Click on the image to listenI'm not sure that the Today Programme got the dust up they were looking for this morning. I was supposed to be on with Amanda Platell, but she was replaced at the last minute by Michael Eboda from New Nation. He duly took the line that it seemed to be a bit of a fuss about nothing and had got overblown. He was right.
I won't relate the whole discussion (you can click on the image above to listen to it), but right at the end John Humphrys posed an interesting question: Should you say exactly the same in private as you say in public. I wasn't sure how to answer that at first so I deployed a delaying tactic and had a bit of rant about Adrian Chiles instead. Humphrys, of course, was having none of it and put the question to me again. I ended up by saying "In theory yes, but we don't live in a theoretical world". A bit lame, but it was the best I could think of! But it is a very interesting question. I am sure none of us can say we haven't said things in private which we wouldn't want made public, although theoretically we should all operate on the basis that anything we say could indeed be made public.
UPDATE: I have just been told categorically by a BBC spokesman that the tennis player referred to by Carol Thatcher was not Andy Murray. And she acknowledges that.
52 comments:
There has to be a distinction between private and public. It's the same difference as to that between liberalism and totalitarianism.
What really annoys me is that Mary Honeyball MEP, has done a post called the Joke Police on her blog, defending Jo Brand for being reported to the Police for making offensive statements. Yet it is perfectly acceptable for Brand and the boorish Brummie to report others including Carol Thatcher.
Glass houses and Stones come to mind, only the BBC would set up a Kangeroo Court like this on the matter of free speech, does not bode well for the future
Yes it was a bit lame, but even so it is/was a reasonable position for you to take. However, I tend to disagree.
It's my view that the notion of censoring or controlling what people say in private is akin to an assault on their thoughts and sentiments. If people disagree with 'racism' - and let's be extremely clear how that word is defined and applied - then let them put up their case and educate others. This extreme Lefty nonsense of attempting to impose views by statute is doomed to failure.
Prejudice will always exist and these Statists will merely increase it by their draconian actions. If they are at all serious about eliminating prejudice they'd better find other means. But that is not what they wish to do. What they really want is control of everything - including the way people think and speak.
'Inappropriate' language? Bollocks.
So, Iain. If, as reported the remark was about Gael Monfils, will you now modify your view? Or at least accept that using the word "golliwog" in connection with Gaels Monfils is in a different league than using it about Andy Murray?
Yes, I do accept that it is different. However, we don't know the context and context is everything. It is still pretty rough to lose your job over a jocular remark, and I still maintain the BBC is guilty of double standards by sacking her but doing nothing about Chris Moyles.
I lived in Romania in the early 90's in the immediate aftermath of the Ceauçescu regime. The thing that my Romanian friends said was the most corrosive aspect of any friendships or relationships, both private and professional, was the fear of the informer. They were constantly in fear of saying anything that could be (mis)interpreted as being against the regime. I believe the Nazis did something similar!
Is this what the UK has come to?
A few years ago my father was caught three times on the same road by a new and well concealed speed camera.( They were a new horror then). He duly lost his licence.
One rainy evening ‘allegedly’ he chose to take the car down to a Council meeting
A Liberal Democrat Councillor called the police and he was then obliged to pay a large fine after having been hauled out of his house and thrown in a cell.
The Liberal Councillor in question was the sort of nasty small minded vindictive tick I cannot abide .When not treating those actually around him vilely this Liberal ( a type you will recognise ) was as keen as most on pontificating about Africa or something .If he was terribly concerned for the legal point he could have had a quiet word , he could have quietly said look don’t do it again , but he wanted to take some sort of spiteful revenge..
I like to think that no Conservative would be such a bossy little self important pain as to tattle unnecessarily because Conservatives , unlike others , conceive of behaving well as something you actually do to those around you . Whoever snitched on Carol Thatcher is the sort of person who would snitch to the Gestapo or the Stasi and many many did . All rules offer an opportunity for petty paying back and sheer mean spiritedness and that is what stands out about this silly matter .
What sort of a craven toad would go so far as to “Tell teacher” about a mis-use of language for who at the very most a private “excuse me no offence meant “ was required. What sort of beetle man and woman are we making?
( I heard you as I drove in today ...you did well and your ppoint about a theoretical world was not weak it was profound . Well done )
It's not credible that someone as bright and savvy as Carol Thatcher would use that term of a black African man without some conciousness of the likely impact. Had she been drinking or something?
I tend to side more with the BBC now I know this.
Iain, will you modify your statements on it? Clearly this is a different situation.
Guthrum, do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that Adrian Chiles was behind the leak? It would be interesting to know. On the other hand, I mind less now that I know who CT was using the term to describe.
Clearly this was a racial slur and sadly, rather typical of the "hidden values" of Thatcher's Party, even though Carol has traditionally somewhat distanced herself from Mummy's views.
"Is this what the UK has come to?"
Not entirely. But some are determined to do their damndest to make sure it does...
David, since when is banning racial slurs in the workplace analagous to the use of a secret police force? It's up to the BBC who they employ, although it can be debated in public. The very fact we are having this debate or even got to hear about it proves you wrong. You clearly haven't the foggiest notion of what it was actually like to live in one of the East European police states.
Newmania - are you really arguing that disqual drivers should be left in peace? Every day they wreak havoc. Perhaps you would feel differently if you had a smash with one of them.
Thank you Iain.
In what context would it be appropriate to refer to Gael Monfils as a "golliwog"? I am darned if I can think of one.
The One Show is simply not going to use her again unless and until they receive a full apology that doesn't make light of the remark.
Im more concerned about Iain being referred to as 'a mover and shaker in the Conservative party'!
Private versus public question is hardly a moral maze. Surely words spoken in private are just that. We really are following a terrible path.
@ Despairing
So now you're of the view that Carol Thatcher is a racialist lying drunkard who is alienated from her mother's political views?
Excellent.
Iain,
Perhaps you could contact Carol Thatcher and ask her the truth. I cannot and will not accept anything coming from the politically correct BBC!
Chiles has contacted Radio 5 Live and told them it was not he that 'snitched' so if it was not him and not Jo Brand was the room bugged? Perhaps Chiles should ascertain because he has lost a lot of supprot over this.
Had you read your earlier blog, you may have seen the comments referring to the Stasi- perhaps that is what I would have said to Humphreys in answer to the question public or private conversation!
Iain Dale blogged “Should you say exactly the same in private as you say in public... ...I ended up by saying "In theory yes, but we don't live in a theoretical world"... ...It is a very interesting question.”
Oh absolutely not. But I make an exception for public figures who are held to a rather different standard - like it or not. They are always ‘on duty’.
And no I won’t go into who is and is not a public figure. If it looks and smells like a public figure, it’s a public figure. Are you a “public figure” - probably. Is Thatcher a “public figure”? Well she was by virtue of her permanent place on this TV show.
I blame the parents
Strapworld - whoever raised the complaint was in many people's opinion doing the right thing. However, I would suggest that it should have been raised with her first. Perhaps it was though - isn't the nub of this that she offered to apologise to the Producer and that was considered not enough? Perhaps that's where the extreme reaction of the BBC can be critiqued, since generally some sort of apology and then move on is considered adequate. I think the BBC should come forward and say why that wasn't enough of an apology.
Wasn't there also something about the production crew being annoyed with her? I had the impression there were more people present than just Chiles and Brand.
just as a scruffy ill-dressed person can look like a scarecrow.... a black person with fuzzy hair can look like a golliwog..... and I've seen babies ( and some adults ) that look like Cabbage Patch dolls.... remember them.
I bet I won't get screams of anguish from the thought police if I call a fat strange looking chubby faced white person a 'Cabbage Patch'
"Strapworld - whoever raised the complaint was in many people's opinion doing the right thing."
In your small, and increasingly out-of-touch circles, maybe.
I think you'll find the general public don't share your views. At all.
They know insanity when they see it, and they are aware of the dangers of going down this road.
Iain, As a 65 year-old owner of two 'gollies' I thought your contribution was a bit lame. The 'green room' is a public space, albeit a restricted public space, and Carol Thatcher should have taken that into account before opening her mouth.
In my view her comments were unacceptable, even in the privacy of her own home I'd not expect to hear her say this, but then the reaction of the BBC has been a step too far for me. If Thatcher has reasonably apologised on being told of her comment then it should have ended there. What's done can't be undone and we have to move on.
Interestingly, in the shop where I bought my 2 tokens of a more innocent age, I had a discussion with the owner about the acceptability of the term g*****og. He'd had many complaints about selling the dolls and he has to call them 'gollies' which is apparently acceptable yet everyone knows what they used to be called. So it really is all in the mind of the beholder.
Haddock is absolutely right. If the remark was made about Gael Monfils, then it was spot on, no more than a simple statement of the obvious., The fact is that Monfils does look like a golliwog – as was pointed out entirely innocently by my five-year old nephew when he saw Monfils on the television the other day.
Not sure about your criticism of Adrian Chiles, Iain. I go to the football but simply by walking through the turnstile does not neccasserily mean I condone every single insult that the fans throw at the players.
"In my view her comments were unacceptable, even in the privacy of her own home..."
!
Regarding Humphrys' interesting question: how is it possible to arrive at a cogent and coherent public position without first testing it in private – whether inside your own head or among friends?
If the "black tennis player" is Gael Monfils, then I would say CT has a point.
From the BBC's website, make up your own mind:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42032000/jpg/_42032166_monfils416.jpg
We ought to separate the remark from its aftermath. We all say things we regret but if we unreservedly apologise that is normally the end of the matter. The problem is that Thatcher offended her listeners in the green room but then did not apologise fully - she said it was a joke. And those she offended have not accepted that apology but have said they will accept a unreserved apology.
It appears that Thatcher is living in a somewhat different world than her co-contributors.
You should stand by whatever you say in either public or private.
But there is no doubt that using the term 'golliwog' is offensive. It might not have been meant in an offensive manner, it may not have been directed against any one person, or hairstyle in particular. But the problem is for too long black children were called this in ridicule and it causes offence.
The BBC have done the right thing and it highlights an important issue.
There is far too much casual racism in society; people saying disparaging remarks with no malicious intent, but no thought on their meaning or possible consequences.
And as for Melanie Phillips saying it is the fault of the snitch, makes me wonder even more about the woman's sanity. Afterall, it has long been a principle of British justice that someone should stand up for what is right, regardless of the personal opprobrium or danger they might find themselves.
I find it very difficult to understand the logic which has developed on these comments, taken together with those yesterday.
First of all we were told that its wasn't a racist remark because it was referring to Andy Murray.
Now we are told that it wasn't racist because it was referring to Gael Monfils and 'was therefore true'.
Is there any remark that anyone could make that would be considered racist by some commenters here?
I hate to sound like I am supporting the PC fascists but every human being talks differently in differnent environments & correctly so. Maiden aunts are entitled to expect to be talked to in a different way from chief whips & it is courtesy to do so. We all subconsciously slightly alter our accents to fit who we are speaking to.
Of course it can be taken to far & there is no need to pander to those looking for something to be offended by, or worse yet who are offended on somebody else's behalf, who isn't offended.
I hadn't twigged to this being off air. In that case I wasn't on the side of the PC fascists after all & there is absolutely no case for sacking her. For racial balance the BBC will now have to ban Iain because he has said, in public though not on BBC, that John Prescott looks like a fat person.
North Briton Hunter said... ...there is no doubt that using the term 'golliwog' is offensive.
Apart from a few very right-wing loons, I doubt there’s any serious disagreement about that.
“And as for Melanie Phillips saying it is the fault of the snitch, makes me wonder even more about the woman's sanity.”
Ha! What took you so long?
It wasn't in private it was in her place of work. If you say something like that in your place of work what do you expect to happen?
what I find amusing here is that people believed that the BBC were daft enough to sack her from that show (she still works for the BBC on other shows) for insulting 'Andy Murray's hair'
This is pathetic. One can't give offence with language, one can only take it. If the listener chooses to take offence that is their responsibility. If somebody calls me a "fat old porker" it tells me nothing of myself. It does however tell me quite a bit about him. I surely can't be offended by what another person is.
And, thank you @Alex (11:25am) for your link to the BBC website - http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42032000/jpg/_42032166_monfils416.jpg
That certainly puts things into perspective!
Sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
"Sticks and stones"
Come on! You're trivilaising one of the most racist terms it is possible to speak! It's where "wog" comes from.
@JuliaM and @Oliver Drew - what I love are people who take comments out of context. It so enriches debate, don't you think?
Most of the comments about what Carol Thatcher said are conjecture and as far as I'm aware she has not said whether the comment was in jest or something else.
I'd like to think that if I'd been the BBC executive producer for The One Show I'd have sorted the problem out before anyone left the Green Room so that this debate wouldn't have taken place. Carol has apologised so let's move on. She's the only one who has lost out, unfairly in my view. The producer should have stood up for her.
I'm disgusted with the BBC. Knee jerk reaction - again! But the million dollar question is 'who is the snitch'! I assume Carol thought she was amongst friends! Perhaps we all need to look at people we think of as friends, very carefully! She will bounce back, BBC's loss. They would have been more respected if they had done the right thing and got rid of Ross.
Tony said... “I'd like to think that if I'd been the BBC executive producer for The One Show I'd have sorted the problem out before anyone left the Green Room...”
One gathers that precisely that was attempted, but...
“...so that this debate wouldn't have taken place. Carol has apologised so let's move on. ”
The apology was a non-apology apology and felt to be insufficient.
"although theoretically we should all operate on the basis that anything we say could indeed be made public"
And so 1984 has arrived.
We should be able to say what we want in both public and private or alter it as we wish depending on those present as we see fit. Do you talk with your partner about the same things in the same detail using the same language in public and in private? I doubt it.
As Unsworth says, censoring even in private or amongst a small group is proof that the Thought Police have won.
I remember watching an edition of the BBC sports quiz "So They Think It's All Over," when a picture of Venus and Serena Williams was shown to the all-white male panelists. It was not the most flattering picture and one of the men started singing: "Who let the dogs out?"
As far as I am aware no action was taken.
So in the BBC's eyes, it's OK to make personal offensive remarks about black people as long as you don't mention their colour.
"I assume Carol thought she was amongst friends!"
Ah yes. Jo Brand that well known friend of the Thatchers...
She was in a room of a dozen people who were work colleagues. She wasn't at a Thatcher family reunion. She should know better. But particularly she should have given a full apology. She deserves the career oblivion which will ensue.
By the way, apparently it was Jo-Wilfried Tsonga that she was referring to (according to the Telegraph quoting One Show "insiders"), not Gael Monfils.
http://tinyurl.com/aux7d8
The Burbler said... “By the way, apparently it was Jo-Wilfried Tsonga that she was referring to (according to the Telegraph quoting One Show "insiders"), not Gael Monfils.”
And so it goes on. Round and round...
Just a quick one for all of those who found themselves outraged by Carol Thatchers' "off air" comments. Are you the same people for whom the rest of us have to wait to leave the pub before we get the ashtrays back out and start enjoying ourselves? We lost the best part of two generations in the last century trying to prevent this sort of thing. We spend one week of the year honouring those who gave their lives for our freedom of speech and liberty, and the other fifty one dobbing each other in, snitching on and reporting our neighbours and workmates.
The Thought Police Rule in Britain.
It's great to live in another country where you can say exactly what you think in public or in private. The locals call blacks Neggers, and have no trouble with the term. Britain is so boring. Carole Thatcher should form a government alongside Boris Johnson and tell the lot of them to to stick their thought control up their fucking arseholes.
We 're all human beings, but in Britain under the EU, people are not any more.
Rule Britannia had it wrong. Britons are slaves.
"Just a quick one for all of those who found themselves outraged by Carol Thatchers' "off air" comments. Are you the same people for whom the rest of us have to wait to leave the pub before we get the ashtrays back out and start enjoying ourselves? We lost the best part of two generations in the last century trying to prevent this sort of thing. We spend one week of the year honouring those who gave their lives for our freedom of speech and liberty, and the other fifty one dobbing each other in, snitching on and reporting our neighbours and workmates."
What utter cobblers!
1. The BBC has not sacked Thatcher - she is still working for them.
2. It was not a private conversation - twelve people heard it - it was in an open workplace area.
3. It was not said in a jokey way accroding to the twelve people when they were interviewed by the BBC1 controller.
4. Thatcher refused to apologise to those who were offended.
5. The BBC has a right to use whatever freelancers it pleases on programmes and if they felt that Thatcher could no longer work with One Show staff then it is their right to make that decision.
All this would be fine Burbler if it wasn't for suspicions that what we have here is a case of chronic double standards. Note that the BBC has allowed Chris Moyles to get away with incredibly offensive comments - he is almost a serial offender - with hardly any apology. Yet her apology to the Producer was deemed inadequate. Why and by whom?
The interview with BBC1 controller on Today this morning only compounded things, with all her sneaky imputations and stabs. She harldy seems to be aware that Jo Brand is a keen adherant herself of throwaway offensive remarks, and ignores the implied traditional privacy of the Green Room.
This seems a case of clever manipulation by Brand and one or two others of what is a relatively minor issue - apologise and be done - into a spotlighted public saga. How glad Moyles must be that he does not have similar opponents within the BBC state-within-a-state!
Double standards maybe. Although I find it difficult to compare a broadcast situation with a specific employee relations incident. I would also repeat that Carol Thatcher is STILL WORKING for the BBC!
Just listened to the interview - I have to say, if this is all the BBC can talk about on air when there are people losing their jobs left right and centre, and there are small businesses going to the wall, then they are pretty pathetic - why do we pay our license fees - to listen to this rubbish? Iain Dale was right - there needs to be consistency across the board... Political correctness in this country has gone stark raving bonkers....
Post a Comment