Danny Baker's..

[AngryOfTuebrook]

28 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It’s crazy to have to worry about possibly offending someone every time you speak.  

You'd have to be a cunt to think you have to worry about that. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

It’s crazy to have to worry about possibly offending someone every time you speak.  

Well, you certainly don't worry about it. 

[Rico1304]

3 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You'd have to be a cunt to think you have to worry about that. 

I thought that was self evident. 

[Captain Howdy]

Just now, AngryofTuebrook said:

There's no intent in my example either. Just a crass disregard of other people. 

 

How often do you meet people with no fingers?

How often do you meet people who aren't white and who (It's reasonable to assume) have been subject to racist abuse at some point?

An unthinking slip of the tongue is more understandable in the former example than the latter. 

 

The Equalities Act has provisions to cover "indirect discrimination" specifically to deal with instances where harm is caused even in the absence of intent. The same principle applies here.

I disagree, start using the n word on a crowded train and there is intent and it doesn’t matter how many people you come across with no hands it’s a perfect example of what’s happened here because the alternative would mean that Baker is stark raving mad if he thought he could get away with it, I think the legal term is mens rea, to say it doesn’t matter about intent is inherent nonsense and I can’t be arsed going around the houses with this because I’ll never change your mind, you’ll never change mine.

[KMD7]

I don't think he meant to be racist by posting that pic but does anyone think it's just wrong to compare an innocent child, regardless of class or race to an animal in an attempt to get laughs?  I'm not comfortable with it at all. 

 

 

 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

There's no intent in my example either. Just a crass disregard of other people. 

 

How often do you meet people with no fingers?

How often do you meet people who aren't white and who (It's reasonable to assume) have been subject to racist abuse at some point?

An unthinking slip of the tongue is more understandable in the former example than the latter. 

 

The Equalities Act has provisions to cover "indirect discrimination" specifically to deal with instances where harm is caused even in the absence of intent. The same principle applies here.

Not often, I could count the times on the fingers of one hand.

[VladimirIlyich]

4 hours ago, KMD7 said:

I don't think he meant to be racist by posting that pic but does anyone think it's just wrong to compare an innocent child, regardless of class or race to an animal in an attempt to get laughs?  I'm not comfortable with it at all. 

 

 

 

I'm at a loss as to why using pictures of Chimp's dressed like humans is funny in the first place. It's an abuse of poor defenceless animals with few means to defend themselves. Those Chimps should be ashamed.

[johnsusername]

On 10/05/2019 at 21:23, Lizzie Birdsworths Wrinkled Chopper said:

Dubious, hipster-level claims of being completely unaware of probably the number 2 rolling 24-hour news story in the UK for the past 9 months - not totally indifferent to it, as the rest of us who couldn’t give a single fuck about the royal family are, but actually never having been exposed to it a single time even accidentally - aside, Baker was certainly aware of it.

 

I don't watch rolling 24 hours news. I don't watch the news. It's Cbeebies and CBBC in my house. Haven't watched (or, sorry, been allowed to Watch) the news in 5 years! 

[Pureblood]

7 hours ago, KMD7 said:

I don't think he meant to be racist by posting that pic but does anyone think it's just wrong to compare an innocent child, regardless of class or race to an animal in an attempt to get laughs?  I'm not comfortable with it at all. 

Absolutely.  He was on thin ice whatever the race/ethnicity of the baby.  The Royal baby has done nothing wrong by being brought into the world, it has no say in the matter.

 

It's when they turn into adults and still embrace the Royal lifestyle is when criticism is justified, in my opinion.  As they grow older then fuck them, they're glorified benefits cheats. 

 

I'd love one of them to break ranks and dish out all of the dirt on their family. 

[The Woolster]

On 10/05/2019 at 18:45, moof said:

I apologise for offending you. I’m not that kind of player 

 

Now that you have apologised, I am no longer offended :)

 

If you was just joking about and it went over my head, then my bad...

 

[Rico1304]

Police have dropped their investigation. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

Police have dropped their investigation. 

That seems fair. It always looked to me like a huge error of judgement  - egregious enough to make a light-entertainment broadcaster's job untenable  - rather than a serious attempt at hate speech. 

[johnsusername]

Does this mean that somebody reported it to the police? 

[Bjornebye]

On 12/05/2019 at 18:25, TK421 said:

Absolutely.  He was on thin ice whatever the race/ethnicity of the baby.  The Royal baby has done nothing wrong by being brought into the world, it has no say in the matter.

 

It's when they turn into adults and still embrace the Royal lifestyle is when criticism is justified, in my opinion.  As they grow older then fuck them, they're glorified benefits cheats. 

 

I'd love one of them to break ranks and dish out all of the dirt on their family. 

Its never a kids fault to be brought into any family. I agree with that.

 

But look at that George. He already looks like a proper little royal cunt. 

[aRdja]

Interesting discussion on this.

 

 

[aRdja]

On 11/05/2019 at 23:38, Rico1304 said:

, it doesn’t matter what you intended with your remark, it’s how others, those from outside of your trusted group of initiates, perceive what you have said.

 

Really? Really? 

It should matter, but not all that much, I don’t think. You should be able to judge an action on its own merit. An example of this is Israel Folau got sacked by the RA just recently for posting homophobic tweets. Do you think RA should’ve taken into account that his intention was actually to save humanity from God’s wrath?

[moof]

On 13/05/2019 at 18:26, The Woolster said:

 

Now that you have apologised, I am no longer offended :)

 

If you was just joking about and it went over my head, then my bad...

 

Sorry mate, yeah I was being a bit of an obtuse dick. It happens from time to time! 

[moof]

1 hour ago, viRdjil said:

It should matter, but not all that much, I don’t think. You should be able to judge an action on its own merit. An example of this is Israel Folau got sacked by the RA just recently for posting homophobic tweets. Do you think RA should’ve taken into account that his intention was actually to save humanity from God’s wrath?

Didn’t seem to matter to many people when Man City said their players didn’t mean anything with “victims” and “battered in the street” 

 

because regardless of intent, we all know those words have connotations. We all know what “victims” refers too, and even if they didn’t mean Hillsborough, it’s still a trigger for hundreds of thousands of Liverpudlians. So, yeah, intent doesn’t matter all that much 

[SasaS]

2 hours ago, viRdjil said:

It should matter, but not all that much, I don’t think. You should be able to judge an action on its own merit. An example of this is Israel Folau got sacked by the RA just recently for posting homophobic tweets. Do you think RA should’ve taken into account that his intention was actually to save humanity from God’s wrath?

Up the RA! He should be happy they didn't go for his knees.

[Rico1304]

2 hours ago, viRdjil said:

It should matter, but not all that much, I don’t think. You should be able to judge an action on its own merit. An example of this is Israel Folau got sacked by the RA just recently for posting homophobic tweets. Do you think RA should’ve taken into account that his intention was actually to save humanity from God’s wrath?

He has a code of conduct as an employee.  He takes the wage he abides by the rules.  There’s no ambiguity in his statement and he stands by it. 

[aRdja]

16 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

He has a code of conduct as an employee.  He takes the wage he abides by the rules.  There’s no ambiguity in his statement and he stands by it. 

Sure, but he had good intentions i.e. to warn these “deviants” against committing sinful acts. 

[johnsusername]

The irony is being a rugby union player he's probably been sucking off and getting sucked off by his posh teammates for years. Rugger banter innit. The Ra Ra lifestyle. 

[Strontium]

5 hours ago, viRdjil said:

Sure, but he had good intentions i.e. to warn these “deviants” against committing sinful acts. 

 

Fair's fair. I think if he manages to prove that God exists, and that God hates gay people, he should be reinstated.

[aRdja]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Fair's fair. I think if he manages to prove that God exists, and that God hates gay people, he should be reinstated.

That’d take it a bit away from “it’s the intention that matters most” view.

[General Dryness]

2 hours ago, johnsusername said:

The irony is being a rugby union player he's probably been sucking off and getting sucked off by his posh teammates for years. Rugger banter innit. The Ra Ra lifestyle. 

Nah, you're thinking of British rugby union players. They're not like that anywhere else in the world.