, nobody heard so should she be fired for it? Surely you should be able to have a private conversation and not get penalised for what you say? At the same time if we put this in the context of a workplace if you were to say a remark like that and somebody was offended your boss would discipline you. Why Carol Thatcher thinks Gollywog is OK to use is beyone me. But I do think reporting actual incidents of racism would be more worthwhile here than what some B list celeb said in a green room. We have far worse incidents of racism in this country that that.
I’m sick of the Mail and their hysteria with the BBC. They have the nerve to write a list of all those in the BBC who made in what they term offensive comments and weren’t sacked. Isn’t it hypocritical for the Mail to say its OK if you say it in a private conversation and meant it as a joke but if YOU make a joke that WE find offensive on air you must be sacked even thougheverybody else finds it funny. It’s not the X Factor Mail, you can’t just phone up and get somebody sacked.
The Mail’s antipathy to the BBC is for two reasons: (i) Paul Dacre’s brother, Nigel, was editor of ITN and is now Chief Executive of Inclusive Digital TV; and (ii) DMGT, parent company of the Mail, has significant interests in commercial broadcasting.
Sarah – it wasn’t a private conversation , at least 3 people heard it and were offended and there were about 8 other people also in the room. And has been pointed out, she was working for the BBC and on BBC premises at the time. Yes, there probably are far worse incidences, but that is not a reason to ignore this particular instance.
According to the Mail’s logic, why is it alright for the daughter of a Tory PM to make a comment which many could percieve as racist, but not for two comedians to make offensive, but harmless phone calls to a retired actor. If the DM really believe what they said they did during the Ross/Brand affair, shouldn’t they be launching a witch-hunt against Carol? Also, I love it how they’re going all paranoid by saying it’s the evil, commie, KGB, Labour-sucking loony lefty BBC’s secret plot to get back at a woman who destroyed this country anyway.
Abernathy-It was a private conversation in the sense that she didn’t expect to be heard. The BBC was right to sack her from the One Show before this got out. If this happened in any work enviroment the same thing would happen. But I just don’t think she was being racist, she was just being pig ignorant. I’m just sick of all this hysteria over offensive comments. Its all one big cycle of outrage and condemnation and sackings. Lets talk about something important. I don’t care about Carol Thatcher and her stupid comments. I’ve never looked to her to uphol my morals anyway. This is a classic example of the following:
auntiepathy (auntee-pathee) n. Ingrained tabloid hostility towards the BBC.
nowtrage (nowt-rage) n. Lame and unconvincing tabloid outrage designed to create a self-perpetuating storm of controversy.
Al,
You are too kind. They want their readers to see the world through ‘turd coloured glasses’ and going on the attitudes of the ones I meet they have succeeded
A story which runs “Friends of xxxxxxx say yyyyyy” usually means some useless journo made it up because they don’t want real reporting cutting into their drinking time.
This is a fucking joke! I cant believe all the DM readers cant see the blatent hypocracy between this and the RB/JR phone calls. It makes me so angry that a flawed but extremely high quality BBC is having shit flung at it every day by tabloid newspapers that arnt worth the paper they’re printed on.
Compare and contrast to the Manuelgate affair (once again, Kent Brockman’s Waitergate is overlooked…) – they cite Ross only getting suspended, conveniently forgetting that Brand was fired from all BBC positions.
Thatcher on the other hand, hasn’t actually been fired. It was categorically not a private conversation. She did not have an expectation of privacy, given the location it took place in. She was on BBC premises, surrounded by BBC staff, all connected with the One Show. It was inappropriate at work, colleagues took offence, and she was disciplined.
But she is not off the One Show for what she said, rather what she didn’t say – she not only did not apologise, but thinks she has nothing to apologise for. For THAT, it was felt that it was inappropriate to allow her to continue work on the One Show – she is of course free to pursue other projects at the BBC, unlike Brand.
That being said, mountains and molehills spring to mind, and Sarah beat me to the punch there – nowtrage and auntiepathy.
Brand actually quit so the tabloids couldn’t hold him over a barrel, and notice they haven’t said a peep, even though he was the worse offender and is more successful since than Ross – off doing Hollywood movies now. That’s mainly because he’s allowed to fight back now while Ross can’t to avoid further controversy.
As for Thatcher, there was apparently journalists in the green room meaning it wasn’t a private, but public forum, and she wasn’t sacked for the comment, but the refusal to apologise, which is perfectly fine especially seeing as not to then would be a then cowtow and seen as an editorial acceptance of calling black people golliwogs.
If it was ‘revenge against Maggie’ WHY WOULD THEY HIRE HER IN THE FIRST PLACE? Stupid fucks! The Mail make me piss blood sometimes with hypocritical, shit stirring, manipulative crap like this that even they know is bollocks.
“If it was ‘revenge against Maggie’ WHY WOULD THEY HIRE HER IN THE FIRST PLACE? Stupid fucks! ”
Exactly, there’s no substance to this claim whatsoever for that very reason: you can’t claim someone was sacked as “revenge” against their mother (especially when there’s an actual reason given) when that same company employed them in the first place of their own free will. Even the supposedly-sensible Telegraph had this ridiculous bit of conspiracism on their front page. For shame.
“Compare and contrast to the Manuelgate affair (once again, Kent Brockman’s Waitergate is overlooked…) – they cite Ross only getting suspended, conveniently forgetting that Brand was fired from all BBC positions.”
Small point: Brand resigned, he wasn’t fired. Whether he would have been fired is debatable and not something we can know now anyway.
“Thatcher on the other hand, hasn’t actually been fired. It was categorically not a private conversation. She did not have an expectation of privacy, given the location it took place in. She was on BBC premises, surrounded by BBC staff, all connected with the One Show. It was inappropriate at work, colleagues took offence, and she was disciplined.”
As far as procedure goes, there’s nothing wrong with this. But it’s still hard to dismiss calling of “foul” when Jonathan Ross did something equally offensive in a much more public capacity and was only suspended (keeping both his shows) whilst Thatcher has been sacked from her show (if not the BBC). It’s easy to paint it as double-standards and if the shoe was on the other foot I think we’d all see that.
Having said that, I’ve heard say that the problem was not what she said but that she refused to apologise; but I’ve also heard that she did apologise but refused to give an “unconditional” apology (?). Can anyone clarify?
It just really depresses me to know that there are people out there that can actually read a story like this and lack the basic intelligence and critical faculties to recognise that it makes no sense if they hired her in the first place by their own free will. Really bloody depressing, especially as a lot are evidently somehow in positions of authority and influence.
Zagrebo – The point is the refusal to apologise, if Ross didn’t, he’d have been sacked. Also racism is far worse than offending one person, especially in a public service broadcaster where your mandate is to represent not divide. Also in the Sachs affair, it was pre-recorded and people forget SACHS AND BAILLIE SIGNED OFF ON IT BEFORE TRANSMISSION, and only changed their tunes when the tabloids got wind weeks later and waved cheques in their faces.
If the entire black population of the world agreed her remark was fine, then I’d say it was fine, but that on’t happen so it isn’t. Lastly she personally upset people on the show who refused to work with her, so she was also let go for making her position untenable.
Also the apology wasn’t offered, that’s just some face saving bollocks Thatcher came out with later to make her seem the victim. The BBC say she refused outright and she apparently repeated herself three times in the green room when people said it was out of order until half stormed out in disgust. again making her position untenable as she offended her co-workers and refused to apologise.
Imagine for a minute that this was a private employer who wanted to sack a muslim man because he’d offended Christian colleagues, yet wasn’t allowed. Think the Mail would support that? Fuck that, they’d literally explode in rage!
The left is annoyed when people use the word gollywog (in conversations we didn’t hear) The right get annoyed at Johnathan Ross making prank calls to old people and Frankie Boyle makes fun of the Queen. We’re all a bunch of hypocrites in some way or another.
I disagree – racism is far worse than offending a single person, and the acceptance of casual racism is a huge slippery slope that needs to be nipped in the bud.
What Ross said was wrong, but only damaging to those people, but what Thatcher said is ultimately damaging to society,
“Also in the Sachs affair, it was pre-recorded and people forget SACHS AND BAILLIE SIGNED OFF ON IT BEFORE TRANSMISSION, and only changed their tunes when the tabloids got wind weeks later and waved cheques in their faces.”
That’s not really true. Sachs had been called by Brand’s producer who played the recording to him (he claimed he couldn’t hear it). He claims he asked for it not to be broadcast or for it to be edited but it was broadcast anyway. The BBC don’t seem to have ever denied this story.
Also, I don’t recall ever hearing that Georgina Baillie was given any input before the show was broadcast, only Sachs whose answering machine was used.
I disagreed completely with the Mail’s point-scoring nonsense after the event but what happened was completely unacceptable.
“I disagree – racism is far worse than offending a single person, and the acceptance of casual racism is a huge slippery slope that needs to be nipped in the bud.”
The Right would argue, using similar logic, that allowing Brand/Ross/Boyle to make lewd jokes is a “slippery slope” to worse things as well. I’ve already heard it argued that the Brand/Ross recording amounted to mysogyny (which I don’t agree with but there’s an argument there). Personally, I tend to be very suspicious of slippery-slope arguments; they’re used to condemn everything from bad language to sexual freedom to even the welfare state because of what these things could “theoretically” lead to.
Additionally, I don’t think Thatcher’s casual racism was “acceptable”, I just think there’s an argument for it not being a sacking offence. That the BBC pulled her up on it, even in a private conversation, is something I don’t have a problem with at all.
“Also the apology wasn’t offered, that’s just some face saving bollocks Thatcher came out with later to make her seem the victim. The BBC say she refused outright and she apparently repeated herself three times in the green room when people said it was out of order until half stormed out in disgust. again making her position untenable as she offended her co-workers and refused to apologise.”
Really? I’ve heard conflicting things and I’d like to know what actually happened and if that happened as you state then the BBC probably did the right thing. Where did you hear about this?
i have been reading these comment’s and i have to say that i am shocked. how is it acceptable in any way for the daughter of an ex prime minister to use a degrading and derogatory term like “golliwog” if using the word was not bad enough the fact that she refused to apologize show’s how much of a narrow minded racist she really is! Anybody who claimed that the term is not offensive is not black, brown or yellow!
Zagrebo – Actually on a an article on the Mail website of all things! It’s the only one that actually names the player too, and states Adrian Charles (the presenter) was so offended he stormed out. Thatcher refused to apologise to him, so it has a much to do with her causing friction in the production and refusing to make amends as much as anything else. The BBC have denied ever having received any offer of an apology.
As for Sachs and Bailie both did sign off, and she was even promoting her mention on her MySpace saying it was hilarious. Only weeks later when a Mail journo heard it and bombarded Sach and Bailie with calls and money offers did they both change their stories.
The notion that Sachs ‘couldn’t hear it properly’ as the reason he signed off is such a playground level excuse to hide the fact he changed his tune for cash that it would be laughed out of court. It’s the same as Thatcher claiming she did apologise, except mysteriously nobody has heard her do it and she still won’t publicly. Classic bullshit right-wing flip-reversing by casting themselves as the victim.
As it was signed off on, the fact it was broadcast is nothing to do with Ross, and therefore his comment should be judged as if he did it in private like Thatcher. Unlike Thatcher however, he only offended two people directly (the rest tangenitally) and apologised. Thatcher however directly offended millions, refused to apologise and burnt her bridges with he colleagues. That’s the difference.
There it is, and even has a comment from Thatcher saying the BBC should apologise to her, so clearly any comments from her claiming she tried to apologise when she clearly thinks she’s done nothing wrong and refuses to apologise publicly should show that up for the lie it is. Just an excuse to cast herself as the victim, even though she burnt her own bridges.
Regarding Zagrebo’s point about the immediate sacking of Thatcher not matching the way Ross and Brand were suspended for being offensive in a public capacity: I think – other than the fact that Thatcher refused to apologise (as everyone has mentioned) – since Sachsgate, the BBC has to be swift in acting upon incidents like this and prove that they’re not going to be light on those nasty, foul-mouthed, overpaid employees of theirs. They have to quickly punish anyone who does anything remotely offensive, just to keep Mail types happy.
But as this stance on the story proves, they’re not even bloody happy when the corporation quickly sacks the offender.
To be honest, I think she was fired from the show because she’d pissed off a lot of the One Show staff with her remark and they didn’t want to work with her anymore. Would go some way to explaining why she was only barred from one show.
Typical lying DM and ‘rent-an-instant and totally- dumb-and-ill-informed-quote’ f*ckwit loony tory Tebbit.
It’s their distortion here that shows them up for exactly the sort of fools they are.
CT said the sort of thing many employers would find completely unacceptable, instead of being sacked it turns out she lost a presenting slot.
Big deal.
She should count herself lucky it stopped at that.
What is she there for anyways?
A big-gob loud Sloan on a prog with viewing numbers somewhere below ground anyways?
“Anger grows…” only among hypocritical white morons who think that criticising anything short of burning a cross on Ian Wright’s lawn is ‘PC gone mad.’
“Race doll row hits the Royals” Yes…in the most minor way imaginable.
Very amusing to see the Mail website. On one page you have people bashing the BBC for “thatcher-gate” saying we should do away with the license fee. Yet on another, you have people attacking ITV for its poor coverage last night wanting the FA Cup back on the BBC! – Hilarious!
Adrian – ‘To be honest, I think she was fired from the show because she’d pissed off a lot of the One Show staff with her remark and they didn’t want to work with her anymore’
You wouldn’t be Adrian Chiles by any chance would you?
Leaving aside all the issues about ‘PC gone mad’, the ‘KGBBC’, Norman Tebbit’s increasingly tenuous grip on reality, private conversations and right-wing tabloid orchestration, I find it really sad that so often in the UK debates about issues rapidly sink to the level of a playground squabble and the Melanie Philips tactic of sticking fingers in ears and shouting ‘na-na-na-na-na, not listening, na-na’
Gollywog is described in my dictionary as a grotesque, black faced, goggle eyed, fantastically dressed doll. Now what’s racist about that. All these PC luvies at the Beeb are doing is making this country more racist.
And Jo f…ing Brand is f…ing offendend. Do me a f…ing favour.
No it’s not Margaret Thatcher that ruined the country – it’s Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Nu Labour. Oh and could someone write out a list of words that we can’t use any more, and let me have it.
Well wendy, I would suggest drawing parallels between a black man and a doll which is “grotesque, black faced and goggled eyed” may just answer your question.
1) The BBC isn’t the police. Thatcher was not arrested. Free speech remains.
2) There is a difference between what is civil and what is morally wrong. Swearing isn’t civil but racism is morally wrong, Jo Brand IS allowed to object without being hypocritical. The reason you do not say racist things is because it’s awful, not because it’s impolite.
3) Jonathan Ross apologised and was given a 3 month BBC-wide ban. She did not apologise and has only been relieved of her One Show duties.
4) “It was said in private”. Again, the BBC are not the police and they did not come crashing in through a kitchen window. The people she was speaking to were upset by what she said – there were reportedly a dozen people there. If you have reason to want your comments not to be repeated then maybe it’s because they’re creepy
Apparantly the initial reports didn’t give the half of the story.
“Carol Thatcher made multiple references describing a French mixed-race tennis player as a “golliwog”, “half-golliwog” and “golliwog Frog”, sources say.”
The Daily Mail are selective over who they think it’s acceptable to offend.
It’s ok to offend Muslims, asylum seekers and immigrants but it’s not ok to offend Christians and Tory voters.
It’s ok to attack as Islam as a violent extremist religion that wants to destroy “Western Christian values” but not ok to show Jesus Christ in a nappy.
It’s ok to slander Muslims as terrorists and extremists but not ok to make fun of Christians’ beliefs
Far from being a single casual jokey “golliwog” comment as her apologists would have us believe the fact that she went on to also use the term “half golliwog” in this outburst proves she was knowingly using it in a racist manner.
The only sad thing about this episode is that Carol Thatcher only lost a presenting slot on a cr@ppy show hardly anyone watches.
She should have been genuinely & completely fired by the BBC, not allowed to continue working on the taxpayers tab on other programs.
Why would the BBC have hired Carol in the first place, making a mountain out of a mole hill as per usual DM,
Meanwhile the loony comments appear yet again on the DM website regarding the BBC,
‘Time to scrap the BBC and the license fee’, why do these people think like this?
Eh hold on a cotton picking minute….the fury over the Ross and Brand incident and they have the nerve to question this??? I do not know where to start!!!
The “BBC taking revenge on Thatcher” comes from that old crank Norman Tebbit. Like most things that come from Tebbit’s mouth it’s utter garbage; if the BBC wanted revenge on Thatcher they’d never have hired her daughter as a presenter in the first place. She’s not even been sacked from the BBC as a whole, just as a presenter on this one show.
I don’t agree with the sacking, I think a suspension a la Ross would have sufficed, but she really only has herself to blame for what’s happened. Trying to deflect the blame is childish nonsense.
Josh
They think like this because the BBC is a real threat to the DM, and other papers, who want their readers to see the world through their blue-tinted, middle-class glasses.
Is anyone else surprised “royal shops” were selling gollywogs? They’ve never actually been banned outright (despite the widespread and actually ridiculous assumption that they have – how would that be enacted and enforced exactly?) but given that their ability to cause offense (the actual reason you hardly see any in shops – shop owners don’t want to offend black customers) I’m genuinely surprised shops at tourist attractions would stock them. Or is it possible the palace gave the order to ban them from their shops even though there weren’t any in the first place?
@Al
“They think like this because the BBC is a real threat to the DM, and other papers, who want their readers to see the world through their blue-tinted, middle-class glasses.”
I don’t really agree with that. I think the Mail-crowd hate the BBC because they’ve convinced themselves that it’s a den of far-leftists and homosexuals and, because it’s publically owned, they’re under the impression that if it’s wound-up and sold-off it’ll come under the control of nice conservatives. Of course, it’ll do no such thing because (as I argued elsewhere) the broadcast media is largely left-leaning by default and any privately-owned replacement will be exactly the same. Only now there won’t be any charter or any real right-to-reply.
Thank God the BBC have got rid of Thatcher. For two reasons.
(1) To say what she said is unacceptable, period.
(2) It has got right up the noses of the DM.
@ Steve. It is perfectly acceptable to insult whole sections of society if you are a Tory. If you are a TV presenter who insults a nobody actor’s dubious grandaughter then that is an outrage worthy of a witch hunt that has been rumbling on for nearly five months.
I have to say, I’m going to have to avoid reading the comments on the DM wesite. They really have put me in a foul mood today.
I have an interesting question, when they were in power, did the DM venerate or critisise the tories to level that the current New Labour government receives from this ‘newspaper’?
I don’t have a clue what relevance Carol’s sacking bears to the BBC’s opinion of Maggie. Carol’s been working with them for a while; and didn’t she also make a documentary about her mother for the BBC? For any other newspaper it would be a very odd conclusion to jump to, but I suppose it serves their view that the BBC are even worse because they don’t like dear old Maggie.
I don’t know whats going on with the Thatcher thing. She said it in private, nobody heard so should she be fired for it? Surely you should be able to have a private conversation and not get penalised for what you say? At the same time if we put this in the context of a workplace if you were to say a remark like that and somebody was offended your boss would discipline you. Why Carol Thatcher thinks Gollywog is OK to use is beyone me. But I do think reporting actual incidents of racism would be more worthwhile here than what some B list celeb said in a green room. We have far worse incidents of racism in this country that that.
I’m sick of the Mail and their hysteria with the BBC. They have the nerve to write a list of all those in the BBC who made in what they term offensive comments and weren’t sacked. Isn’t it hypocritical for the Mail to say its OK if you say it in a private conversation and meant it as a joke but if YOU make a joke that WE find offensive on air you must be sacked even thougheverybody else finds it funny. It’s not the X Factor Mail, you can’t just phone up and get somebody sacked.
The Mail’s antipathy to the BBC is for two reasons: (i) Paul Dacre’s brother, Nigel, was editor of ITN and is now Chief Executive of Inclusive Digital TV; and (ii) DMGT, parent company of the Mail, has significant interests in commercial broadcasting.
Sarah – it wasn’t a private conversation , at least 3 people heard it and were offended and there were about 8 other people also in the room. And has been pointed out, she was working for the BBC and on BBC premises at the time. Yes, there probably are far worse incidences, but that is not a reason to ignore this particular instance.
Perhaps it’s a sign of my deteriorating mental health, but that headlines makes me think of a giant gollywog punching Prince Phillip.
Which is actually something I’d love to see.
Steve, “Eh hold on a cotton picking minute”: Was that a deliberately ironic statement or just accidental?
How the hell can it be revenge on her mother? That just makes no fucking sense!
According to the Mail’s logic, why is it alright for the daughter of a Tory PM to make a comment which many could percieve as racist, but not for two comedians to make offensive, but harmless phone calls to a retired actor. If the DM really believe what they said they did during the Ross/Brand affair, shouldn’t they be launching a witch-hunt against Carol? Also, I love it how they’re going all paranoid by saying it’s the evil, commie, KGB, Labour-sucking loony lefty BBC’s secret plot to get back at a woman who destroyed this country anyway.
Killer whale…..ha purely accidental i assure you
Abernathy-It was a private conversation in the sense that she didn’t expect to be heard. The BBC was right to sack her from the One Show before this got out. If this happened in any work enviroment the same thing would happen. But I just don’t think she was being racist, she was just being pig ignorant. I’m just sick of all this hysteria over offensive comments. Its all one big cycle of outrage and condemnation and sackings. Lets talk about something important. I don’t care about Carol Thatcher and her stupid comments. I’ve never looked to her to uphol my morals anyway. This is a classic example of the following:
auntiepathy (auntee-pathee) n. Ingrained tabloid hostility towards the BBC.
nowtrage (nowt-rage) n. Lame and unconvincing tabloid outrage designed to create a self-perpetuating storm of controversy.
The above is from Charlie Brooker.
Al,
You are too kind. They want their readers to see the world through ‘turd coloured glasses’ and going on the attitudes of the ones I meet they have succeeded
Has anybody noticed Carol Thatcher turning into Camilla?
A story which runs “Friends of xxxxxxx say yyyyyy” usually means some useless journo made it up because they don’t want real reporting cutting into their drinking time.
“Has anybody noticed Carol Thatcher turning into Camilla?”
Charles will shag anything!
This is a fucking joke! I cant believe all the DM readers cant see the blatent hypocracy between this and the RB/JR phone calls. It makes me so angry that a flawed but extremely high quality BBC is having shit flung at it every day by tabloid newspapers that arnt worth the paper they’re printed on.
Compare and contrast to the Manuelgate affair (once again, Kent Brockman’s Waitergate is overlooked…) – they cite Ross only getting suspended, conveniently forgetting that Brand was fired from all BBC positions.
Thatcher on the other hand, hasn’t actually been fired. It was categorically not a private conversation. She did not have an expectation of privacy, given the location it took place in. She was on BBC premises, surrounded by BBC staff, all connected with the One Show. It was inappropriate at work, colleagues took offence, and she was disciplined.
But she is not off the One Show for what she said, rather what she didn’t say – she not only did not apologise, but thinks she has nothing to apologise for. For THAT, it was felt that it was inappropriate to allow her to continue work on the One Show – she is of course free to pursue other projects at the BBC, unlike Brand.
That being said, mountains and molehills spring to mind, and Sarah beat me to the punch there – nowtrage and auntiepathy.
Sarah: “If this happened in any work enviroment the same thing would happen.”
Prexactly.
“conveniently forgetting that Brand was fired from all BBC positions.”
I thought he jumped before he could be pushed.
Brand actually quit so the tabloids couldn’t hold him over a barrel, and notice they haven’t said a peep, even though he was the worse offender and is more successful since than Ross – off doing Hollywood movies now. That’s mainly because he’s allowed to fight back now while Ross can’t to avoid further controversy.
As for Thatcher, there was apparently journalists in the green room meaning it wasn’t a private, but public forum, and she wasn’t sacked for the comment, but the refusal to apologise, which is perfectly fine especially seeing as not to then would be a then cowtow and seen as an editorial acceptance of calling black people golliwogs.
If it was ‘revenge against Maggie’ WHY WOULD THEY HIRE HER IN THE FIRST PLACE? Stupid fucks! The Mail make me piss blood sometimes with hypocritical, shit stirring, manipulative crap like this that even they know is bollocks.
@Steven.
“If it was ‘revenge against Maggie’ WHY WOULD THEY HIRE HER IN THE FIRST PLACE? Stupid fucks! ”
Exactly, there’s no substance to this claim whatsoever for that very reason: you can’t claim someone was sacked as “revenge” against their mother (especially when there’s an actual reason given) when that same company employed them in the first place of their own free will. Even the supposedly-sensible Telegraph had this ridiculous bit of conspiracism on their front page. For shame.
@Paul
“Compare and contrast to the Manuelgate affair (once again, Kent Brockman’s Waitergate is overlooked…) – they cite Ross only getting suspended, conveniently forgetting that Brand was fired from all BBC positions.”
Small point: Brand resigned, he wasn’t fired. Whether he would have been fired is debatable and not something we can know now anyway.
“Thatcher on the other hand, hasn’t actually been fired. It was categorically not a private conversation. She did not have an expectation of privacy, given the location it took place in. She was on BBC premises, surrounded by BBC staff, all connected with the One Show. It was inappropriate at work, colleagues took offence, and she was disciplined.”
As far as procedure goes, there’s nothing wrong with this. But it’s still hard to dismiss calling of “foul” when Jonathan Ross did something equally offensive in a much more public capacity and was only suspended (keeping both his shows) whilst Thatcher has been sacked from her show (if not the BBC). It’s easy to paint it as double-standards and if the shoe was on the other foot I think we’d all see that.
Having said that, I’ve heard say that the problem was not what she said but that she refused to apologise; but I’ve also heard that she did apologise but refused to give an “unconditional” apology (?). Can anyone clarify?
It just really depresses me to know that there are people out there that can actually read a story like this and lack the basic intelligence and critical faculties to recognise that it makes no sense if they hired her in the first place by their own free will. Really bloody depressing, especially as a lot are evidently somehow in positions of authority and influence.
Zagrebo – The point is the refusal to apologise, if Ross didn’t, he’d have been sacked. Also racism is far worse than offending one person, especially in a public service broadcaster where your mandate is to represent not divide. Also in the Sachs affair, it was pre-recorded and people forget SACHS AND BAILLIE SIGNED OFF ON IT BEFORE TRANSMISSION, and only changed their tunes when the tabloids got wind weeks later and waved cheques in their faces.
If the entire black population of the world agreed her remark was fine, then I’d say it was fine, but that on’t happen so it isn’t. Lastly she personally upset people on the show who refused to work with her, so she was also let go for making her position untenable.
Also the apology wasn’t offered, that’s just some face saving bollocks Thatcher came out with later to make her seem the victim. The BBC say she refused outright and she apparently repeated herself three times in the green room when people said it was out of order until half stormed out in disgust. again making her position untenable as she offended her co-workers and refused to apologise.
Imagine for a minute that this was a private employer who wanted to sack a muslim man because he’d offended Christian colleagues, yet wasn’t allowed. Think the Mail would support that? Fuck that, they’d literally explode in rage!
The left is annoyed when people use the word gollywog (in conversations we didn’t hear) The right get annoyed at Johnathan Ross making prank calls to old people and Frankie Boyle makes fun of the Queen. We’re all a bunch of hypocrites in some way or another.
I disagree – racism is far worse than offending a single person, and the acceptance of casual racism is a huge slippery slope that needs to be nipped in the bud.
What Ross said was wrong, but only damaging to those people, but what Thatcher said is ultimately damaging to society,
Say that with a mouth full of sprouts
@Steven
“Also in the Sachs affair, it was pre-recorded and people forget SACHS AND BAILLIE SIGNED OFF ON IT BEFORE TRANSMISSION, and only changed their tunes when the tabloids got wind weeks later and waved cheques in their faces.”
That’s not really true. Sachs had been called by Brand’s producer who played the recording to him (he claimed he couldn’t hear it). He claims he asked for it not to be broadcast or for it to be edited but it was broadcast anyway. The BBC don’t seem to have ever denied this story.
Also, I don’t recall ever hearing that Georgina Baillie was given any input before the show was broadcast, only Sachs whose answering machine was used.
I disagreed completely with the Mail’s point-scoring nonsense after the event but what happened was completely unacceptable.
@Steven
“I disagree – racism is far worse than offending a single person, and the acceptance of casual racism is a huge slippery slope that needs to be nipped in the bud.”
The Right would argue, using similar logic, that allowing Brand/Ross/Boyle to make lewd jokes is a “slippery slope” to worse things as well. I’ve already heard it argued that the Brand/Ross recording amounted to mysogyny (which I don’t agree with but there’s an argument there). Personally, I tend to be very suspicious of slippery-slope arguments; they’re used to condemn everything from bad language to sexual freedom to even the welfare state because of what these things could “theoretically” lead to.
Additionally, I don’t think Thatcher’s casual racism was “acceptable”, I just think there’s an argument for it not being a sacking offence. That the BBC pulled her up on it, even in a private conversation, is something I don’t have a problem with at all.
@Steven (again
)
“Also the apology wasn’t offered, that’s just some face saving bollocks Thatcher came out with later to make her seem the victim. The BBC say she refused outright and she apparently repeated herself three times in the green room when people said it was out of order until half stormed out in disgust. again making her position untenable as she offended her co-workers and refused to apologise.”
Really? I’ve heard conflicting things and I’d like to know what actually happened and if that happened as you state then the BBC probably did the right thing. Where did you hear about this?
i have been reading these comment’s and i have to say that i am shocked. how is it acceptable in any way for the daughter of an ex prime minister to use a degrading and derogatory term like “golliwog” if using the word was not bad enough the fact that she refused to apologize show’s how much of a narrow minded racist she really is! Anybody who claimed that the term is not offensive is not black, brown or yellow!
Zagrebo – Actually on a an article on the Mail website of all things! It’s the only one that actually names the player too, and states Adrian Charles (the presenter) was so offended he stormed out. Thatcher refused to apologise to him, so it has a much to do with her causing friction in the production and refusing to make amends as much as anything else. The BBC have denied ever having received any offer of an apology.
As for Sachs and Bailie both did sign off, and she was even promoting her mention on her MySpace saying it was hilarious. Only weeks later when a Mail journo heard it and bombarded Sach and Bailie with calls and money offers did they both change their stories.
The notion that Sachs ‘couldn’t hear it properly’ as the reason he signed off is such a playground level excuse to hide the fact he changed his tune for cash that it would be laughed out of court. It’s the same as Thatcher claiming she did apologise, except mysteriously nobody has heard her do it and she still won’t publicly. Classic bullshit right-wing flip-reversing by casting themselves as the victim.
As it was signed off on, the fact it was broadcast is nothing to do with Ross, and therefore his comment should be judged as if he did it in private like Thatcher. Unlike Thatcher however, he only offended two people directly (the rest tangenitally) and apologised. Thatcher however directly offended millions, refused to apologise and burnt her bridges with he colleagues. That’s the difference.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1136005/BBC-bombarded-2-000-complaints-sacking-Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-remark.html
There it is, and even has a comment from Thatcher saying the BBC should apologise to her, so clearly any comments from her claiming she tried to apologise when she clearly thinks she’s done nothing wrong and refuses to apologise publicly should show that up for the lie it is. Just an excuse to cast herself as the victim, even though she burnt her own bridges.
Regarding Zagrebo’s point about the immediate sacking of Thatcher not matching the way Ross and Brand were suspended for being offensive in a public capacity: I think – other than the fact that Thatcher refused to apologise (as everyone has mentioned) – since Sachsgate, the BBC has to be swift in acting upon incidents like this and prove that they’re not going to be light on those nasty, foul-mouthed, overpaid employees of theirs. They have to quickly punish anyone who does anything remotely offensive, just to keep Mail types happy.
But as this stance on the story proves, they’re not even bloody happy when the corporation quickly sacks the offender.
To be honest, I think she was fired from the show because she’d pissed off a lot of the One Show staff with her remark and they didn’t want to work with her anymore. Would go some way to explaining why she was only barred from one show.
Er, hasn’t Thatcher only been dropped as a presenter from ‘The One Show’?
IIRC she’s not actually been fired by the BBC at all and is still working there.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/05/complaints-to-bbc-for-dropping-carol-thatcher
Typical lying DM and ‘rent-an-instant and totally- dumb-and-ill-informed-quote’ f*ckwit loony tory Tebbit.
It’s their distortion here that shows them up for exactly the sort of fools they are.
CT said the sort of thing many employers would find completely unacceptable, instead of being sacked it turns out she lost a presenting slot.
Big deal.
She should count herself lucky it stopped at that.
What is she there for anyways?
A big-gob loud Sloan on a prog with viewing numbers somewhere below ground anyways?
She lost a presenting spot at the Beeb.
It’s not like she lost her livelihood or got imprisoned.
“Anger grows…” only among hypocritical white morons who think that criticising anything short of burning a cross on Ian Wright’s lawn is ‘PC gone mad.’
“Race doll row hits the Royals” Yes…in the most minor way imaginable.
Very amusing to see the Mail website. On one page you have people bashing the BBC for “thatcher-gate” saying we should do away with the license fee. Yet on another, you have people attacking ITV for its poor coverage last night wanting the FA Cup back on the BBC! – Hilarious!
Adrian – ‘To be honest, I think she was fired from the show because she’d pissed off a lot of the One Show staff with her remark and they didn’t want to work with her anymore’
You wouldn’t be Adrian Chiles by any chance would you?
A black man is not a crass Caricature from the past.
And what Adrian said….
Hey guys. Guess what Littlejohn is on about today?
We’ve had Guardianistas, ‘Elf and Safety, the PC Brigade.
Now we’ve got the “Golliwog Squad!!!!”
Leaving aside all the issues about ‘PC gone mad’, the ‘KGBBC’, Norman Tebbit’s increasingly tenuous grip on reality, private conversations and right-wing tabloid orchestration, I find it really sad that so often in the UK debates about issues rapidly sink to the level of a playground squabble and the Melanie Philips tactic of sticking fingers in ears and shouting ‘na-na-na-na-na, not listening, na-na’
Gollywog is described in my dictionary as a grotesque, black faced, goggle eyed, fantastically dressed doll. Now what’s racist about that. All these PC luvies at the Beeb are doing is making this country more racist.
And Jo f…ing Brand is f…ing offendend. Do me a f…ing favour.
No it’s not Margaret Thatcher that ruined the country – it’s Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Nu Labour. Oh and could someone write out a list of words that we can’t use any more, and let me have it.
Oh and is it alright if we breath.
Incensed.
@ Wendy. – I think your lost. This is the Day-lee-may-al website.
Wendy, I would but I’m afraid you wouldn’t be able to spell most of them!
Well wendy, I would suggest drawing parallels between a black man and a doll which is “grotesque, black faced and goggled eyed” may just answer your question.
A few points:
1) The BBC isn’t the police. Thatcher was not arrested. Free speech remains.
2) There is a difference between what is civil and what is morally wrong. Swearing isn’t civil but racism is morally wrong, Jo Brand IS allowed to object without being hypocritical. The reason you do not say racist things is because it’s awful, not because it’s impolite.
3) Jonathan Ross apologised and was given a 3 month BBC-wide ban. She did not apologise and has only been relieved of her One Show duties.
4) “It was said in private”. Again, the BBC are not the police and they did not come crashing in through a kitchen window. The people she was speaking to were upset by what she said – there were reportedly a dozen people there. If you have reason to want your comments not to be repeated then maybe it’s because they’re creepy
The DM rush to judge is exposed.
Apparantly the initial reports didn’t give the half of the story.
“Carol Thatcher made multiple references describing a French mixed-race tennis player as a “golliwog”, “half-golliwog” and “golliwog Frog”, sources say.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/06/carol-thatcher-multiple-golliwog-remarks
The Daily Mail are selective over who they think it’s acceptable to offend.
It’s ok to offend Muslims, asylum seekers and immigrants but it’s not ok to offend Christians and Tory voters.
It’s ok to attack as Islam as a violent extremist religion that wants to destroy “Western Christian values” but not ok to show Jesus Christ in a nappy.
It’s ok to slander Muslims as terrorists and extremists but not ok to make fun of Christians’ beliefs
Double standards anyone?
Far from being a single casual jokey “golliwog” comment as her apologists would have us believe the fact that she went on to also use the term “half golliwog” in this outburst proves she was knowingly using it in a racist manner.
The only sad thing about this episode is that Carol Thatcher only lost a presenting slot on a cr@ppy show hardly anyone watches.
She should have been genuinely & completely fired by the BBC, not allowed to continue working on the taxpayers tab on other programs.
Wendy – go fuck yourself.
And,
Steeeeeeeeeeeeveeeeen!
I’m fairly sure a women sex life begins when she loses her virginity rather than her 40th birthday.