The green room is a place of work

Paul

WIth respect James, I think you're missing the point.

The BBC has shown immense inconsistency over this issue.

Jonathon Ross, Russell Brand and Jo Brand can make offensive comments that the state then broadcast to the nation. Carol Thatcher makes a private reference to a golliwog and has her freelance contract terminated.

Two points are important here:

1. She did not call someone a golliwog. She said someone's hair reminded her of the hair off the "golliwog off Robinson's Jam". It's an important distinction - and has anyone asked the person who's hair she was referring to whether they were offended?

2. Irrespective of where the conversation took place, it was a private conversation which the BBC has made public. If I made a remark in my employer's workplace that they took offence to, and they dismissed me, then I would expect that to be handled with discretion and diplomacy.

Instead the BBC seems to have hung Ms Thatcher out to dry. Why? I understand the bookies are not taking bets on it being something to do with whose daughter we are talking about here.

biggestaspidistra

JF:"And before this is chalked up as ‘political correctness gone mad’, we should remember that not using language that creates unnecessary offence and hurt is just good manners."

and yet we learn that the witness for the prosecution is Jo Brand, a comedienne who trades in vulgarity and smut and recently advised her listeners to send their excrement to all on the BNP membership list. I see no good manners here and feel only the creeping along my spine as political correctness takes another step forward (and try as I may I am not yet a tory).

Cath

Refreshing comments James. I must admit I, like many on the right, had assumed that this was a Beeboid stitchup and that she'd been referring to Andy Murray's hair. As more details have come out though I find it bizarre and disturbing that anyone would use that term, even lightheartedly, to refer to a black person and not see why it would be so offensive. As you say, the green room is a place of work and I think, if most of us think hard, we know how much trouble we would be in at our own places of work if we used that term.

Will B

Its all to do with the appalling realisation that there are people working at the BBC who identify strongly with stuffed toys.

TomTom

Frankly the sooner the BBC is privatised or sold off the better. Too much time is wasted on such trivia. Golliwogs are fun and friendly and to have your haircut compared to a golliwog is a compliment.

Anyone who says bad things about golliwogs is frankly in need of psychiatric treatment....it is akin to the loons who banned toy guns and "war toys" so that the streets are now awash with real guns instead.

It is time to ridicule the Thought Police and their mInd Control Marxism

Ian C

You're wrong James. It is a generation thing - not to mention the ability of those who took offence to dod so deliberately because of who she is. Jo Brand offends most people I know just by her presence and he supposedly comic 'humour'.

No, the generation thing - I had a Golliwog not a Teddy Bear when I was young. If someone looks like a golliwog to my generation it is a clear reference point absolutely NOT a term of abuse, letalone racist with racist connotations.

The others in the room, not to mention the over-zealously PC, strident controller of BBC1 should have been sufficently savvy to accept that this is the case of an older geneartion and not make a mountain out of the proverbial molehill.

Her apology should be accepted as no offence would have been meant, even if it was a little insensitive of her to expect the likes of those named as present to understand. They had no right to 'take offence' on behalf of others in any event and is a ridiculous example of them not dealing with it personally between themselves. It looks very like they have spotted an opportunity to make a news story and to prospectively humiliate a colleague - of a different 'persuasion' from themselves!

Elizabeth Roberts

Ah, yes, but Carole thatcher was employed by The One show precisely because she is 'edgy' in a dated Bertie Woosterish way - in the same way as J. Ross is 'edgy' banging on about having sex with his guests, pensioners etc. I think that the Carole 'act' or persona had already got up some lefty noses and this was their opportunity to pounce and get rid of her

Rhoda Klapp

Vicarious offence is now a weapon of the left. It ought not to be. Is there a recorded version of what happened, or is this entirely word of mouth? Apologise to who? The tennis player who was unaware of the 'insult'? The soft toy industry? Give us a break. If her name wasn't Thatcher...

Wilhelm

Carol Thatcher is an English eccentric, she's jolly hockey sticks like Joyce Grenfell, she's not socially aware and is unthinking. She said that a French tennis player reminded her of the gollywog on the jam jars of her youth.

Yes folks, according to the BBC, ITS THE CRIME OF THE CENTURY. Its up there with the holocaust.

Meanwhile at the BBC , Johnathan Ross makes abusive phone calls, Russel Brand , Ross and Graham Norton uses the F word and the C word. Buffoon Jeremy Clarkson says Frogs, its ok to be offensive to caucasions. Radio 1 Chris Moyles is homophobic and makes Auschwitz jokes. The BBC had The Black and White Minstrel Show on Saturday night for 20 years.

So the hypocrisy and double standards of the BBC borders on the supernatural.

Wilhelm

This is a politics thing, we all know that the BBC is liberal central full of lefties and Carol is right wing. So someone had it in for Carol from the kick off.

One false move and she would be fired.

mac

Your point about 'being a Thatcher' is especially interesting, James. For me, CT has no particular journalistic talent and, for me, her media presence is solely about who she is.

She and her vain, egregious brother unashamedly trade on their name and, as both are so lacking in savvy, brickbats in the MSM are to be expected.

I find that their personalities are straight out of the Harry Enfield 'Tim-Nice-but-Dim' gallery, one as 'Naive-hockey-stick 'n' Dim', the other "Deffo-NotNice 'n' Dim'.

(original mac)

EyeSee

James, What matters is intent. And even then there is a degree of 'sticks and stones' to be applied, before a full flowering of rage. And that is where you are, though I'm sure you would splutter that you are not and in fact it is a considered attitude. Piffle. You are infected with the modern communism, political correctness. Ever stopped to think if you take offence a little too easily? Ever wondered why? Blame, victimhood and assuming another is a victim, on their behalf are all PC attacks on Western civilisation and the cancer it is eats away at our common sense. You are bought into it. Depends whether you intend to think about it and cast off this disease, or maybe you feel you should espouse it? The BBC is unable to make consistent, or even understandable decisions because it is so wedded to PC. Wossy is offensive because he receives no moral guidance from his employer. He can't, they would need to square a circle first.

perdix

Don't be so stuffy James. My guess is that no malice or insult was intended.

Hawkeye

James, I might agree with you if not for the Jonathan Ross incident and the disproportionate responses between the two incidents. Ross is back on air broadcasting his particular brand of smut after a slap on the wrist.

-Thatcher made her comments in a relatively private space, Ross broadcasted his comments to the world.

-Thatcher's comment was a comment whereas Brand and Ross kept it going for a much lengthier interval.

- Thatcher's comment where (as far as we can tell) not directed at sullying the reputation of the tennis player, Ross and Brand identified a young woman, shredded her reputation in public and then phoned up her grandfather to leave insults on his answer phone.

The cases are not remotely comparable, especially when Thatcher could have been admonished quietly and told to apologise immediately to those present and warned not to make such comments again. There did not have to be a whole song-and-dance routine like the own we are having now. The fact that the comments were not made on air DOES make a difference.

Richard

On the limited basis of what I know of this story, I don't agree.

My understanding is not that she called someone a "golliwog", but remarked that they bore a resemblance to a golliwog. I think there's a distinction.

I simply don't agree that the use of a word in and of itself is necessarily offensive or racist. It absolutely depends on the context and intention with which it's used.

Too much is governed by the way people receive behaviour, rather than they way it was intended. This removes the responsibility we have to ask ourselves whether we are justified in taking offence and serves over-reaction.

Original Tony

The central issue here is freedom of speech...does it exist or doesn't it? If it does exist then why the duplicity in the way other personlities are dealt with when caught moving their lips at the wrong moment?
Anyway, I have never ever heard a black person say to my face that the name Golliwog is offensive; he was one of my favourite characters in Noddy and Big Ears.
Don't blacks have nicknames for us - Honkey or whatever? These terms are used all the time by black comedians and they are never corrected or chastened or disciplined.
So, once again it must be the bleeding heart white liberals behind this whole catastrophe!

Fergus Pickering

Does the guy look like a gollywog? I don't know. Sri Lanka used to have a fast bowler who looked JUST like a gollywog, you know, all arms and legs and hair sticking up. I wonder if this is primarily a matter of age? Would you, James, refer to Frenchmen as Frogs or Germans as Krauts, or Italians as Iteys? No, I thought you wouldn't. But people of sixty or so, people of my age, habitually do. We haven't grown up with a fearof appearing racist, you see. I think it's a lot of fuss about nothing, frankly, but then I would, considering my age. Do you consider Pom as used by Ausralians a racist term? Is it better or worse than gollywog or even... no I'd better not say it. What about frog-eating surrender monkies? What about, come to that, wrinklies, old farts, old shags, old bags, grannies etc etc? Or dogs to refer to plain women? Come along now. We're all grown-ups here, are we not?

TGF UKIP

The forces of political correctness have the entire weight of the BBC behind so Carol Thatcher should be afforded our full support and not the sniffy tut tutting above.

This ain't the Guardian and we ain't a bunch of priggish guardianistas.

BrianSJ

The difficulty of resolving Ross, Thatcher etc. issues with the State Broadcaster illustrate the need to end the TVtax.

CS

Shall we have a sweepstake to see how long it takes for someone to lament the passing of The Black & White Minstrel Show?

David Lindsay

Why should not the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of the “negroid” Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz sell dolls of her relatives?

On the marmalade jars, far from being slaves, they were always shown doing good jobs.

But yes, the second part of the name is offensive. Can’t we just say “Carol”, and leave it at that?

Ian C

Very well said Paul - I was not aware that those were her words, and if the case absolutely underlines what you, I and others have said here.

The BBC, in the form of that strident woman 'controller' I heard on Today and saw on Breakfast this morning, have stitched her up. We let this happen without a stink and we are all contributing to the slippery slope. Its really is disgusting that the BBC can behave in such a manner.

David Duff

Why shouldn't she be offensive in a private conversation? Where is the law that states one must always be nice and polite? Load of humbuggery!

golfwidow

I am totally in agreement with the majority of the previous posters. I had a golliwog as a child, my children played happily with it and are now well balanced adults without an ounce of racism between them, and it is currently in my attic where it will await any future grandchildren. I have no doubt they too will be well balanced individuals, which is more than can be said of current BBC bosses.

Andrew Cadman

Your talking rubbish, James. There are few absolutesly when it comes to offensive language: what's offensive for one person is a joke to others, and exactly why should people be so ready to take offence on behalf of others not present?

In fact, looked at from another perspective, the attitude of Child's and Jo Brand could be viewed as rather racist, since they seem to think all black people are such delicate flowers that they would certainly be offended and secondly they need white people to stick up for them.

Lastly and most importantly, I think this obsession with politically correct speech masks a deeper racism, as it conveniently diverts attention from what people actually DO. There are plenty of racists around who talk the talk as far as political correctness goes. Not many black people in the upper echelons of the BBC or the Guardian are there James?

EC

You're wrong James. The BBC needed a scalp that wasn't one of their own. Hiring Carole Thatcher was the next best reliable option to hiring Boris Johnson - it was only a matter of time. IMHO Jo Brand is a nasty piece of work and about as funny as a fatal road traffic accident.

Anybody remember this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

May the farce be with you ...

Verity

That the witness for the prosecution is Jo Brand, an ambulatory septic tank, tells us everything we need to know about the incident and the BBC. I've been saying for years that it should be destroyed with a powerful controlled explosion.

After the BBC is dynamited, it is going to take at least five years as a brown field site to detoxify it.

Frank O'Connell

When I was 11 years old I had Black curly hair and my hair was very bushy.When I was playing cricket with my pals .
The wicket we were playing on was very difficult to score runs accross the popping creases from either end, the pitch was convexed, you could bowl leg and off breaks at will.
I had been in for over an hour and my pal Eric who was deaf and dumb but could bowl very fast , we could all understand him . He finally lost his cool and said ''come on golliwog throw your wicket away''
The name with my pals sticks with me today.
That year was 1947 .
By the way I have a white skin.
Also the area were I come from near Bolton we called a golly some one who spits with thick mucus.

ID

"The green room is a place of work" - balls. It's a jolly, thrown in on top of (for staffers) already generous perks and salaries and non-reumerative rewards (fame etc). Or look at it this way: name *one other* 'industry', other than the industrial-state-entertainment complex that has green rooms.

alancito

Cath writes: "I must admit I, like many on the right, had assumed that this was a Beeboid stitchup and that she'd been referring to Andy Murray's hair."

No problem there, then! Why should Andy Murray care? And if he does, so what? But, because the golliwog hairstyle on which Carol Thatcher commented belonged to a black player (and I bet it wasn't Tsonga) it's offensive. Talk about double standards!

Verity

I remember reading somewhere, quite some time ago, that Jo Brand used to be a psychiatric nurse.

My God, I'll bet any loonies who saw her approaching saned up fast!

David Phipps

It never ceases to amaze me that people generally can become so incensed about what they presume to be offensive. What exactly is the offense of being called a name? So as a white male, the next time I am called 'honky' by one of the 'black brethren' all the people who find name calling offensive will be 'up in arms' and protesting on my behalf? I don't think so for two reasons: (a) because I shall not publicly complain and more importantly (b) as it will be black on white, as against white on black as in the Thatcher case, not one person would be interested.
The attitude of so-called libertarians who also are left-wing is that the only liberty they believe in is the liberty they are prepared to grant.
And another point: what offense actually has been caused? Have their bodies suffered damage? Have their minds suffered damage?
To anyone complaining that they are offended, I have one simple message - Grow Up!

Duyfken

I also disagree with your view JF:

a) the use of the term may be a way of belittling the person referred to - so what: not very polite but also not so offensive as to cause, legitimately, the furore which is reported to have occurred within the Green Room;

b)it was a private conversation, heard only by few people, and if an apology were required, it would only be appropriate for those in the room within hearing distance (did CT offer something of the sort at the time?);

c) at the most a reprimand may have been in order, but even that seems to be going overboard about the matter, the proverbial storm in a teacup;

d) the actions of the BBC betray prejudice, unfairness and above all political bias yet again.

Please re-think your ideas, Sir.

David Phipps

CS - Further to my last, yes I do resent the passing of the B&W Minstrel Show - Good music, good singing, good entertainment. To you and your ilk, I repeat - Grow Up!

salieri

Is the word intrinsically offensive? No
Is it bad manners? No
Should the BBC sack people for bad manners? No
Does the BBC sack people for giving gross,deliberate and shameful offence? Not if, in its puerile and pusillanimous opinion, it's "cutting edge humour".
The BBC is beyond redemption.

N A Berry

I would say that the worst thing about this sorry affair is that Carol Thatcher has not come up with a decent apology. There is a lot to be said for letting a matter lie if two adults shake hands and put the matter behind her but Carol Thatcher has not done this and so deserves some kind of outside punishment. I also wonder whether quite so many people on these forums would have leapt to her defence had it been a Labour cabinet minister's son and not Conservative royalty.

Frank P

What Carol T said is true, as anyone with normal eyesight can see. When is telling the truth a sacking offence? Answer, of course, when you work for the BBC. No possible likelihood of their Near East correspondents ever falling foul of that dictat.

George Laird

Dear James

“One thing that puzzles me about this whole Carol Thatcher golliwog saga is the importance her defenders place on the fact her remarks were not made on air”.

I have to agree with you on that point re Carol Thatcher. The idea that it is okay to make what can be seen as a racist comment in private is nonsense! She was at her employment for goodness sake.

What is more astonishing is that she was plainly given an “out” by the BBC and decided to stick to her guns, rank stupidity.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

CS

***yes I do resent the passing of the B&W Minstrel Show - Good music, good singing, good entertainment.***

All of which would have been impossible had the performers not been blacked up, I suppose.

Verity

How did the right to free speech get slipped out from under us?

Being offensive or hurting other people's feelings is absolutely not within the purview of the law to regulate. Of course, one has to take the consequences. You could call a fit Jewish boxer an ugly kike, but when they scraped you up off the pavement and you came out of your coma, you wouldn't be able to sue because you had been deliberately provocative. That is liberty.

From what I can gather, no one within hearing's feelings were hurt by what Carol Thatcher said. Other employees pretended to take offence on behalf of other, imaginary people. That is insanity.

Matron!

CS

***And another point: what offense actually has been caused? Have their bodies suffered damage? Have their minds suffered damage?***

Well that argument conveniently allows you to use any racial epithet, doesn't it?

And how many times have you ever been called honky? This isn't like the 70s, man.

Anna

James,
>>we should remember that not using language that creates unnecessary offence and hurt is just good manners<<

So presumably we should not ever utter words that any group might find offensive. I must no longer say in public that the BNP offends me, that terrorists offend me, that PC victims offend me... it might offend them.

By the way, if my much loved golliwog, hugged to bits and my preferred soft toy as a child, was racist, what does that make my rag doll with the blonde plaits that didn't get so much attention? Does it mean I'm biased against white people?

Pshaw !!

CS

...and as far as I can see, Jo Brand's only involvement in this is that she was in the same room. There's no indication that she shopped Thatcher.

Cath

@ Alancito - I'm afraid I think it does make a lot of difference that Carol was referring to a black person rather than a white one. It just takes the use of the word from silly slip to insensitive faux pas.
I come back to my point that I'm convinced I would have been at the very least, on a written warning, if I had used that term at work. And no, I don't work in the public sector. Or the BBC.

seb

Like the recent heavy falls of snow, the discovery of the fossil remains of an immense snake and other 'headline' news items, the Carol Thatcher story is part of the BBC's covert plan to bury bad news [that is, anything to do with the Kirkcaldy Autist and Wendy Darling] by blanketing the airwaves, as far as possible, insipid tripe. I often say horrible things aloud and to myself precisely because I know it would offend so many bien pensant morons if they could hear me. If Carol Thatcher's remarks are offensive, they are only offensive to Guardian readers and to the generality of UK morons who have nothing better to worry about.
Obviously, the daughter of Mrs. Thatcher is not entitled to the same treatment as Jonathan Woss and Wussell Bwand. She's related to a Conservative politician while the talentless pillocks who did not get the sack are likely to have uttered numerous heart-warming, vile and politically correct things about the Tories, which means they're luvvies and that their careers are 'ring-fenced'.

Verity

When I was living in France, I went to the mairie to beg them for permission to put in a terrace, and I heard one man hiss to the man next to him, "Rosbif!" Titter, titter, titter.

Was I offended? Don't be daft!

Tiberius

Anyone who hasn't already done so must read Charles Moore on this in today's DT.

He articulates the issue brilliantly.

Bocephus

Whilst it is not a word I would use to describe someone I don't believe the word is beyond the pale. When Radio 5 had a phone in about it everyone was allowed to come on air and use the word. I don't believe that would have been allowed if she had used the N- word. And if she had used the N- word I assume everyone would agree she should be sacked.

Golliwog falls into the grey area of a word younger people don't use but older people may not see much wrong with. The Queen was still selling them at Sandringham for god sake!!

scribbler

There is one point no one seems to have mentioned. One of the dozen or so people in that room was AN INFORMER. Have we really gone so far down the road of nazi/communism that certain words are banned and the use of them will be reported to higher authority?

Michael

If you were Private Eye I would be cancelling my subscription.

Have we apologised for two World Wars yet ? The BBC has no credibility left on these issues. I won't watch The One Show again just as I no longer found Jonathan Ross as entertaining any more........James, I don't expect Charles Moore will agree with you.

Rexie

A relevant though overlooked fact is that the French tennis player in question does sport a hairdo uncannily similar to the Robertson's mascot.

This is not true of most people, be they white, yellow or black, and could well be a source of unintentional amusement much in the way that David Beckham's exotic choice of coiffure regularly excited mirth.

I assume that it doesn't have to be racist to draw attention to this.

strapworld

Mr Forsyth. I never realised you were a high priest of Political Correctness!

I loved the golliwogs on the Jam Bottles. I collected the Golliwog badges. I loved them. So I must apologise for my racist behaviour as a small boy!

Perhaps, you can tell me:-

When do we start burning books?
because that is the most logical step. Words first then books!

Augustus

As golliwogs are mostly made in China nowerdays, do we really want to upset the Chinese?

Janet Martin

Why is it that someone can telephone an elderly white man, leave seriously offensive messages on his answerphone, which are then broadcast to the nation. Despite thousands of complaints from "customers" Jonathon Ross is suspended and continues his job on a seriously inflated salary..
Someone else makes a lighthearted comment backstage but because it is viewed as "racist" and offends a few production staff then it is OK for her to be sacked. I'm sorry if I do not understand this - I am not condoning her actions but I fail to understand the double standards shown by the BBc

Graham Hill

This is gross inconsistency on the part of the BBC. No sacking for Jonathon Ross who broadcasts his remarks but a sacking for Carole Thatcher who does not.

If the Green Room is a place of work how is that alcohol is "freely" consumed? I use the word "freely" as it is paid by licence fee payers and not BBC employees.

Chuck Unsworth

Since when have conversations held in private been a matter for public scrutiny? You, James, may regard it as acceptable that this should happen - how would you feel about your private discussions being vetted for political correctness, with the possibility of summary dismissal if someone deemed you to be at fault in some way?

The word itself is not racist. It is the correct (and commonplace) term for a particular kind of child's doll. Its usage may be offensive, depending entirely on the context and the absolute intent of the speaker. In this case neither of those aspects are clear, and it is doubtful that any proper, fair and even-handed investigation was carried out. It would have been astounding that this could happen in such a short space of time, anyway. Was Carol Thatcher allowed any form of support and representation, or adequate time to prepare a full response to the accusations?

Further, if one describes the appearance of an individual as 'like' a golliwog is that the same as referring to them as 'a' golliwog?

The BBC has acted as a monstrous Star Chamber in this matter. And it has spent inordinate amounts of its time and our money in its subsequent attempts to defend a rash and remarkably draconian action.

What this episode has clearly demonstrated is that anyone who finds themselves on BBC premises - no doubt anywhere in the world - can expect to have their private conversations monitored for political correctness, and that action - including summary dismissal - will be taken by the BBC against anyone they wish.

Is this really an organisation which the License Fee payers would wish to fund so remarkably generously? Has the BBC lost its way?

When the next rash of gardening programmes occurs, what will be done about the word 'spade'? Will it be racist to refer to Jocks and Taffies? Or in the BBC's view does 'race' only apply to those with non-white skins?

Wilhelm

I dont think Carol Thatcher was talking about Tsonga but to the other French tennis player Gael Monfils.

Alan

I suspect that Thatcher in the heady atmosphere of the green room tried to out outrage the outragous(she thinks) Brand, who's really corny.
Was I outraged..nah

Ken

Madame Thatcher has been royally shafted by the BBC's overweaning piffile-mongers. The punishment decreed by the shrill and obnoxious controller trotted out on the Today programme this morning is similar in its outrageous excess, to the earlier manufactured Moslem rage at our right to publish "offensive" cartoons about their prophet. Freedom of speech is under assault from the BBC/Guardian thought police and their sinister fellow-travellers. The right to speak Golliwoggs and cartoon Prophets must be defended. Defeat the strident PC uber-fascists before sanity and commonsense disappear for ever.

Nick Kaplan

Verity, as you say it really is terrible how we have abandoned free speech.

Don’t you find it interesting that George Laird, our resident ‘human rights’ expert, who supports the Palestinians’ right to fire rockets into Israel, tells us “The idea that it is okay to make what can be seen as a racist comment in private is nonsense!” He has seemingly forgotten the right to free speech despite all his carping about ‘rights.’

Let us consider just for a second what his claim amounts to.
(1)Free speech doesn’t exist where some ‘might see it as racist.’ He is not just saying that you cannot make racist comments. Or that you can’t make comments widely recognised to be racist even if they are not actually so. Instead what is being said is that any comment that possibly, maybe, perhaps, could be seen as racist by anyone, anywhere, however sensitive is positively not OK (which I can only assume means such comments are intolerable and not allowed). Who exactly is to judge or enforce this totalitarian idea Mr.Laird??

(2)There is no distinction between private and public acts. Thus presumably our private lives are all to be monitored to ensure we are not acting in a way that Mr. Laird and his cohorts personally disapprove of.

Mr.Laird thus rejects the notion that someone may have a right to free speech, or that they may have a right to privacy. All this from a human rights advocate, you couldn’t make it up!

This surely is the result of years of profound leftist stupidity and relativism where wrongs become ‘rights’ and the most ancient and basic of rights become wrongs. And up is down and left is right and yes is no and so on.

If Mr. Laird had any concern for the actual rights of people I suggest that he would support Voltaire’s well known dictum “I may detest what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Instead what Mr.Laird favours is a system in which he can dictate what all people should have, simply by declaring such things ‘rights’ and then employ the coercive power of the state to take from some to give and give to others to ensure these ‘rights’ can be implemented and his conscience gratified (at the expense of people other than himself, of course).

Thus Mr.Laird can be the great dictator of society who grants and removes our rights as he sees fit, he decides what we all must and must not do. This leaves him with the power to employ his dictum “because I detest what you say I will refuse you the right to say it.”

Yours sincerely

Nick Kaplan
The Campaign to get George Laird to stop writing such twaddle.

Scott

Paul
thanks for clearing up the context in which this word was used. It seems to me that Carol indicated a person she has met had hair that reminded her of somethjing from her childhood. Had she actually called the person a 'golliwog', or infact referred to that person in a racist manner then things would have been so much different. She was in no way calling this person a derogatory word, she was merely referring to the similarity between this persons hair and a doll. I personally thing she would have course to claim unfair dismissal. Her contract terminated for a racist comment, when her comment could not in any way be considered as a racist comment. The BBCshould be ashamed.

alancito

Cath ***I'm afraid I think it does make a lot of difference that Carol was referring to a black person rather than a white one.***

So if I say Gael Monfils resembles a golliwog, that's racist and offensive. But if I say Mick Hucknall looks like a Pekinese on speed, that's OK?

What's the difference?

George Laird

Dear Nick Kaplan

Can you explain why you start your “twaddle” with the lie;

“George Laird, our resident ‘human rights’ expert, who supports the Palestinians’ right to fire rockets into Israel”.

I condemned that on here.

Also can you tell me when I applied for the job on the Spectator as “resident human rights expert?”

You seem to believe that it is okay to be racist in private, what about rape, and if someone was raped and it was done in private, does that make it okay?

I can see it now.

Crown; "It's a crime your lordship"!

Defence; "M'Lud, it was done in private because my client deemed it so at the time".

Judge; "Oh well, if you say so, case dismissed"!

Back to reality, I support the right of free speech and what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their business, provided it is legal.

I also support innocent until proven guilt in case you wanted to ask that question.

Finally, I am not too sure what you support but it doesn’t strike me as human rights but I support your right to run off at the mouth talking horse.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Marin

To my mind g******g is not necessarily a racist term; I could easily think of other everyday expressions which, within certain contexts, may also be deemed racist. There are two main points to consider here, however: first is that Carol was condemned on the basis of here-say (because someone denounced her and it was that sameone's interpretation of the conversation that mattered) and second, that BBC took it upon themselves to act (with uncharacteristic speed, I may add)as judge, jury and executioner. The implication is, of course, that we must learn to watch our tongues since we may be reported by anyone and at any time. It reminds me of what I was reading in the 'Brave Soldier Sjweck' about his life in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Hysteria

or maybe she was supposed to say "that persons hair reminds me of the type of hair I used to see on a logo used by a preserve manufacturer and which was also reproduced on certain childs toys"

nope - it's PC nonsense -

oh - and what most people said but especially Nick Kaplan at 5.22

aux barricades mes braves !!!!

TrevorsDen

After a quick trawl I would say you are on the losing side of the argument - and rightly so, Mr Forsyth. Maybe your dad Bruce would make a better columnist.

1 the remarks were not racist

2 they may have been silly

3 if they caused offence then its a matter between the parties concerned not the BBC itself.

4 they were not broadcast - they were private it WAS between the parties themselves.

5 laughably the BBC controller said Thatchers remarks were not suitable for some one who presents on the programme like The One Show. Laughable because the openly foul mouthed Jo Brand IS considered suitable.

The BBC is institutionally left wing and full of left wing bigots. I do not like the idea of someone from the Spectator defending it.

But you can keep your job

Mr Leatherhead

Your'e spot on James! Both the legal framework & the BBC's own published "Whistleblower" policy have determined the BBC's approach to both the Carol Thatcher & Jonathan Ross incidents. If you want to know more about these legal & HR policy issues visit Leatherhead Matters & read BBC & the Court of Political Correctness (from earlier today

Spike

The solution is very simple guys. Don't pay your next TV licence. Starve the Marxist/Trot/BBC of what keeps it going. If the movement against the BBC snowballs the courts would be jammed - then maybe, something would happen.
Trouble is, too many people want to watch next swan-necked Dr Who!

Marbury

I agree with James' overall point, but: "I’m sure that there were people at the Corporation who were gunning for her because of who her mother is." What on earth makes you so sure about that? Of all the pro-Carol arguments this one seems the silliest and most without foundation.

Ken

Defend free speech. Join the Golliwogg Club:

golliwoggclub.blogspot.com/

Colin

Is it just me, or does Jo brand look like John Sargeant's auntie? - Think about it...

David Ossitt

It is all a load of old cobblers no racist slight was intended.

Verity

England is full of little Hitlers and always was. It is the ideal breeding ground for thought fascism as there are so many willing enforcers and snitches. I don't know why this is, but there are a lot of bossy, interfering, moral high ground, preachy, intolerant people in our country. I've never encountered this hunger to boss other people around, this fierce moral superiority, in any other country.

Marin

Now the Queen has apologised for the fact that a shop on Sandringham Estate was selling g******g puppets. Will the time come when someone will have to apologise for selling Venus de Milo or David statues, simply because some people would be offended by them? Where will it all stop?

jennywren

As far as I know the children's book 'Gollywogs go Hunting' is still on display in the library at Lanhydrock House in Cornwall to the amusement of many visitors.

Should the National Trust lose all public support?

Hawkeye

George Laird said "Also can you tell me when I applied for the job on the Spectator as “resident human rights expert?”"

George - The intent of Nick Kaplin's comment was quite clear and your twisting his words does not change that. You make no secrets that you support "human rights issues" - it is on the bottom of every post you make here. If you spend time shoving your halo in everyones face, don't be surprised if it draws the ocassional comment.

Will be you supporting the sacking of entire BBC news team who have spent the last few days broadcasting the same word to the world on every news bulletin? If Carol Thatcher commented an offence by doing it once, what is the level of offence caused by the BBC by repeating the "crime" dozens, if not hundreds, of times.

The sheer hyprocisy of it is breathtaking.

Chuck Unsworth

Your position therefore is that all conversations in the workplace are subject to a series of arbitrary 'rules' imposed by a 'management' - which reserves the right to summarily dismiss anyone without due process. Were these 'rules' written into any contract of employment do you know? Is that how things are at The Spectator?

And for how long have you been an apologist for the BBC - without full knowledge of the circumstances?

Your language and position also 'creates offence'. Where do you want to go to from here? Robust debate is clearly beyond you - and the BBC. Why do you believe that use of such a term - howsoever meant - is sufficient cause to instantly dismiss an employee? Is that how it is at The Spectator?

Quadratus

If I called someone a silly old bugger, is he likely to interpret that literally? No way! For goodness sake let us have some common-sense- and a little humour.

R Mason

The key point surely is whether someone has been offended, and I do not mean someone being offended on someone elses behalf.

Alf Tupper

All this has been sorted out now because Carole Thatcher has NOT been sacked according to the BBC. She will simply 'not be asked back'.

This greased weasel use of language is in line with the characters who, rather than point out to the speaker that she was out of order, chose to go to the boss with their find. What a lovely workplace atmosphere that must be down at Auntie Beeb's

Nick Kaplan

George Laird;

Perhaps you were just condemning Israel and I misread it as support for Hamas, if so I apologize, although the two often amount to the same thing.

You never did apply for the job of ‘resident human rights expert’ that is why it is so frustrating when you gratuitously sign your posts off with: “George Laird The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University” every time you post anything.

I don’t recall writing anywhere that it is ok to be racist in public or private. What I did say (or imply) is that everyone has the right to make racist comments at the very least in private. If her comments had been broadcasted on the BBC it would have been another matter, but Carol Thatcher’s comments were not broadcasted.

Further, whilst I would certainly not say it’s OK to be racist (it’s a terrible thing if anyone is) people certainly have the right to be so, although they do not have the right to act in certain racist ways. To suggest otherwise is, I am afraid, a form of thought fascism, a concept with which you are probably happy but that makes me distinctly uncomfortable.

If you cannot see the difference between having racist thoughts, or making racist remarks in either a private or public context, and raping someone it is slightly worrying. Needless to say racism is just a state of mind (all be it a highly ignorant and stupid one) and thinking horrible things is not criminal (nor should it be), whilst rape actually involves violating another person. Furthermore, saying offensive things only becomes an issue (although not one where the law should be involved) when the person/ people spoken about are around to get offended, one cannot get offended on behalf of others. Thus saying something in private can be very different from saying something in public. This is clearly very different for rape where the harm is done regardless of it being in public or in private.

I would really question how strong your support for free speech can be when you yourself say that making any comment that could be seen as racist is not ok, especially seeing as anything could be ‘seen as racist’ whether or not it actually was so.

The rights I support are very simple John Locke described them as “Life, liberty and property” the American Declaration of Independence listed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These are negative rights, not entitlements. One’s right to life and liberty means one may not be killed by another or interfered with unless it is to prevent the violation of the rights of others. All the positive or welfare rights, which I presume you support, are in fact nothing of the kind. For example how can one have a moral right to health care when it relies on others for its provision? What if all doctors were to decide tomorrow that they no longer wanted to work? Your right to health care would then be meaningless unless you could coerce someone into giving you health care, but this would violate their right to liberty. (NB. This is not to say that the provision of healthcare is unimportant, just that it is not a right and that important terms like this should not be conflated).

Negative rights are the only coherent conception of moral rights. Human rights are a ludicrous distortion of an idea originally developed by Liberals which has now been hijacked by socialists.

Nicholas

George, that's a classic lefty trick of comparing a serious crime (rape) to an offensive remark (golliwog) in order to make a (dubious) point. There is no comparison. A crime in private is still a crime. An offensive remark in private is still an offensive remark. Lots of people make offensive remarks all the time, sometimes in public, like Gordon Brown, but don't get the sack for it (in his case more the pity). He even LIES and gets away with it. Jo Brand is usually offensive everytime she opens her big gob - it's her act.

This is straightforward Tory-bashing by the ghastly left, in the persons of Job Brand and the foreheadless Childs (whose hair and eyebrows form a continuous badger-like crest above his piggy little eyes), both notorious lefty Labour supporters. Double standards. See it all the time - the leitmotif of the BBC. All the time here there are remarks about how the government gets a soft ride over things the Tories would be crucified for. This is just more of the same.

"Have we really gone so far down the road of nazi/communism that certain words are banned and the use of them will be reported to higher authority?"

Yep. But as with all things to do with the ghastly bunch of leftofascists oppressing us "some offensive remarks are more offensive than others.".

Until we start really hammering the left this sort of nonsense will go on and get much worse.

Summer

I have just used Google images to find pictures of Gael Monfils and his hair does indeed remind one of the golliwogs that used to be such loveable toys. That is fact. It is an unusual style, and rather fetching - it suits him.

I also think that Tamara Beckwith's hair remins me of Barbie. And didn't we little girls love our Barbie's.

Finally, I thik the BBC in general and its BBC 1 controler reminds me of the word fascist - the OED definition for which is

"a person who advocates a particular viewpoint or practice in a manner perceived as intolerant or authoritarian."

Oliver Chettle

The key point is that the BBC only takes offence at things that offend left-liberal sensibilities. What would they have done if Euan Blair was the culprit, and he had called Margaret Thatcher something far more offensive, say a "Fascist murdering whore"? All had a good titter, and then forgotten about it after ten minutes, I should think. This episode is another egregious example of the way the BBC uses intimidation, misrepresentation, and bad faith in its attempt to exclude from public discourse who is not a paid up member of the left-liberal metropolitan establishment.

Pot Head

David Ossitt-

"It is all a load of old cobblers no racist slight was intended.

How do you know can you read Carol Thatchers mind?

Carol Thatcher is non entity who only got the job because of her family name as for all this whinging about Jonathon Ross he at least had the good grace to apologise unlike Ms Thatcher.

The BBC was right to act in the way that it did, it's racist term anyone who denies that is most defintley an idiot & probably a racist.

Alexandrovich

My parents are dead. I suppose that,in the near future, I will have to denounce somebody else's.

And I thought I'd left all this behind.

CS

***I don't know why this is, but there are a lot of bossy, interfering, moral high ground, preachy, intolerant people in our country.***

Once again, Verity's total lack of self-awareness leaves one gobsmacked.

AisA

What will happen if I say it again here? In public?

Gael Monfils's hair really DOES look just like that sported by those old golliwogs!!!

So - now I guess I just wait for the knock on the door.

CS

I've rarely heard so many specious arguments. Race relations in this country are informed by a history of an oppressive relationship between whites and non-whites. A relationship that has ranged from literal exploitation (slavery, the British Empire, etc) to cultural exploitation (the portrayal of blacks in jokes, films, the crude racial caricature that is the golliwog).

When you consider what whites have done to blacks historically, it's a wonder that race relations in this country are as reasonable as they are.

It's achieved by people making the effort not to rub each other up the wrong way and by recognising that there are areas (linguistic, cultural) where we do have to tread on eggshells to avoid causing offence. Even if we, as the dominant race and culture of the UK, don't find them offensive ourselves (what a surprise).

What have whites done to blacks down the years - nicked their countries, traded them as slaves and left Africa a dislocated basket-case divided along lines of European conquest.

What is the worse revenge that blacks have inflicted on whites in return in the UK? They ask us to recognise that words which were common currency in the 1950s are best eschewed in 2009 because they cause offence. I reckon we whites have got off bloody lightly in the exchange.

Similarly, the dull bigots who persecuted homosexuals for centuries now scream in outrage when homosexuals wreak their terrible revenge by stealing a three-letter word from the language to use to describe themselves. God, we've indulged these people to the extent of not imprisoning them for what they do in bed and, would you believe it, they've not pathetically grateful for our magnanimity.

Again, just shut up and recognise that you're getting off lightly.

You really do have to be divorced from reality not to be aware that golliwogs are considered offensive now. And that about sums up Thatcher junior for me. Brought up in an enormously white and privilieged social circle where a non-white face was most likely to be the domestic help and where no-one ever disillusions her of the fact that we don't live in the 50s any more.

Do I think Thatcher was being racist? No. Do I think that her look-how-outrageous-I-can-be gaffes show her to be too stupid to be allowed near a microphone? Yes.

Face up to it, Carol lovers everwhere, if she hadn't been her mother's daughter, she would never have had a career in the media and would quite probably be unemployable.

Verity

R Mason, a certified member of the Moron's Club, writes, with the air of cutting through the rubbish and speaking some plain common sense: "The key point surely is whether someone has been offended,"

No, it buggery isn't.

You can't prosecute other people for offending you. Why do you imagine that your standards of taste prevail over those of the person who you "feel" has offended you?
This way lies madness. This is why we have legal codes.

Nicholas, I don't know the person you're referring to but "(whose hair and eyebrows form a continuous badger-like crest above his piggy little eyes)" was masterful.

Hooray for the rest of your post, as well.

Oliver Chettle, well said!

Stewart

There's only one solution to all of this. The BBC should set aside 5 minutes after the 6 o'clock news one evening and display two photos, one of the tennis player in question and one of a Golliwog. A caption underneath would ask "Does the hair on this tennis player remind you of a Golliwog?" The voice over announcer would then ask people to call the number on their screen or text their answer to another number and the results could be shown after the 10 o'clock news. If the answer was Yes, Carol could get her job back and an apology from the BBC. If the answer was No then we're right back where we are. However, with the BBC's track record on phone in competitions and visceral hatred for anything or anyone conservative the competition would be fixed and the BBC would pocket the cash from the phone company and use it to give Jonathon Ross a hefty bonus.

Tomasoq

1. No one had to go to the press, there were journalists in the room.

2. She referred to him as a Golliwog, a Golliwog Frog and a Half Golliwog.

3. She was asked to apologize to those that were offended by her remarks and she refused.

4. When Jo Brand left the room in disgust, she allegedly said “Now I’m in trouble, just like Prince Harry.” This suggests she knew what impact her words had on some of the people present.

For those who think calling a black person a golliwog or wog isn't offensive, I suggest you try it. Free speech or not, I would prepare for serious repercussions!

CCTV

You seem to believe that it is okay to be racist in private, what about rape, and if someone was raped and it was done in private, does that make it okay?

Silly boy...sexual relations consensual or not are illegal in public.

rape is a physical offence not a thought crime

rape requires the object of the assault to be within physical proximity no on another continent as in the case of The Green Room

Comparing such incidents suggests you are deranged and unable to think logically...what "University" did you say expelled you ?

cuffleyburgers

Stop being so unutterably po-faced James, for christ's sake.

In the coxtext of the, probably tipsy, circumstances in which she made the remark it was probably quite funny.

Furthermore if she had said some fat white man loked like the michelin man I do not imagine there would have been the same hysterical reaction.

At a time when this nation is being driven literally into bankruptcy by a crazed one-eyed scotsman who looks like the bastard offspring of the michelin man and long john silver, and talks like rab c nesbitt, all these people can do is witter on about this...

Is that offensive enough?

HJ

I don't know exactly what Carol Thatcher said but I think the point that James Forsyth and the BBC possibly miss is that the Golliwog has no racial connotations for most people.

I thought of it simply as a toy character, not representative of anyone or any racial group. It really had never occurred to me that it was anything else until the furore a few years ago when Robinsons were forced to rename their Golliwog as a 'Golly' - I suspect that the vast majority of people were similarly bemused at the time.

If I were to describe someone as a 'Golliwog' it would be because either of the hair or clothing or as a friendly way of saying they'd said or done something daft, in the same way as I might call someone a 'teddy bear' of a man (i.e big, rounded and jolly). That's all I would mean.

Somebody has decided that the Golliwog is a racially offensive character. They may be correct that this was the origin of the character and name, but that doesn't mean that most people think of it in that way. Do I refuse to buy a Volkswagen or castigate people for mentioning the name because of its Nazi roots?

I suspect that if I were Carol Thatcher I'd also refuse to apologise for the use of the word - especially were it demanded of me. Just because offence was taken, it doesn't mean either that she meant any, nor that they were right to take any.

Paul B

She (C Thatcher) should know better. Its derogatory term which is just not used nowadays. I think Thatcher was just stupid rather than racist, sacking her maybe an over reaction, but if she is failing to apologise, then she has no one to blame but herself.

AngloWelshDragon

As a blonde, christian, conservative I regularly hear jokes and remarks on the BBC which I could find slightly discomforting if I had no sense of humour and was over sensitive.

Sometimes one hears things that are totally outrageous and offensive such as Ross's comments to David Cameron about Mrs Thatcher.

This whole row typifies the leftwing hypocrisy and double standards operating at the BBC. I am seriously considering stopping paying the TV licence.

Susan Hill

Oh the PC left have no conception of what the word 'private' means. I was sent an entirely private e-mail by someone I did not know, to a private e-mail address asking a question which I answered. A while later, I started to receive offensive, angry, challenging e-mails from total strangers on the same subject and quoting my reply to the original stranger`s question. It was a subject on which, like many, not everyone agrees and on which the PC brigade regularly get their hair on fire and if I had said what I did on here or in a public article, I would have expected the reaction I received - if you can`t stand the heat...
But I did and do not expect a private e-mail to be copied round dozens of people within half an hour in order that I could subsequently be challenged and insulted (to put put mildly.) I realise that the PC left has no conscience about this sort of thing - anything goes to pursue their agenda and their vendettas. I will be more careful in future. Carol Thatcher probably won`t - she is a gutsy woman. Is a green room a private place ? Not entirely. But she was not, like Brand and Ross, on air or even in the studio itself. If someone in the green room objected then they should have said so there and then. It might have resulted in a heated argument, or a nmere difference of opinion, and that would and should have been that. But running to Miss to tell tales, and then have the entire incident blown up in the media is, as they say, out of order. Entirely unsurprising though. This is the way they operate.

Big Alec

Nick Kaplan: your emails on this thread have grounded in common sense, so it's not surprising that they have enraged George Laird. (Incidentally, George, do you really need to give your job title at the end of each email you send? It smacks of smugness, pomposity, not to mention a sense of superiority, as if your comments carry an ex cathedra authority.)

Have to say that I'm not at all surprised by George Laird's moral equation of racism with the physical act of rape. It's sophistry - underpinned by the worst type of political correctness - to suggest that they are the same. But many academics seem to enjoy this sort of thing. I attended a lecture at Glasgow Uni recently, where the lecturer stated that - and I swear this is true - risque jokes (i.e. jokes that may be a tad racist or sexist in tone) lead inevitably to discrimination and hatred, and then to pogroms, massacres and genocide.

Get a life.

Big Alec

CS - nice one!

oldtimer

The only redeemimg feature of the BBC, so far as I am concerned, is that I am of an age when I am no longer required to pay for it - or face criminal charges for not doing so.

The BBC displays all the characteristics of a self perpetuating oligarchy. Who will wield the axe to fell this overmighty monster? Surely the time has come for it to be cut down to size.

Faceless Bureaucrat

"Is it just me, or does Jo brand look like John Sargeant's auntie? - Think about it..."

Actually, Jo Brand IS John Sargeant - think about it, you never see them together in the same place...

And CS (ad nauseum), you are really Jay Hunt,the strident and self-opinionated BBC 'Controller' and I hereby claim my prize.

Ten Volley

Cancel your direct debit for the TV licence. In fact tear up or burn your TV licence.

The BBC is a left-wing sect populated by oxbridge types which expects us peasants to tug our forelocks.

Repugnant hypocrisy.

Marin

Pot Head, explain please why you think 'golliwog' is a racist term. To my mind a word cannot be racist but a person who may, or may not, use this term could be. It all depends on what is in someone's mind and we don't know what was in Carol's mind when she used that term. Shouldn't we give her the benefit of the doubt? Why has she refused to apologise (in the manner she was told to apologise)? Was it perhaps because she knew she didn't mean any offence?
Common sense tells me that witch-hunting is, in most cases, counter-productive.

Tristram

In a criminal trial the question to be determined is whether the defendant intended to do harm or was so careless that it happened.

This at the least should be the BBC's criterion for a finding of guilt. Plainly Carol Thatcher did not so intend but the BBC had a private and swift trial with the verdict known in advance.

They decided that golliwog was a prohibited word where I would guess 85% of the country was unaware it posed a problem.

In effect it was retrospective justice as the crime was until then uncodified.

Her summary dismissal reminds me of the Ceaucescus who were on top one day and hustled off by their colleagues to face a firing squad hours later.

Indeed Ms Hunt sounds such a Stasi type I wonder where she trained.

Frank P

Actually, Carol T is about 99% Dennis and 1% Maggie. So why blame the old girl for perceived sins of the daughter (and I stress 'perceived')? Perhaps someone should start a new Private Eye column: Dear ... [whoever] purporting to come from Carol to another journo. Trouble is there's nobody of the calibre of Bill Deedes (pbuh) around with whom to parody a similar running correspondence. As for Caz working for the Beeb: lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, I'm afraid. She's well rid of that preening little bunch of twerps who extend daytime television for half an hour too long into the evening, to puff celebrity paperbacks and indulge in socialist nannying; I agree with Verity's appreciation of Nicholas's brilliant physical encapsulation of the Chiles chap; ugly little shit! And that Brummy accent doesn't help. "Yow cun souk moy stoomp. Adrian" - I suspect a whited sepulchre, if ever there was one. Perhaps Ms Thatcher declined to invite him down to her basement for cosy script conferences. Hell hath no fury like a tacky TV presenter scorned, as history shows.

As for CS above: what a rabid rant of sanctimonious post Colonial bollocks! God! You almost got worked up into the same kind of frenzy that Shami Chakrabarti got herself into last night on Question Time. Calm down dear .... it was only a deprecating joke! So what? For a start, the target of her jibe was a Frenchman: the Empire fights back! You'll be insisting that we can't take the piss out of the Jocks soon. Are there to be no little pleasures left in the accelerating collapse of our culture? If we're all that bad, why do so many non-indigenes flock here to get abused? Amazing!

Wilhelm

The BBC broadcast Jerry Springer the Opera , Jesus in a nappy, full of swear words. Very childish.

40.000 complaints, The BBC screeeeam freedom of speach.Time to axe the BBC, its a liberal toxic waste dump.

George Laird

Dear Hawkeye

“George - The intent of Nick Kaplin's comment was quite clear and your twisting his words does not change that”.

I refute the allegation that I am twisting Mr. Kaplan’s words but I have pulled him up for being economically with the truth. The only history of twisting words lies with Mr. Kaplan. I put this down to him be upset that I have refused to keep quiet about Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

“You make no secrets that you support "human rights issues" - it is on the bottom of every post you make here. If you spend time shoving your halo in everyones face, don't be surprised if it draws the ocassional comment”.

My moniker which ends my posts is all about highlight the fact that a certain university operates a policy of discrimination; I am therefore not seeking to polish any halo.

“Will be you supporting the sacking of entire BBC news team who have spent the last few days broadcasting the same word to the world on every news bulletin?”

Given I support free speech, I can hardly support suppression of the press and their right to publish can I?

“If Carol Thatcher commented an offence by doing it once, what is the level of offence caused by the BBC by repeating the "crime" dozens, if not hundreds, of times”.

Carol Thatcher’s problem was she put her foot in it. She then decided that her “offence” was a private matter and that her rights superseded the rights of the others around her. What right did she have to attempt to impose a veil of secrecy on others?
Under the Human Rights Act, you have the right to privacy but that right is specific to you as an individual. You cannot use your individual right to cover others, just because you want to. In this case, she thought her right could be used to stop others speaking out and an investigation.

“The sheer hyprocisy of it is breathtaking”.

What I find hypocritical is that Carol Thatcher;

1/ Put her foot in it.
2/ Attempted to speak for others without authority.
3/ Refused to apologise when clearly offence had been taken.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Verity

Tomasoq writes: "3. She was asked to apologize to those that were offended by her remarks and she refused."> Who were these people who were "offended" on behalf of black people everywhere? What great mahatamas they must be! What seriously wonderful spirits! To be "offended" on behalf of others! Wow!

"4. When Jo Brand left the room in disgust ..."

Fergus Pickering

Paul B, the derogatory term is wog not golliwog, though if you think it isn't used nowadays you really should get around more. What do you think, by the way, of the things Iago calls Othello? Are they OK a. because Iago is a fictional character b. because Iago is a bad man c. because it's Shakespeare. Wouldn't the sheer offensiveness of the words hurt the feelings of black people in the audience in spite of a and b and c? There is a novel by Ronald Firbank on general sale called 'Prancing Nigger' and a novel by Joseph Conrad called 'The Nigger of the Narcissus'. What is to be done about this?

Nick Kaplan

CS; I don’t think anyone here disputes that the West’s history of racism and slavery is a terrible thing, and something that we ought to be ashamed of.

However, I don’t understand why you feel it necessary to state that whites who are alive today should “shut up and recognise that you're getting off lightly.” I’m not racist, nor have I ever been and I would rather you did not hold me to blame for the mistakes of my ancestors. Furthermore, is not holding an entire race of people to account for the mistakes of the majority of their ancestors not itself fundamentally racist? How exactly is guilt inherited?

Nor do I understand the tendency to blame Western society and whites in particular for the terrible legacy of slavery. Slavery was a millennia old practice carried out by different races across the world (including whites, Arabs, Indigenous Latin Americans and yes, blacks also). The fact is that slavery is and always has been inconsistent with western liberal values (and racism rose out of this fact as a ludicrous attempt to justify an evil practice) and this is why Western states were the first in history to abolish this ghastly practice, which is a fact we should be proud of.

Whilst I would agree that we should be careful about the language we use in public because it is best if we do not cause unnecessary offence, this ludicrous over-reaction every time anyone makes a remark that some may consider racist really must stop, especially when such remarks (like Thatcher’s) were made in the context of a private conversation.

If people had not been allowed to say offensive things or challenge the fundamental beliefs of others then the slave trade and the barbarian mentality behind it would never have been defeated. Free speech is about accepting the good and the bad and I really think you ought to get off your high horse, grow up, and stop moaning about a comment that you admit was not racist and was heard by virtually no one (and hence couldn’t have offended anyone).

Frank P

CS - My prescience about 'insulting the Scots' was purely coincidental I assure you - but unsurprisingly Jeremy Clarkson has just trumped Carol Thatcher:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Jeremy-Clarkson-Apologises-For-Calling-Gordon-Brown-One-Eyed-Scottish-Idiot-In-Australia/Article/200902115217828

and he's apologised ... well, sorta! God help the Govan Gargoyle if he reads this blog. 'One eyed Scottish idiot' is one of the less offensive decriptions tendered for the past few months and indeed, once again, what Jeremy said is an accurate description. Braun can hardly blame his lack of an eye for not seeing what was on the fiscal and financial horizon; he has enough advisors around him.

I'm sure Clarkson is not one-eyeist. He looks a bit like Eeyor, but he's definitely not one-eyeist. I remember him praising Gordon Banks once. Now, there is a really foul word that is likely to cause a breach of the peace at the moment if said aloud - BANKS!

Anyway, we'll have to keep an eye open for the next piece of ludicrous legislation from this egregious bunch of idiots, Scots or whatever, that's for sure. Call an election you cretinous usurper!

Nick Kaplan

George Laird:

The fact that you call Israel’s actions 'war crimes' indicates to me that you think Israel has no right to defend itself, which basically amounts to support for the attacks which I accused you of supporting earlier. But that is another matter.

You say “Given I support free speech, I can hardly support suppression of the press and their right to publish can I?”

Yet you do support suppression of Carol Thatcher’s right to free speech, do you not? What else could you mean when you support her being fired for having a private conversation?

You then say “She then decided that her “offence” was a private matter and that her rights superseded the rights of the others around her.”

What rights did others around her have that was superseded by her making the comment she made? Is this a right to not be offended on behalf of others? As I thought, you seem to just assert that people have rights to save you the trouble of actually having to argue for your position. But you can't have a right to not be offended, because rights and the laws which uphold them cannot be subjective, yet taking offence is entirely subjective (what offends you is very different to what offends me).

Further you say “What right did she have to attempt to impose a veil of secrecy on others?”

She has a right to privacy, a right she had far in advance of that ludicrous piece of legislation the HRA. This should not stop others talking about what she said (and she didn't attempt to), but it should mean that she cannot have the terms of her contract invalidated by comments she made privately, particularly if such comments were not specifically debarred in said contract. To terminate her contract on this basis, was as Tristram said, “retrospective justice.” This should thoroughly enrage anyone who truly believed in individual rights, but that's not you is it?

What is even more sinister is that you presume that she should be made to apologize for something, when she clearly doesn’t believe she has done anything wrong and did not mean to offend anyone.

It is not enough for you that she be bound and gagged and forced not to say certain things. Instead you seem to believe we should police people’s thoughts by making them say things they do not mean or believe. If that isn’t totalitarian then nothing is.

Yours sincerely

Nick Kaplan
The Campaign to get George to stop writing such twaddle.

Hawkeye

George Laird said: "The only history of twisting words lies with Mr. Kaplan. I put this down to him be upset that I have refused to keep quiet about Israeli war crimes in Gaza."

Firing missiles into Israeli towns with no regard to who they fall on is not exactly morally stunning either. Both sides are guilty.

"Given I support free speech, I can hardly support suppression of the press and their right to publish can I?"

Your support does not seem to extend to Carol Thatcher's right to free speech.

"Carol Thatcher’s problem was she put her foot in it. She then decided that her “offence” was a private matter"

So far I agree with her

"... and that her rights superseded the rights of the others around her. What right did she have to attempt to impose a veil of secrecy on others?"

Eh? What did she threaten them with? A gagging order?

"In this case, she thought her right could be used to stop others speaking out and an investigation."

Wow! You must sources no one else does because this is the first time I have heard this. Can you cite your source?

David Ossitt

Pot Head
February 5th, 2009 11:58pm

David Ossitt-

"It is all a load of old cobblers no racist slight was intended.

How do you know can you read Carol Thatchers mind?

Carol Thatcher is non entity who only got the job because of her family name as for all this whinging about Jonathon Ross he at least had the good grace to apologise unlike Ms Thatcher.

The BBC was right to act in the way that it did, it's racist term anyone who denies that is most defintley an idiot & probably a racist.

So Pot Head can tell me that I can't tell what is in Carol Thatchers mind but then can claim that the lady only got her job because of her family name. How does he Know that?, he then goes on to say that Jonathon Ross has had the good grace to appologise. Can he not see that Ross has not got a graceful thought in his brain, the man is a an oaf. He then says golliwog is a racist term, it might well be when used by someone of Pot Heads mentality, to me it is what we call a particular kind of rag-doll that thousands of children have loved and cherished. And so according to Pot Head all of those children or the adults that they have grown into are idiots and are probably racist. They most decidedly not. He claims that Carol Thatcher did not appologise, according to what I have read she did but she would not make a public show of what essentialy was a very private matter. Get a life.

Wilhelm

George Lard

I think its Game Set and Match to Nick Kaplan and Hawkeye, kid.

hadrian

As ever, the BBC behave with a completely skewed sense of moral judgement- and , far worse, a selective one. I distinctly recall another of their 'stars', the ineffably offensive Anne Robinson thinking it was fun on air to make mock of the Welsh people. How come that ON-AIR denigration merits not so much as a slap on the wrist, yet, the infinitely more affable Miss Thatcher gets caned and expelled? The double standards at work here are not just atrocious, they are alarming for they represent something much more sinister in our brave,new PC world.
If I were Carole, I'd be wondering what happened to the normal procedures of employment law. Where were the verbal warnings, the written warnings, the final warnings prior to dismissal?
Once again, the whole BBC thing stinks. I shall never again watch The One Show, hosted by that cretinous, arrogant ( and petty minded and treacherous) piece of PC nonsense Adrian what's-his-face. Carole was one of the few joys on the Show, a national treasure, her own woman and quite unspoilt by her familial connections. Many will miss her friendly face and fun.
As for the 'golly' thing, I have to say I have never at all comprehended how a child's doll toy/teddy can possibly be construed to be 'racist'. Are we to understannd that all dolls must be white caucasian, or else? Ain't THAT the racist assumption? Maybe as a Scot I should start taking offence at 'Hey you, Jimmy' bunnets and wigs! God preserve us from such specious clap-trap.
I have no time for genuine racist hatred but the golly's an innocent victim of PC self-righteousness.
I look forward to more of Carole on other channels to give us a good dose of rapidly vanishing national common sense! As for fair play, the BBC long gave up on that.

JohnAnt

A lot has been made here and elsewhere of the fact that the BBC had the 'right' as Carol Thatcher's 'employer' to sack her for 'an offensive remark' made 'at her place of work'. But the BBC are not in fact her employer as she is a self-employed freelancer who simply has contracts with them for programmes and series. They cannot 'sack' her - they simply have not extended her contract, as is their legal right. Howevere, had the contract been in operation, I doubt that they could have legally terminated it for the reasons they gave, as the remarks were not broadcast, their offensiveness is extremely questionable, and they were not made (off-air) to cause offence, or to someone who could reasonably have taken personal offence. If the BBC has a private code of 'language' that may or may not be used on its premises, it must draw up a list of such words, append it to all contracts and make it clear that contracted parties must abide by it. Until then, the BBC can whistle up its own backside.

JohnAnt

Any legal representation on behalf of CT might point out that the Robertson's golly - a picture of a soft toy doll found in every child's room until the 1960s - was left off the label only in 2001, a year in which 250,000 Robertson's gollywog badges were sold. This seems too recent a date for the image and name to be generally deemed insulting.
However, I notice that Ken Livingstone's GLC boycotted (ha ha!) Robertson's jam in 1983. While the boycott was considered risible at the time (see newspaper coverage of the period and Private Eye), possibly a few Frens o' Ken are still fighting old campaigns?

DWMF

This is but the latest ripple of Thatcher Derangement Syndrome though the duck-pond that is the BBC, with Brand and Chiles as the leading quackers.

THX1138

Why don't you try asking some minorities whether they think the term is racist or not.

From the Right a Jew Stephen Pollard ex of this site

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/golliwog-matters

and from the left the Black Woman comedian Ava Vidal

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/ava-vidal-unlike-my-children-she-has-no-excuse-1547663.html.

I'm would prefer to take their view over most of yours.

I'm shocked by the barely concealed racism and racial blindness & ignorance showen by so many of the comments above.

FYI I took a straw poll with the 5 black guys in the boxing class at my gym in North LDN this evening and to man they found the term and the doll deeply offensive again I would prefer to take their view over yours.

James F well done for this post it needs to be set.

Sosigenes

This is what Jay Hunt Controller of BBC1 said: "What she decides to say at home in private is one thing, but we have given Carol ample opportunity to give a fulsome apology and she has chosen not to do so." According to COD "fulsome" means disgusting by excess of flattery, servility, or expressions of affection. Did she really mean fulsome?

Fergus Pickering

Making fun of the Welsh and the Scots is a national duty. Everyone is racist if that means preferring your own people, the people you know, to foreigners. The young can be ignored on this matter since they know nothing about life and damn little about themselves.

Paul B

Fergus Pickering- let me assure you I get out a lot,please don`t jump to conclusions about me. My black friends do consider the term offensive,you may not not. Fair enough. But good manners at the least would dictate that as others find the word offensive you be careful about its use in public,when in conversation with others.

Good Golly, Miss Molly!

Paul B - The word, which is not offensive, was not said "in public". It was said in the green room, to which the public is not admitted.

Number Plate, who has little to do all day but search out links to append to his deadly dull posts, writes, "Why don't you try asking some minorities whether they think the term is racist or not."

Which "minorities"? Homosexuals? Left-handed people? Redheads? People who think Jo Brand is funny?

Nicholas

CS: "Race relations in this country are informed by a history of an oppressive relationship between whites and non-whites." etc., etc.

Really? I think that is exactly the problem. How long are we expected to excoriate ourselves for our history and how long are we expected to endure the current imbalance as a sort of quid pro quo? Might we not better inform race relations by remembering the positive that it was Britain which outlawed the slave trade and in fact spent far more suppressing it with the Royal Navy than was ever gained? By remembering that freed and escaping slaves flocked to the British cause during the American Revolution because the British revealed themselves to be far more fair-minded and less discriminatory than the American revolutionaries? That black men and women served freely in our armed forces, alongside whites, for more than 300 years? That the Colonial legacy in Africa, although "oppressive", also brought much security and safety to the lives of people formerly oppressed and exploited within murderous and slave-trading tribal regimes? Sometimes I think we take upon ourselves the blame for America's history of segregation and discrimination.

Do you not understand that the current imbalanced legislation and bien pensant attitude, by compensating for the supposed wrongs of the past (and I think you have simplified those) actually exacerbates racial tensions? Some high profile black people are racially very self-aware and often make it an issue even when it is of questionable relevance (e.g. Diane Abbot and Bonnie Greer) - by doing so they sometimes arouse animosity rather than understanding.

True racial equality, racial harmony and an end to discrimination does not look like that which we now have. Maybe it is just a natural phase we have to go through, the swing of the pendulum. But the word reconciliation is better than revenge. Don't make all white people the scapegoats for the past and don't assume that those who are concerned by the imbalance and inequality of current racial attitudes and legislation are all racists.

Augustus

CS- If Al Jolson hadn't blacked up in order to sing Jazz and Blues in his dynamic style, his method of introducing African-American music to white audiences wouldn't have had the same impact. Instead of being racist he was paying blacks a compliment. I believe this was also behind the ethos of the Black & White Minstrel Show. You could certainly say that the show's male black performers were every bit as equal as the show's white female performers, but not of course so pretty.

hadrian

CS- 'Race relations in this country is a history of oppressiveness by whites of non-whites....'
Really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this country predominantly white right up till the mid Fifties? So, are you suggesting we have been violently oppressing those who freely chose to come here over the last five decades, despite our lamentable treatment of non whites? I think I'm missing something here.
Before the Fifties the number of 'minorities' in Britain was negligible- small Jewish communities, some descendants of the French Hugenots, and a more sizable Irish presence who alone could be said to be in some degree segregated, but not on 'racial' grounds but their different religion. The only other 'minorities' were the native Celts- Welsh, Cornish, Manx, Scots Gaelic, whose culture and languages have indeed all suffered but as much from the pressures of industrialisation and market forces as from concerted oppressive state efforts.
And let us not forget, when it came to serious, vile treatment of blacks, in the slave trade, it was British evangelical Christians who led the way to get this stopped. So, I do NOT accept we have a long history of white on black racism as if we operated on a par with the Nazis. There may be casual insults and even unintended offence but in the main there is much mutual respect and I see little evidence of mass racist contempt for people.And I do NOT think Carol T. was expressing any such malice. Her defence is it was fond ribbing. Equally what could be said of Anne Robinson and her Welsh remarks, broadcast quite without apology.

Verity

Nicholas writes: "Sometimes I think we take upon ourselves the blame for America's history of segregation and discrimination."

As so often, well said, that man! We were on the side of the angels re the slave trade. We have no culpability for it and nor should we accept that any black people have an axe to grind against us. If they think they do, they are ignorant and should consult the facts.

All the black and Asian people who came to Britain came of their own accord. They do not deserve the 'victim' status some have chosen for themselves. Yes, some W Indians were discriminated against, but they stuck it out (to their credit). They cannot claim victim status when they came of their own free will and then steadfastly refused to "go back where they came from" of their own free will. So, they were in Britain by choice.

The "race relations industry" got a leg up by slavishly, if I may coin a phrase, copying American blacks who did, to say the least, have a gigantic, all-embracing legitimate grievance.

Brits ignorant of history and lefties with a non-legitimate point to make, conflate the two experiences, but the experiences of our two nations couldn't be further apart.