Surely as a football fan he'll know all about the association with race and apes. I don't believe he's racist in any way, but my god, he needs to hold up his hands and say he deserved to be sacked for that moment of idiocy
Stupid and unfunny post yes, but who has been offended by it? The royals? Well if they have I suspect it is because of the monkey not racial grounds. So mostly people who search out racism, mostly who are probably white and probably middle class. Grow up.
He’s not racist. He’s obsessed by chimps dressed as famous people, and didn’t make the connection. He should have seen the connection, but he doesn’t think like that. Genuinely stupid mistake not to make the connection though.
To have tweeted that as a deliberately racist tweet would be purposely lining yourself up with UKIP (or even worse), knowing that you’d be sacked. No way in a million years would he do that.
Danny Baker is a brilliant broadcaster and a very talented writer. His tweet was a bit funny - not his greatest piece of work, but not his worst. I cannot believe there was any racial malice intended in it, at all. I don't think he is racist in any way whatsoever. It was just monumentally ill-judged. And that seems to be why he was given the tin tack.
His value, his talent, his ability - everything that he does that "adds value" - is based on his ability to say or write the most appropriate, wittiest, most apposite, challenging, fun, interesting and clever thing at any one time. It's what he does brilliantly well; and has done for decades. So writing and tweeting something so knuckled-headedly stupid, insensitive and ill-thought out would appear to be the reason he's been given the heave-ho.
Was it malicious? No, of course not. Was it offensive? Some people might have taken offence (and I am certainly not going to criticise anyone who does - how could I?). Was it an example of a well-thought out piece of communication? Obviously not.
If a plumber, a builder, a doctor, a mechanic, a footballer, an accountant, a nurse or a taxi-driver had tweeted it, it could just have been ignored. But a live broadcaster, working for the BBC? Someone who should know what to say - and what not to say - at any given moment? Nope.
Listening to LBC this morning and hearing a woman call up to say she was in tears and was deeply offended by the tweet I actually thought for one minute I was listening to a parody. Pathetic
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a big issue is when we think of "a racist" we think of a person who outwardly or at least inward harbours hatred towards people of other races. Whilst there are obviously people who exemplify that, the majority of racism that people experience, I would say, occurs because people are unaware that the things they do or say can, when also done by a lot of people in society, really make people's life demonstrably worse.
So we all contribute to it without necessarily knowing or being aware of it, because of the way the world we are brought up in is shaped. So I don't think the tweet was an example of a person's hatred towards people of other races, but it was an example of someone who's brain did not flag up to him that people from mixed-race backgrounds are subjected to these kinds of comparisons on a regular basis, which will make their life experience demonstrably worse.
I don't think we should be afraid of the word 'racist,' in the way that we currently are, and should be aware that is doesn't necessarily define a person's character, but more-often-than-not some actions and behaviours that most of us can slip into, now and again. We need to understand there is a difference between 'that is a racist thing to say/do' and 'you are a racist person.' (We can save that for the outwardly racist people.)
we had a goalie not knowing about Hitler the other week so you never know, regarding the faux outrage by people gets on my nerves, its a racist and something that belongs back in time type of humour ( and even that its not as its not funny ) but to cause people to come out in tears its the same as the bint that was sobbing after a certain referendum result.
So a football fan calls a black player a monkey and he is banned for life---- Baker tweets a pic showing the Royal baby as a monkey and he gets defended ?
Very strange parameters placed on this "racism" thingy
It has been explained multiple times, I just don’t think some of you want to listen.
The BBC’s decision is spineless and pathetic.
he must have known there was a very good chance of this outcome when he hit send.
No. That’s exactly the point. He didn’t see the connection. He saw NO connotations. That’s why he had no problem hitting send.
Danny finds monkeys dressed as people inherently funny. He saw it as an image representing posh people. He’s explained that.
It’s amazing to me how you’re happy to wholeheartedly believe ambiguous subtext, but entirely reject explanation. Why? Why is that? Why do you want to believe the negative and throw away the alternative?
He saw no connotations.
I take umbrage with this. He's a massive football fan; surely he would've known about the connotations of apes/racism and such?
If he didn't know Meghan was mixed race... then, just maybe, is there an "explanation".
Danny finds monkeys dressed as people inherently funny.
Yes, fine. But there are many people - myself included - who see it as potentially pejorative.
This is assuming he didn't see connotations - which as a VERY experienced broadcast journalist, I can't believe. It is more likely than not that he would have known Meghan is mixed race. Her mum was at the wedding and all.
------------------------
Like, I don't actually think Danny is a racist. I think he's a great broadcaster and the Sausage Sandwich Game is something I and my dad listened to as a tradition on Saturday mornings. I have plenty of time for him.
HOWEVER.
I find it unlikely that he didn't know at least a little bit of info that would prevent him from tweeting this.
If it was a true brain-fade, then I think the sacking is well over the top.
That said, again, his Tweets aren't exactly what I'd call repentant or contrite (which I think you really would have to be, because come ON you're comparing a mixed-race child to a chimpanzee, even if inadvertently).
So a football fan calls a black player a monkey and he is banned for life---- Baker tweets a pic showing the Royal baby as a monkey and he gets defended ?
Very strange parameters placed on this "racism" thingy
It has been explained multiple times, I just don’t think some of you want to listen.
The BBC’s decision is spineless and pathetic.
he must have known there was a very good chance of this outcome when he hit send.
No. That’s exactly the point. He didn’t see the connection. He saw NO connotations. That’s why he had no problem hitting send.
Danny finds monkeys dressed as people inherently funny. He saw it as an image representing posh people. He’s explained that.
It’s amazing to me how you’re happy to wholeheartedly believe ambiguous subtext, but entirely reject explanation. Why? Why is that? Why do you want to believe the negative and throw away the alternative?
Sorry but Danny Baker is intelligent and aware enough of the ridiculous society we live in, that tweeting a picture of a chimp as the baby of a well documented mixed race mother will be called out by some as racist. If he didn't realise that he's an idiot.
But is it racist?
The image and the caption is, without doubt. For the record I do not believe it was posted with any racist intention at all. None. I accept that he didn't see any racist context. However it was thoroughly stupid and I'm glad the big mouth, egotistical, obsequious big head has had some long overdue comeuppance.
I fail to see how DB can be a 'big mouth' and 'egotistical' as well as being 'obsequious'. You might want to look up what that word actually means.Besides, his numerous sackings are proof that he is anything but; you simply don't like him. And as for your accusations of him being a 'big mouth' and 'egotistical', well...
So a football fan calls a black player a monkey and he is banned for life---- Baker tweets a pic showing the Royal baby as a monkey and he gets defended ?
Very strange parameters placed on this "racism" thingy
It has been explained multiple times, I just don’t think some of you want to listen.
The BBC’s decision is spineless and pathetic.
he must have known there was a very good chance of this outcome when he hit send.
No. That’s exactly the point. He didn’t see the connection. He saw NO connotations. That’s why he had no problem hitting send.
Danny finds monkeys dressed as people inherently funny. He saw it as an image representing posh people. He’s explained that.
It’s amazing to me how you’re happy to wholeheartedly believe ambiguous subtext, but entirely reject explanation. Why? Why is that? Why do you want to believe the negative and throw away the alternative?
Sorry but Danny Baker is intelligent and aware enough of the ridiculous society we live in, that tweeting a picture of a chimp as the baby of a well documented mixed race mother will be called out by some as racist. If he didn't realise that he's an idiot.
But is it racist?
The image and the caption is, without doubt. For the record I do not believe it was posted with any racist intention at all. None. I accept that he didn't see any racist context. However it was thoroughly stupid and I'm glad the big mouth, egotistical, obsequious big head has had some long overdue comeuppance.
I fail to see how DB can be a 'big mouth' and 'egotistical' as well as being 'obsequious'. You might want to look up what that word actually means.Besides, his numerous sackings are proof that he is anything but; you simply don't like him. And as for your accusations of him being a 'big mouth' and 'egotistical', well...
Obsequious when interviewing famous people. Recall him being so far up Rick Wakemans arse once you could see his stupid face in Wakemans mouth when he spoke.
I think he is an excellent broadcaster, but this tweeting event is monumentally stupid and inevitably leads to sanctions, how can it not?
I have discovered that facebook and twitter are part of the same multi national astonishingly rich company. They are rich because common sense indicates that nothing comes for free even if you don't pay them direct money. God knows why so much of modern discourse is carried out on these questionable platforms enriching already very rich companies. (What was that about paying tax?) I am not on either twitter or facebook, and the more time passes I feel more relieved. What is totally annoying is that so many others, individuals and organisations, assume we all have facebook and twitter. They are salespeople for the already incredibly rich aren't they? As a result there is a sense of alienation, even a weird disenfranchisement (as well as the relief I mentioned above) and a feeling of being out of the loop if you're not on those two platforms. I suppose as a vegetarian I'm used to swimming against the tide, but I see twitter and facebook as an undiluted diet of something like the MacDonalds of the intellect, communication, and online existence. This latest 'look at me' event is an example of the paucity of modern culture.
If the BBC put Alan Green on in his slot though I will despair.
Stupid and unfunny post yes, but who has been offended by it? The royals? Well if they have I suspect it is because of the monkey not racial grounds. So mostly people who search out racism, mostly who are probably white and probably middle class. Grow up.
If we want to generalise, im presuming it is white working class people that think its funny and pathetic he got flagged.
I think he is an excellent broadcaster, but this tweeting event is monumentally stupid and inevitably leads to sanctions, how can it not?
I have discovered that facebook and twitter are part of the same multi national astonishingly rich company. They are rich because common sense indicates that nothing comes for free even if you don't pay them direct money. God knows why so much of modern discourse is carried out on these questionable platforms enriching already very rich companies. (What was that about paying tax?) I am not on either twitter or facebook, and the more time passes I feel more relieved. What is totally annoying is that so many others, individuals and organisations, assume we all have facebook and twitter. They are salespeople for the already incredibly rich aren't they? As a result there is a sense of alienation, even a weird disenfranchisement (as well as the relief I mentioned above) and a feeling of being out of the loop if you're not on those two platforms. I suppose as a vegetarian I'm used to swimming against the tide, but I see twitter and facebook as an undiluted diet of something like the MacDonalds of the intellect, communication, and online existence. This latest 'look at me' event is an example of the paucity of modern culture.
If the BBC put Alan Green on in his slot though I will despair.
Fact is, none of us can know for sure what his intention was without knowing him personally, pretty much. But it seems to me that for anyone to say categorically that his intention wasn't racist in any way is ridiculous, just by taking a look at the facts and not just speculation and conjecture. At the very least, they should allow for the possibility. And I say this based on the following:
1. He has been a football fan for many years, making a living in the media.
2. For much of that time, he would know that monkey noises have long been used to abuse black players. Who knows, he might even have heard them personally at games he has attended. He would also know that monkey associations are a common trope used against black people in particular in a derogatory way.
3. He can't claim that the chimpanzee/monkey racism links are a thing of the past. As recently as 4 or 5 weeks ago, England players were subjected to disgusting abuse - including monkey noises - in Montenegro. He would be well aware of this. Phil Parry, talking to Vanessa Feltz this morning on Radio London, said that there is no way that any broadcaster associated with football would not have known how much of a major issue that this is right now.
4. It could not plausibly have escaped his attention, as someone making his living in the media, that the new royal baby has a mother whose own mother is black.
5. Royal babies are not a new phenomenon. William and Kate have had 3 in the last 5 or 6 years or whatever, most recently one year ago. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't dust off similar images or issue statements on those occasions to make a particular point. Yet he has this time - so what could possibly be different now?
6. As pointed out elsewhere, just re-tweeting that image would have been bad enough. But in this instance, he would have had to consciously decide to find/use that image and make a conscious decision to tweet to his 500,000 followers and who knows how many others via re-tweets etc. Or alternatively, someone may have sent that image in a tweet, and he consciously decided not to RT but to 'own' it - maybe to protect an identity because he knew of the likely backlash.
7. Therefore, claiming ignorance of the connotations isn't plausible.
However, by responding that people who are offended - and I'm one of them - are diseased or otherwise are the ones that have the problem instead of focusing on his own behaviour and the offence itself just about says it all. Victim-blaming isn't the right term in this context, but it's definitely heading in that direction.
I don't know if he is a racist and have never previously thought he was. But his reaction to the World Cup last year when some were contrasting the public response to Harry Kane when compared to Raheem Sterling certainly caused me and others to begin to wonder if that might be a factor. Not saying it was, but made me wonder. And to my mind if you say and do racist things that makes you a racist, no matter how many black/Asian/Chinese/White - delete as appropriate - friends you claim to have.
So personally I'm glad he's been sacked, because he couldn't claim not to know the consequences of his actions - especially working for the BBC - and I don't believe he is so out of touch that he didn't foresee the risks. In my job, I know that if I post offensive stuff on social media I will in all likelihood be drummed out, even though I never reference where I work in any of my profiles. He would have known that too.
Finally, for people to take issue with posters 'being offended on behalf of others', or similar, I think you need to think about that. So when that idiot Dapper Laughs got into trouble last year for telling jokes about rape, does that mean I or anyone else shouldn't have been offended because we ourselves haven't been raped? Utter garbage - it's the same principle, whether or not you agree with the magnitude of the offence.
I wonder if Danny Baker wanted to go out in a blaze of glory because he said just a few years ago he wanted to quit around the 60 mark and go to America ?
I'm not a Royalist and I believe in the Darwin theory that we are a first cousin to the apes. BUT if he had posted that picture when Kate and William had their baby it would of hit the Royal Privilege look at me like animals in a zoo and not Megan and Harry which has turned into a banana skin for Baker because of Megan's mixed race heritage.
It sounds like Danny is burning his bridges with more tweets and there will be no way back at the BBC this time. (He got sacked last time when he gave the address of a ref he didn't like)
I find it interesting to read the polar opposite views on this thread.
For me it Red sauce 70% of the time.
Racist.
Well spotted WSS, I thought it was apt to use the poor old Banana skin.
I must be a racist because I believe we are ALL related to apes and Gareth Bale and Sol Campbell have the bone structure to prove this theory. If I was a broadcaster would I say this ? No, because the questions on my doorstep would be "Do you deny saying Sol Campbell is an Ape"
David Attenborough is the only person at the BBC who can get a Knighthood for saying the truth ? We are ALL closely related to Monkeys whether White, Black or people of Colour.
Now I'm off to have my second banana of the day.
Ps. Having listened to the Saturday radio show on and off for years, Danny Baker have always been obsessed with monkeys and other animals dressed up in a parade set to music.
I think he is an excellent broadcaster, but this tweeting event is monumentally stupid and inevitably leads to sanctions, how can it not?
I have discovered that facebook and twitter are part of the same multi national astonishingly rich company. They are rich because common sense indicates that nothing comes for free even if you don't pay them direct money. God knows why so much of modern discourse is carried out on these questionable platforms enriching already very rich companies. (What was that about paying tax?) I am not on either twitter or facebook, and the more time passes I feel more relieved. What is totally annoying is that so many others, individuals and organisations, assume we all have facebook and twitter. They are salespeople for the already incredibly rich aren't they? As a result there is a sense of alienation, even a weird disenfranchisement (as well as the relief I mentioned above) and a feeling of being out of the loop if you're not on those two platforms. I suppose as a vegetarian I'm used to swimming against the tide, but I see twitter and facebook as an undiluted diet of something like the MacDonalds of the intellect, communication, and online existence. This latest 'look at me' event is an example of the paucity of modern culture.
If the BBC put Alan Green on in his slot though I will despair.
In any other sphere of life, any employee doing what he did would likely face dismissal for 'behaviour likely to bring the organisation into disrepute'. He made a pretty big error of judgement and he, like all of us, is responsible for his own actions, regardless of the intent.
For what it's worth, I don't believe he intended to be racist, or indeed is a racist - only he knows that.
Surely as a football fan he'll know all about the association with race and apes. I don't believe he's racist in any way, but my god, he needs to hold up his hands and say he deserved to be sacked for that moment of idiocy
If Baker's tweet is so outrageous, then heads need to roll at The Birmingham Mail and any other paper cavalier enough to publish it. Of course, nobody has suggested that until now, so I can only presume that the tweet is fine in and of itself and everyone is happy to play the man rather than the ball.
I find the whole thing pathetic, and as a committed anti-racist believe that stupid over reactions like this only prove to be counter productive.
In any other sphere of life, any employee doing what he did would likely face dismissal for 'behaviour likely to bring the organisation into disrepute'. He made a pretty big error of judgement and he, like all of us, is responsible for his own actions, regardless of the intent.
For what it's worth, I don't believe he intended to be racist, or indeed is a racist - only he knows that.
Yes, this has certainly tarnished the pure as snow reputation of the paedo harbouring institution that is the BBC.
If Baker's tweet is so outrageous, then heads need to roll at The Birmingham Mail and any other paper cavalier enough to publish it. Of course, nobody has suggested that until now, so I can only presume that the tweet is fine in and of itself and everyone is happy to play the man rather than the ball.
I find the whole thing pathetic, and as a committed anti-racist believe that stupid over reactions like this only prove to be counter productive.
I don't agree. Reporting facts as a media organisation in a country with a free press doesn't mean you endorse the views or actions you are reporting on - Especially if there's a legitimate public interest, as in this case. Indeed, that's their job. It would be very scary were this not the case, as in some countries.
No fan of Baker but I'm uneasy when a disrespectful jibe is wilfully misconstrued as something else by a self policing Establishment.
Freedom of expression is under attack in all sorts of different ways. A rugby player expressed his views regarding homosexuals recently and has been punished by the rugby authorities. I can understand in that particular case that homosexuals may have found his views offensive but we have to ask ourselves what we want.
Freedom of Expression and the right to question the so called orthodox mainstream viewpoint even if some are offended or blind conformity.
I'm in the first camp and will probably be slagged off by some for being so.
Great post, IMO, read the posts and wasn't 100% sure what to think about this. I've never met him but @ShootersHillGuru wrote he has, and SHG isn't easily fooled, I believe. So I can't really myself label him as a racist, never met the bloke.
I will say though that I stopped listening to him, during his first 606 spell, because I started to feel there was a bullying streak in him. Somebody else mentioned he was sacked for giving out a referee's phone number. Exactly what I'm referring to, and it went on for quite a few weeks. The fore-runner of the current Yaxley -Lennon type behaviour, filming people, posting personal details. Those referees, they had reffed 'Wall games where they made decisions he disagreed with. In my lifetime, Millwall have had their ground closed because their fans ran on the pitch and attacked a ref (Name of Burtenshaw, if I recall). Baker's my age so he knew all that perfectly well too. And still he did it. Not once but regularly. And while he may not be a racist, since he is my age, he will almost certainly have been at the Den as I was when we played them early in 1992. Short of players, we gave a debut to the manifestly unready Jermain Darlington. After doing virtually nothing for 70 minutes, he was subbed. He had to walk round most of the perimeter, and virtually every Spanner stood up to boo him as he passed, more abuse than we managed for Kevin Muscat. But he had hardly kicked the ball, let alone one of theirs. What was his crime...? Did Baker speak up against that? Has he ever spoken up against any Spanner behaviour?
Finally whatever else Baker is, he is not stupid. In the service of the BBC, you post a tweet like that about the Royal Family. What did you think was going to happen?
He’s not a racist (that anyone can prove anyway), the picture alone is not racist but by associating it with a mixed race child, it took on a racist message.
Should’ve been a slap on the wrist and told to publicly apologise. It appears that that happened and I don’t think they should’ve taken further action.
Comments
His value, his talent, his ability - everything that he does that "adds value" - is based on his ability to say or write the most appropriate, wittiest, most apposite, challenging, fun, interesting and clever thing at any one time. It's what he does brilliantly well; and has done for decades. So writing and tweeting something so knuckled-headedly stupid, insensitive and ill-thought out would appear to be the reason he's been given the heave-ho.
Was it malicious? No, of course not. Was it offensive? Some people might have taken offence (and I am certainly not going to criticise anyone who does - how could I?). Was it an example of a well-thought out piece of communication? Obviously not.
If a plumber, a builder, a doctor, a mechanic, a footballer, an accountant, a nurse or a taxi-driver had tweeted it, it could just have been ignored. But a live broadcaster, working for the BBC? Someone who should know what to say - and what not to say - at any given moment? Nope.
Racist? No. Eye-wateringly stupid? Yes.
So we all contribute to it without necessarily knowing or being aware of it, because of the way the world we are brought up in is shaped. So I don't think the tweet was an example of a person's hatred towards people of other races, but it was an example of someone who's brain did not flag up to him that people from mixed-race backgrounds are subjected to these kinds of comparisons on a regular basis, which will make their life experience demonstrably worse.
I don't think we should be afraid of the word 'racist,' in the way that we currently are, and should be aware that is doesn't necessarily define a person's character, but more-often-than-not some actions and behaviours that most of us can slip into, now and again. We need to understand there is a difference between 'that is a racist thing to say/do' and 'you are a racist person.' (We can save that for the outwardly racist people.)
I take umbrage with this. He's a massive football fan; surely he would've known about the connotations of apes/racism and such?
If he didn't know Meghan was mixed race... then, just maybe, is there an "explanation".
Danny finds monkeys dressed as people inherently funny.
Yes, fine. But there are many people - myself included - who see it as potentially pejorative.
This is assuming he didn't see connotations - which as a VERY experienced broadcast journalist, I can't believe. It is more likely than not that he would have known Meghan is mixed race. Her mum was at the wedding and all.
------------------------
Like, I don't actually think Danny is a racist. I think he's a great broadcaster and the Sausage Sandwich Game is something I and my dad listened to as a tradition on Saturday mornings. I have plenty of time for him.
HOWEVER.
I find it unlikely that he didn't know at least a little bit of info that would prevent him from tweeting this.
If it was a true brain-fade, then I think the sacking is well over the top.
That said, again, his Tweets aren't exactly what I'd call repentant or contrite (which I think you really would have to be, because come ON you're comparing a mixed-race child to a chimpanzee, even if inadvertently).
------------------------
And as for your accusations of him being a 'big mouth' and 'egotistical', well...
I have discovered that facebook and twitter are part of the same multi national astonishingly rich company.
They are rich because common sense indicates that nothing comes for free even if you don't pay them direct money.
God knows why so much of modern discourse is carried out on these questionable platforms enriching already very rich companies. (What was that about paying tax?)
I am not on either twitter or facebook, and the more time passes I feel more relieved.
What is totally annoying is that so many others, individuals and organisations, assume we all have facebook and twitter. They are salespeople for the already incredibly rich aren't they? As a result there is a sense of alienation, even a weird disenfranchisement (as well as the relief I mentioned above) and a feeling of being out of the loop if you're not on those two platforms.
I suppose as a vegetarian I'm used to swimming against the tide, but I see twitter and facebook as an undiluted diet of something like the MacDonalds of the intellect, communication, and online existence.
This latest 'look at me' event is an example of the paucity of modern culture.
If the BBC put Alan Green on in his slot though I will despair.
If we want to generalise, im presuming it is white working class people that think its funny and pathetic he got flagged.
1. He has been a football fan for many years, making a living in the media.
2. For much of that time, he would know that monkey noises have long been used to abuse black players. Who knows, he might even have heard them personally at games he has attended. He would also know that monkey associations are a common trope used against black people in particular in a derogatory way.
3. He can't claim that the chimpanzee/monkey racism links are a thing of the past. As recently as 4 or 5 weeks ago, England players were subjected to disgusting abuse - including monkey noises - in Montenegro. He would be well aware of this. Phil Parry, talking to Vanessa Feltz this morning on Radio London, said that there is no way that any broadcaster associated with football would not have known how much of a major issue that this is right now.
4. It could not plausibly have escaped his attention, as someone making his living in the media, that the new royal baby has a mother whose own mother is black.
5. Royal babies are not a new phenomenon. William and Kate have had 3 in the last 5 or 6 years or whatever, most recently one year ago. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't dust off similar images or issue statements on those occasions to make a particular point. Yet he has this time - so what could possibly be different now?
6. As pointed out elsewhere, just re-tweeting that image would have been bad enough. But in this instance, he would have had to consciously decide to find/use that image and make a conscious decision to tweet to his 500,000 followers and who knows how many others via re-tweets etc. Or alternatively, someone may have sent that image in a tweet, and he consciously decided not to RT but to 'own' it - maybe to protect an identity because he knew of the likely backlash.
7. Therefore, claiming ignorance of the connotations isn't plausible.
However, by responding that people who are offended - and I'm one of them - are diseased or otherwise are the ones that have the problem instead of focusing on his own behaviour and the offence itself just about says it all. Victim-blaming isn't the right term in this context, but it's definitely heading in that direction.
I don't know if he is a racist and have never previously thought he was. But his reaction to the World Cup last year when some were contrasting the public response to Harry Kane when compared to Raheem Sterling certainly caused me and others to begin to wonder if that might be a factor. Not saying it was, but made me wonder. And to my mind if you say and do racist things that makes you a racist, no matter how many black/Asian/Chinese/White - delete as appropriate - friends you claim to have.
So personally I'm glad he's been sacked, because he couldn't claim not to know the consequences of his actions - especially working for the BBC - and I don't believe he is so out of touch that he didn't foresee the risks. In my job, I know that if I post offensive stuff on social media I will in all likelihood be drummed out, even though I never reference where I work in any of my profiles. He would have known that too.
Finally, for people to take issue with posters 'being offended on behalf of others', or similar, I think you need to think about that. So when that idiot Dapper Laughs got into trouble last year for telling jokes about rape, does that mean I or anyone else shouldn't have been offended because we ourselves haven't been raped? Utter garbage - it's the same principle, whether or not you agree with the magnitude of the offence.
I thought it was apt to use the poor old Banana skin.
I must be a racist because I believe we are ALL related to apes and Gareth Bale and Sol Campbell have the bone structure to prove this theory. If I was a broadcaster would I say this ? No, because the questions on my doorstep would be "Do you deny saying Sol Campbell is an Ape"
David Attenborough is the only person at the BBC who can get a Knighthood for saying the truth ? We are ALL closely related to Monkeys whether White, Black or people of Colour.
Now I'm off to have my second banana of the day.
Ps. Having listened to the Saturday radio show on and off for years, Danny Baker have always been obsessed with monkeys and other animals dressed up in a parade set to music.
In any other sphere of life, any employee doing what he did would likely face dismissal for 'behaviour likely to bring the organisation into disrepute'. He made a pretty big error of judgement and he, like all of us, is responsible for his own actions, regardless of the intent.
For what it's worth, I don't believe he intended to be racist, or indeed is a racist - only he knows that.
If you associate chimps with people of colour it is YOU who is racist.
I'll say this once too.
It's a chimpanzee not a monkey you racist bell ends.
Freedom of expression is under attack in all sorts of different ways. A rugby player expressed his views regarding homosexuals recently and has been punished by the rugby authorities. I can understand in that particular case that homosexuals may have found his views offensive but we have to ask ourselves what we want.
Freedom of Expression and the right to question the so called orthodox mainstream viewpoint even if some are offended or blind conformity.
I'm in the first camp and will probably be slagged off by some for being so.
Great post, IMO, read the posts and wasn't 100% sure what to think about this. I've never met him but @ShootersHillGuru wrote he has, and SHG isn't easily fooled, I believe. So I can't really myself label him as a racist, never met the bloke.
I will say though that I stopped listening to him, during his first 606 spell, because I started to feel there was a bullying streak in him. Somebody else mentioned he was sacked for giving out a referee's phone number. Exactly what I'm referring to, and it went on for quite a few weeks. The fore-runner of the current Yaxley -Lennon type behaviour, filming people, posting personal details. Those referees, they had reffed 'Wall games where they made decisions he disagreed with. In my lifetime, Millwall have had their ground closed because their fans ran on the pitch and attacked a ref (Name of Burtenshaw, if I recall). Baker's my age so he knew all that perfectly well too. And still he did it. Not once but regularly. And while he may not be a racist, since he is my age, he will almost certainly have been at the Den as I was when we played them early in 1992. Short of players, we gave a debut to the manifestly unready Jermain Darlington. After doing virtually nothing for 70 minutes, he was subbed. He had to walk round most of the perimeter, and virtually every Spanner stood up to boo him as he passed, more abuse than we managed for Kevin Muscat. But he had hardly kicked the ball, let alone one of theirs. What was his crime...? Did Baker speak up against that? Has he ever spoken up against any Spanner behaviour?
Finally whatever else Baker is, he is not stupid. In the service of the BBC, you post a tweet like that about the Royal Family. What did you think was going to happen?
'Wall bully, he can do one.
He’s not a racist (that anyone can prove anyway), the picture alone is not racist but by associating it with a mixed race child, it took on a racist message.
Should’ve been a slap on the wrist and told to publicly apologise. It appears that that happened and I don’t think they should’ve taken further action.