Carol Thatcher and the racist remark

shaundickov said:
dannybcity said:
shaundickov said:
coleridge said:
As a general point, why are so many of you desperate to be 'allowed' to use derogatory terms about other people. It's just plain weird.

Carol Thatcher sacked. Jonathan Ross suspended.

It's not about wanting to be allowed to use terms, it's about the RIDICULOUS notion that some offensive terms are deemed worthy of sacking, whilst others are not.

Ross 'offended' one man and apoligised, Thatcher offended a whole race and refused to apoligise.

Apoligised? How old are you? Am I arguing with a 10 year old in remedial school? FFS

Ross offended thousands of people, and generated far more complaints than Carol Thatcher did. Go back to your colouring in.

Even if you were I'd wager the 10 year old would win.

Ross didn't offend thousands, thousands offended themselves. Sachs accepted the apology and decided not to take the matter further, but that clearly wasn't good enough for you. So maybe it's time for you to tell me who the sensitive little flower is now?
 
And now it's Clarkson.

"We have this one-eyed Scottish idiot who keeps telling us everything's fine and he's saved the world and we know he's lying, but he's smooth at telling us."

no 10s response:

He's entitled to his view.

RNIB response:
Offensive to blind people as it inferes that intelegence is related to sight

Scotish labour MP response:
Offensive to scots as it infers that intelegence is related to nationality

I really think people need to get a grip.


I'm not keen on Carol Thatcher and I wouldn't say what she said because I'm aware that some will rightly or wrongly take offence but the BBC have lost the plot.
 
shaundickov said:
I have a history degree so I do know that persecution of women through the ages has been far more widespread than persecution of black people by white people or anyone else for that matter. I never said there were no black females.

Whilst in Britain the BBC is sacking people for saying gollywog, in the Middle East women are not allowed to drive cars. Which is more serious?

How come offensive words about women are deemed less offensive than offensive words about black people?

I'm sorry, but as well meaning your intentions are, I'll say that your degree is worth only the subjective view on history, that you've learned! What do you know of the true figures of abuse of murder of a race? You know what you've been taught or have read. I'm not going to pretend about having a clue about the figures of women killed/ abused, but I'll not accept that you know that those figures are higher than the sufferance of a race! there's no proof, just subjective view! I wonder if you're taking into account things like The Biafran
War with the British, that my mother escaped, where hundreds of thousands died??

Somehow, I don't think so. history has, and always will be subjective to the story teller. So, it will always depend on whom you gather the stories from...
 
dannybcity said:
Thatcher offended a whole race

dannybcity said:
Ross didn't offend thousands, thousands offended themselves.

How can you argue that Thatcher offended a WHOLE RACE and not just the tennis player she referred to, then you say that Jonathan Ross offended only ONE person and not the thousands who complained that they found it offensive.

The double standards here are glaringly obvious, you know it yourself even though you're not prepared to admit it.
 
shaundickov said:
dannybcity said:
Thatcher offended a whole race

dannybcity said:
Ross didn't offend thousands, thousands offended themselves.

How can you argue that Thatcher offended a WHOLE RACE and not just the tennis player she referred to, then you say that Jonathan Ross offended only ONE person and not the thousands who complained that they found it offensive.

The double standards here are glaringly obvious, you know it yourself even though you're not prepared to admit it.

I remember when we used to get gollywog badges for collecting the labels of the jam and sending them off. Quite collectable now.
 
Bigga said:
shaundickov said:
I have a history degree so I do know that persecution of women through the ages has been far more widespread than persecution of black people by white people or anyone else for that matter. I never said there were no black females.

Whilst in Britain the BBC is sacking people for saying gollywog, in the Middle East women are not allowed to drive cars. Which is more serious?

How come offensive words about women are deemed less offensive than offensive words about black people?

I'm sorry, but as well meaning your intentions are, I'll say that your degree is worth only the subjective view on history, that you've learned! What do you know of the true figures of abuse of murder of a race? You know what you've been taught or have read. I'm not going to pretend about having a clue about the figures of women killed/ abused, but I'll not accept that you know that those figures are higher than the sufferance of a race! there's no proof, just subjective view! I wonder if you're taking into account things like The Biafran
War with the British, that my mother escaped, where hundreds of thousands died??

Somehow, I don't think so. history has, and always will be subjective to the story teller. So, it will always depend on whom you gather the stories from...

Half the population are women. They have been persecuted and subject to prejudice for being women since year dot.

Much much fewer than half the population are black. I don't dispute they've been persecuted against for being black, but the numbers are not in the same league as women.

It's simple maths.
 
shaundickov said:
dannybcity said:
Thatcher offended a whole race

dannybcity said:
Ross didn't offend thousands, thousands offended themselves.

How can you argue that Thatcher offended a WHOLE RACE and not just the tennis player she referred to, then you say that Jonathan Ross offended only ONE person and not the thousands who complained that they found it offensive.

The double standards here are glaringly obvious, you know it yourself even though you're not prepared to admit it.

So now you want to argue that the BBC behaved incorrectly. I don't see how they could have done anything else. If you go into work tommorrow and offend somebody (regardless of what was said), then refuse to apoligise what do you expect to happen?
 
tell you who does take it too far...

them eskimos!

fuckin eskimos!

i was tryna get on the bus before, and a fuckin eskimo jumped in front of me, and the bus driver let him on! so i said to everyone FUCKIN ESKIMOS take the piss

theyre ruining my life, i couldnt get a job ice fishing the other day coz u guessed it! they hired a bunch of "them lot" again....

as for polar bear skinning! forget it mate
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.