One account of what was said in the One Show green room

Fergus Pickering

Are you telling me that golliwog is a term for a black person in Carol Thatcher's circle? Well, I've never heard it. Wog I've heard, and so have you, many, many times. Who do you know that calls black people golliwogs? It's not descriptive, is it, except if you look like that particular tennis player. Of course if it is in general use, like the n word, then I withdraw everything I have said. But is it? Have you heard it?

Steve Garner

Oh grow up James. Why not just issue a list of words none of us are permitted to say because they may offend somebody. It's pathetic. Those who are offended by this sort of stuff should get a life.

James J

But by what authority does the BBC decide what words can and can’t be said in its offices or rest areas? Is there a list? Do these words have to pass the Ms.Brand test? People are offended every day by various statements and words broadcast by the BBC, how often are their contracts ended following complaints?
Ms.Brand herself suggested, in a broadcast ,that excrement be put through the letter boxes of people whose names appeared on a list of members of a perfectly legal political party surely a much more serious offence than anything Carol Thatcher is accused of.Ms.Brand has not been suspended pending the outcome of the police Inquiry.
Remarks made off air which the majority of the public don’t find particularly offensive seem to be dealt with much more severely than comments made on air that many more people find offensive. That is why it has generated such a debate.

Rhoda Klapp

Does it say "and then I ran to teacher to say Carol said a bad word". Who did run to teacher? Why didn't teacher deal with it in private, as it was said in private. Who put the thing all over the media? The BBC is wrong here. This is the only item of TV news to be shown recently where there is no tape, no film, nothing but a rumour. They can have wars in Africa and if there is no camera present, it won't get on the news. Thousands of Africans killed, but at least they weren't called Golliwog. Are the same people who got so huffy about free movement of labour, no matter how much it may hurt UK citizens not quite so defensive about free speech?

Faceless Bureaucrat

James,

According to a member of the Panel on Any Questions last night, calling someone 'Scottish' is now a term of racial abuse.

CT may be a bit loose-tongued after a drink or two (can I say that?) and I have no doubt disciplinary action in some form would be deemed appropriate in this instance - but firing the woman is OTT in anyone's book (apart from the BBC's of course).

Thin end of the wedge here, James and an absolute gift for the BNP recruiters in places like Bradford and Dagenham East...

James J

But by what authority does the BBC decide what words can and can’t be said in its offices or rest areas? Is there a list? Do these words have to pass the Ms.Brand test? People are offended every day by various statements and words broadcast by the BBC, how often are their contracts ended following complaints?
Ms.Brand herself suggested, in a broadcast ,that excrement be put through the letter boxes of people whose names appeared on a list of members of a perfectly legal political party surely a much more serious offence than anything Carol Thatcher is accused of.Ms.Brand has not been suspended pending the outcome of the police Inquiry.
Remarks made off air which the majority of the public don’t find particularly offensive seem to be dealt with much more severely than comments made on air that many more people find offensive. That is why it has generated such a debate.

One Eyed Scottish idiot and a friend to gollywogs everywhere

Jeremy Clarkson slags off Gordon Brown by calling him '' a one eyed Scottish idiot.''Yet if Brown was black and Clarkson said '' Gordon was a one eyed black idiot. '' The BBC would fire Clarkson on the spot. This shows you that the political correct BBC Gestapo is all over the place on the subject.

We all know that 1970s throwback Jeremy Cllarkson is a buffoonish clown, he is English and wants an English prime minister, you cant fault him for that , can you ?

Gollywogs of the world unite.

Joe Brand looks like John Sergeant in drag.

Is this offensive to drag artists ?

Hawkeye

James Forsyth wrote: "Obviously, this is only one participants’ version of events. But if it is accurate,...."

Hmmm... exactly!

Even so, this still could have been sorted out without a full public spat.

Speaking for myself, I know I behave very differently when I'm at work than from how I behave when relaxing with a drink or two. Thatcher has indeed made Prince Harry's mistake of thinking that because she was not in "work" mode she could be more relaxed and unguarded in her language/actions.

In my opinion, Jo Brand should be the last person to complain about what other people say. Having heard her bitter, twisted and often foul-mouthed rantings I would like to know what makes her fit to broadcast. The same can be said for Mr J Ross Esq.

curbishly

Thank you Mr Forsyth for confirming that the BBC's "grass" was, in fact, the rather nasty Jo Brand.

Considering her attitude to the Conservative party I'm surprised you make her out to be the "good guy".

Incidentally do you agree with Charles Moore that we should now start a "golliwog" club?, or not?.

Gollywogs of the world unite.

Tennis player Gael Monfils looks more like a gollywog than Tsonga.

strapworld

Mr Forsyth. I have concluded that you should be writing for the New Statesman!

Consider that it has taken Chiles HOW LONG to come up with this story? I am sorry. IF he was so upset why was the first BBC line that Chiles and Brand DID NOT complain?

I have read so many versions.

Now we have the Forsyth End of Saga.

Sorry Mr Forsyth, but you are indulging in Kicking a woman when she is down! That is both ungallant and quite quite disgusting!

Battling Brummie

Have you seen Tsonga? He does look like a golliwog in a way that black people in general do not.

Trumpeter Lanfried

I gather Jo Brand was making vulgar remarks about Thatcher on Q1 last night. Does anyone have the details? Were we aghast?

Slim Jim

I'll bet the thick cow wishes she had never uttered those words, especially at the BBC! Would she have said them on air? I doubt it. I still think this is a storm in a teacup, considering the hypocrisy that underpins all this, considering Ross, Brand, Clarkson, etc. It's time for many of these highly-paid twats to engage brain before opening gob. This is distracting the BBC from its relentless campaign of promoting homosexuality.

Jenny

Only it wasn't said on air but in a place where people are expected to behave so informally they are even handed alcohol.

What business is it of anyone else's?

damian thorne

long live golliwogs everywhere.....

Travis Bickle

The versions of this story seem to get even more padded out on each account.

How many more days, whilst people lose jobs and houses, are we going to pontificate on "IF" it is accurate? Old news, she did the crime she's paid the price. Should be end of story.

Bob

Some black people look like golliwogs.

Some white people look like barbie dolls.

Saying either of these things could be offensive and in a work environment, or anywhere else for that matter I wouldn't say either of these things no matter what the context but context matters.

The human mind works partly by association, pattern recognition etc, childhood imagery being particularly strong. One cannot always stop associations occurring or images popping into one's head no matter how unpleasant, crass or stupid but those used to having to edit themselves in this stupid, PC Marxist utopia tend to just keep these things to ourselves, those not living at the whim of the righteous perhaps less so.

So is she really racist or just a bit stupid? I still don't know and frankly I don't care, what I do care about is poxy cultural Marxism and its pathetic hypocrisies and the 'offense' industry. You have no right not to be offended.

PS I was at a shebeen in Battersea in the 80's. My car keys went missing and as I was there with a friend of the owner, he got to hear of it.

The next minute he was shouting over the PA "Which 'N.....' stole Bob's keys" and not just once. I nearly filled my pants. Context is all, the owner was black and so was nearly everyone else there and in this context it meant thief.

Alf Tupper

If this is how it went, then I'd have found it offensive. She's either very slow or was intentionally trying to wind-up the company she found herself in.

Jo Brand, in pulling her up, did what I hope I would do, and criticisms I made in an earlier post, of those who reported her, I retract.

Having said that, I think it's a gross over-reaction to cite the existence of the golliwog as always and inevitably a sign that those associated with it, have the same distasteful ideas as those evident in this case.

Chuck Unsworth

Ms Brand's comments about Lady Thatcher , broadcast on QI last night, were astounding. Does she really think that it is perfectly fine to talk about Thatcher, an elderly, largely defenceless and somewhat unwell lady, in that particularly disgusting manner? Doubtless she would speak of her own mother that way. Has the BBC any understanding at all of the public's disgust at their double-standards and the lowering of quality which we have witnessed for a decade? Ms Brand should never be employed again by the BBC. I'm sure there are other broadcasters who would welcome her with open arms. Why should the license fee payer be obliged to fund her?

John Page

It beggars belief that Jo Foulmouth can be offended by that word. I smell sanctimonious hypocrisy.

Andrew Pierce writes:

"I once went on a camping trip with Carol Thatcher to the Atlas Mountains. La Thatch was good company, funny and outrageously politically incorrect. No surprise there. She is a chip off the late, lamented Denis Thatcher's block. Anyone who has spent even five minutes in her company would know exactly what they were getting. So why did The One Show employ her in the first place? "

http://tinyurl.com/am3gr6

oldtimer

With all the furore caused by the use of the word golliwog, I decided to check my Concise Oxford Dictionary (1984 reprint) for its definition of the word. It says:

golliwog n black-faced, brightly dressed doll soft doll with fuzzy hair [19th c, perhaps from golly + polliwog)

On polliwog it says:
polliwog n (dialect and US), tadpole [earlier polwigge, polwygle, from poll + wiggle].

On poll it says:
poll n human head, part of this on which hair grows ~ poll tax.

Evidently there is a generational divide between those who regard golliwogs as childrens toys with no racial overtones - the older group? - and those who have decided to impart it with a new racist meaning wholly unconnected with its origins.

As a writer for the Spectator I would have expected you at least to have done some elementary research in the origins of the use of this word and its more recent corruption by the PC brigade.

Carol Thatcher has nothing to apologise about.

The Jo Brand involvement appears significant and hypocritical. From the few occasions I have heard her on TV she sounds as foul mouthed and offensive as any so-called "comedian" employed by the BBC. This is supposed to pass as public service broadcasting. The BBC is more National Menace than National Treasure; I repeat my opinion - it needs to be cut down to size.

Susan Hill

I was at a private dinner party in a private house with some very, er, 'grand'fellow guests (and if you knew who some of them were you`d be shaken.) There were racist remarks all round the table accompanied by the usual 'My God don`t let the PC brigade hear you saying THAT !' guffaws. But they were nowhere near as racist as I have heard from taxi drivers. However, when it came to anti-Semitic remarks there was no doubt whatsoever about the offensiveness and intention. I could just about brush off the racist remarks on the grounds that they were merely childish and stupid, I could not remotely do the same with the anti-semitism. I had no idea this type and level of anti-Jewishness was still rife in these sort of circles. We might have been in the 30s. And interestingly, this time nobody made any sort of defensive gesture remark about the PC Brigade. Everyone took the comments as normal. It was deeply unpleasant and repulsive and as Christian who greatly respects the Jewish heritage and foundation of my faith, I was hurt and offended. Did I speak up ? No. I should have had the courage to do so but I didn`t, partly because I was a guest in a private house. If it had been a public place and occasion I hope I would have done so.

Paul

Yes, well Chiles would say that wouldn't he. He's taken rather a kicking this week, and rightly so in my view.

Fact is, no-one really knows but I certainly wouldn't be taking the word of the offensive Jo Brand or the self-serving Adrian "Adrian" Chiles.

TrevorsDen

Pardon me Mr F - so Carol T gave offence to Jo Brand. Well that lady gives ME offence every time the BBC pay her to appear on their airwaves.

So what?

It was not in public it, was not calculated, it is a matter between Brand and Thatcher. They are perfectly entitled to have an argument in private. Last night on TV Brand was a party to a series of jokes about people with no hands, Muslim people at that. Thatcher is an old fashioned silly idiot - big deal. Brand is an institutional left wing bigot who is happy to pour her invective and foul imagery on who ever it suits HER - she can make up her own rules - like the rest of the left - and we have to live and suffer by them.

Well she can sod off.

Clarkson was in Australia - was this anything to do with the BBC?

I say full marks to him for saying the Emperor has no clothes and for using that all important word - 'liar'

Ian C

Fine, if these are the true facts - but still not a sacking ofence, still less one to be brought into the public domain for the purpsoes of humilaition of her or for showing off PC credentials of the BBC and those present. It should have been dealt with then and there by those present. End of story.

For anyone to have to suffer a lecture from Jo Brand on what is acceptable is beyond the pale. She is vile, bitchy, vitriolic, pc ridiculous and revolting in her own way of life.

The BBC, who, as Anne Atkins said on Today yesterday morning, no longer have any "absolute standards", so when a row of this nature arises they are not judge and jury with any credibility in today's world - which is why it is no longer an institution deserving of the nations's respect, not to mention our compulsory financing.

Joe Jones

"
Gollywogs of the world unite: February 7th, 2009 10:50am

Joe Brand looks like John Sergeant in drag.

Is this offensive to drag artists ?"
No, GOTWU - but it is to John Sergeant.

Wilhelm

The BBC showed Batman actor Christian Bale ranting, he said 39 F**K words. Check it out on Youtube.

So you cant say golliwog but can say the F word.

RW

James, not for the first time, I wonder whether you are really at home writing for the Spectator. Wouldn't you be happier joining your censorious, politically correct fellow spirits over at Dolly Draper's place?

Forlornehope

If someone referred to me, for example, as a red haired, scottish idiot, the only word that I would object to would be the last. Frankly, there are many times in my life when it would have been fair comment. After all as WSC said "If I had never made any mistakes, I would never have made anything."

There is, however, a lot to be said for a campaign to persecute Jo Brand and other smug comics. Every time she opens her mouth she offers a hostage to fortune so bomard the BBC with complaints and see what happens.

Liz Brown

I tried to say this before, but you refused to print it GROW UP JAMES. I agree that with his long arms and legs and wild hair, the tennis player referred to does have some semblance to Mr Robertson's once famous amd much loved icon.............and NO OFFENCE is intended by that remark. I am however, constantly offended by Joe Brand and who takes my side?

Gollywogs against the BBC

If the BBC was paying Carol Thatcher £18 million like Johnathan Woss.

The hypocritcal BBC wouldnt fire her.

Biggestaspidistra

"Oh grow up James."

the first comment cannot be improved (upon).

Dave

The odious Jo Brand thought it was funny recently to say that dog shit should be posted through the letterboxes of BNP members homes.

That's a good deal more offensive and inflammatory than anything Carl Thatcher may, or may not have, said.

Frank P

Is it possible that some people arrange their hair like that to draw attention to themselves and invite ribald comment? I wonder ...?

And is all this persiflage being generated to distract us from more important issues?

Check your wallet and your sovereignty, chances are somebody just depleted each while you were distracted.

paul

in the film bend it like beckham an asian girl calls her english friend a goul or spook,i did not take offence as english man, what it! wants is for the middle class elite to work on a building site for a year and get some real life expirience.

EC

Green Room. What happens in the Green Room should stay in the Green Room - particulary if alcohol is on offer.

The highlight of yesterday's thread was Verity's surgical summation of "the Jo Brand" as "an ambulatory septic tank."

Stunning!

Frank P

Oh, and James: we realise you have attracted more attention than usual to your posts with this Thatcher spat; but enough already! Keep it up and we'll begin to suspect that you're vicariously giving oxygen to racism for an ulterior motive. And just imagine how you'd feel if everything that was said within the confines of Old Queens Street were to reach the public domain. I'll bet that Rod Liddle gets a bit ripe when he's had a bevy or two, if what he actually publishes is any guide. How you all laugh condescendingly, I'll bet, at the cheeky liddle chappie's merry quips!

Snitching on colleagues to the Thought Police for in-house indiscretions is an indication of the calibre of the people who grassed her up. I expect no better of Brand and Chiles: two people getting their own back on life for being born irretrievably ugly - like most socialists I ever met and the BBC employs a plethora of them.

MatthewL

I, too, am an habitual critic of the BBC. I deplore it's left-wing bias. The ignorance of many of its leading presenters on matters pertaining to business and science. The dumbing down of its content drives me to distraction. ('Breakfast' gives me a migraine, with its belief that I will lose interest if one presenter utters more than a couple of sentences without handing over to their colleague.)

However, I think it made the right call on this one. As more information has come out it has become harder to defend Carol Thatcher and I, too, would have been disturbed by her choice of language to generalise about black people.

George Laird

Dear All

It appears that the pro Carol Thatcher brigade is still upset that she was sacked.

She sacked herself; let us not forget that pertinent point.

Curbishly at 10.56 am then does him or her self no service by referring to Jo Brand as a “grass”, how very housing scheme of them. I take it that this is a belated acknowledgement of the guilt of Carol Thatcher?

What about Jo Brand’s right of free speech? What about her right not to be offended? What about her reputation; are these things meaningless? Does Carol Thatcher’s right to be offensive outweigh everyone else in the Green room? Why is she so special?

Recently two other “stars” of the BBC have gotten into trouble, Ross and Clarkson but they seem to have taken the pragmatic long term view and apologised. Do they mean it? Who knows, that is another of life’s great mysteries but I suspect money may have be foremost in their thoughts.

This leaves the sacking and the claim of unfairness and the mention of the other two “socialist” heroes who are staying.

James Forsyth has attracted a lot of flak for nailing his colours to the mast with his opinion. He has taken the less popular opinion on this Tory Board which is correct; he has even continued to raise the matter so that the subject can be discussed openly and above board here.

Some other posters have come on such as “One Eyed Scottish idiot and a friend to gollywogs everywhere” to be controversial but the reality is that they are just sheep. Thatcher is a “Tory”; she is one of us mentality seems to be the rational but what I find cowardly is that some don’t even have the balls to do so under their own name.

I guess the Tory mantra of law and order doesn’t apply if it is against one of them, how very New Labour.

Finally, well done to James Forsyth for swimming against the tide!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Summer

No James I don't think it was offensive. She is still describing a Frenchman who she considers resembles a golliwog - a soft toy. And if golliwog is offensive why not froggy? After all some Scottish 'bods' are now offended at being called Scots.

The Carol issue has shown the BBC to be a bullying, hypocritical, fascist organization. They must have become one of the major recruiting agents for the BNP, they insult TV licence payers who don't like their 'ethos', and they shame Britain at every turn.

You must accept that there are many of us who, not being racist, do not see racism writ through the meaning of words that used to be commonplace, without any offence given or taken.

A knife is a useful tool when used in some contexts and a murder weapon in others. It is not the word that is wrong, it is the intent of the speaker that needs to be judged.

Jo Brand's and the BBC's intent seems here to be far more 'sinister' than Carol's.

mac

Unlike most commenters here, I agree with James. What Chiles' says happened sounds entirely plausible.

As has been said repeatedly in earlier posts on this issue, context is important and, as James points out, it seems that CT evidently did mean to describe someone's resemblance to a golliwog.

Even from someone as dim as Carol Thatcher, such remarks aren't made acceptable by arguing that 'no offence was intended'. Whether her hearers are lefty BBC automatons or not, and however opportunistic the level of their anger, they were entitled to complain.

Where I do entirely agree with other fellow coffee housers is in their distaste for the sneering Brand, Britain's own mini-me Dworkin.

Augustus

Racism is a valid problem and should be dealt with, but many of the methods employed to deal with it serve only to increase and perpetuate its existence. The tendency to pigeon hole is a large part of racism's staying power. Hate crime legislation protects select groups unequally because of race. Some people don't really want equality, they want vengeance, or special privilege. The best way to get rid of racism is to make race a non-issue. Then we'll outgrow it eventually.

N A Berry

Thanks again Mr Forsyth for writing an article with an element of sanity. I would also like to point out that it is not the BBC or lefties that have made the term golliwog unacceptable but rather all those people who used it as a term of abuse with which to demean black people.

Max Kaye

The answer is to have mandatory CCTV in all public places: offices, rooms, toilets... And to ensure public safety at all times - also in all private residencies.

One never can tell when someone will say a 'nasty' word and it's very important that our glorious PC Police can get there as soon as possible...

... so they can take the wicked criminal out and have him/her shot on the spot.

Colin

Interesting...

Golliwog = bad
froggy = ok

In addition, polish women make good prostitutes = ok

I'd love to see the list as well.

Kevyn Bodman

Even if it was exactly as Mr. Chiles describes, so what?
A private room, an informal chat and someone was offended. There is no right not to be offended.
OK Mr. Chiles and Ms. Brand you were offended?
Well boo flaming hoo!

Good Golly, Ms Molly!

James, you are an insufferable prig.

The only point in your favour is, you are thinner and better looking than the alarming, coarse Jo Brand.

deedee

Who was the informer? We should be told.

The Gollywogs Liberation Army

Its a little bit rich that foul mouthed facist leftist Joe Brand gets on her high horse and becomes holier than thou.

Lorraine

James, James, James, I do love Coffee House for teasing out the subtext behind this and that, but have you read the chatboards on Chiles?

He thinks he's Des Lynam and he's not. He's just one of the mist dull, boring people to have ever got on telly and now he's been told it.

He seems to think that if he says all this the public will go back to liking him. The trouble is they never have. He's just a politcally correct sap of a man on a politically correct sap of a channel.

Scrap Chiles and then scrap the BBC and we'll all be happy.

Nicholas

Jo Brand = NPOW. She is big but she is not very clever. Can't bear her on QI where she sits scowling most of the time except for the occassional foul-mouthed rant.

In this case very much the pot calling the kettle white.

biggestaspidistra

whilst attacking our host lets not lose sight of the fact its the BBC once fairly beloved (by me at least) that has become a horrid institution, peddling smut and trash and ever eager to take the moral high ground. Someone here said cut it back to radio 4 and BBC 1 and 2. Just cut it out altogether, let the arts council provide them with a tape recorder and video camera and if they can cobble anything worthwhile together give them half an hour on cable. It is interesting to note that it is communication itself, via the internet, will do the BBC in.

The Gollywogs Popular Liberation Army

The Queen was selling gollywogs at Windsor castle. Does this mean the BBC wont show her Christmas day message then ?
.

Marbury

I know Hannah Poole is a Guardian writer and therefore a mad, PC-crazed socialist, but her piece on this worth reading. "Whether you use it public, in private, on air, or in the green room, no one in their right mind can not be aware that this is a derogatory term to describe black people. But unless you have been spat at, kicked or had eggs thrown at you, all while being called that hateful term, it is unlikely you will ever understand why a small doll causes such a big fuss. Whether it's bullies, thugs, or grown-up TV presenters who should know better, every time I hear the word I flinch, it's like I'm back in the playground all over again, fending off the punches."

JR

Looking at these comments I'm reminded of what a mixed up country this is.

Craig Strachan

It's a bit worrying how many people (or maybe one or two weirdly obsessed ones) want to jump in on these comments to use the word "golliwog".

Wait - does that make me one of them?

TomTom

The BBC can do what it likes - i don't watch it....but i don't want to pay for it either.

Verity

The Gollywogs Liberation Army - Good grief! I feel sorry for the high horse! It would have been a swayback after the first 15 minutes.

Florence Nightingale

If anyone has watched the show which preceded the 'G' remark they would have noted that Loony Leftie Jo Brand's attitude to Carol T was hostile from the get go. I suspect that had it been anyone but Carol who made the remark then the odious Brand would not have been the least bit offended.

Alexander Walker

Anyone else remember the scandal back in the Sixties when the some of the pupils at the then girl's only Boston High School in deepest Lincolnshire started wearing Robinson's Golliwog badges as a marker of their lost innocence? the episode was immortalised as a rather bad film with the Golliwog badges transmuted into yellow teddy bears. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058169/

AngloWelshDragon

Taking the advice of several posters I have just lodged a complaint with the BBC about Jo Brand on QI.

It was dead easy to do by email as a lot of it is multiple choice and drop-down boxes.

I now have a warm glow from putting the boot into the obnoxious lefty hippopotapig and can strongly recommend it to other Coffee Housers.

Pete

Simple misunderstanding - she was obviously groping for the neologism 'gollifrog'.

TGF UKIP

Not, perchance, looking for a job at the Beeb are we, James?

While you may have been comprehensively sliced, diced and shredded on here, I'm sure your view would have go a far more sumpathtic reception if it had been made on the Grauniad or Staggers site.

Tiberius

Does anyone remember the Stephen Pollard blog on gollywogs, in particular the shop in Henley that sells them?

Stephen thought gollywogs were racist by their mere existence, but most reader comments disgreed with him. Then someone calling themself "jeff randall" posted, telling Stephen that these Speccie readers were reverting to type (I paraphrase that last bit).

Simplistic as I am, I just think there is a difference between action and thought. We all should be responsible for our actions, even if we work in the largely blameless environment of a social service dept, but you shouldn't be brought to account for what you think or merely say, otherwise you end up in "1984". Or, even beyond that, living in a society where you can have your head drilled by former BBC execs if you think Eddie telling Bill to "clear off and get back on your jam jar" is funny.

The Gollywogs Popular Liberation Army for free speech

I wonder if black rap hip hop singers with their sexist homophobic expletive lyrrics get upset with the gollywog word ?

John Miller

What a strange world.

The BBC supports a government which is responsible for hundreds of thousands of murders over the past few years, but instantly reprimands a person who uses a "bad" word.

I guess many Iraqis and Afghans would be quite happy to be called a golliwog if it meant they wouldn't be blown to pieces.

Michael Sweeney

All I can say is I'm offended that so many of you are not offended. However, if I have offended any of you by sayng this I apologise unreservedly. And I would urge you to express your offence at anything the BCC offends you with as urgently and vociferously as possible. Just so we can keep this all this offensivness to a minimum.

Harry O

Calling Brand a comedian is an insult to humourists, the outsized lip stick smeared hag hasn't said anything funny in years.

egh

Frank P -1:02pm - "Check your wallet and your sovereignty, chances are somebody just depleted each while you were distracted."

Exactly. Quite apart from all this being as boring as any talk show!

In addition - - do they reckon that keeping us busy talking about nothing keeps us from rioting in the streets about the 'racism' they're busy fuelling? A sort of variation on the 'divide and conquer' tactic that works along with the red herring?

Talk about a dumbed down populace! It's pathetic.

Anan

Ah the sad old generation are still wailing about this. So hysterical you people have become. I thought people mellowed with age. Not in this group it appears. There's absolutely no point trying to rewrite history with stupid dictionary references etc. Even though I don't think I should waste my time explaning the issue here, as you all known well what it is, I will say it anyway just to be clear: G* was used as an insulting, deregatory term for Black people. Therefore it is not allowed. The P* word originated from National Front (forerunner to the BNP) thugs who used to call Asians that in an insulting, derogatory way, while beating them and burning their houses in the 1970s. There are also plenty of other racist words for other racial groups, including the Jewish people who have suffered for millenia. I suppose according to you it's OK for them to be called similar words as well, as long as it is "off-air" or in "private." Shame on you all.

Some people here seem to have the strange idea that it is OK to be racist etc. if you do it "off air." The problem is not where or to whom you say the words. The problem is that your harbouring of such thoughts are unacceptable. Thank heavens there are so few of people like you around these days!

Ken

Goliwoggs to you Mr Forsyth, indeed Golliwogg, and one more Golliwogg.

Welcome to the land of the free, you are free to do as we tell you to do.

Pete, Scotland

First, they outlaw the words.

Next, they outlaw the thoughts.

Next, ?

dilys

I find Jo Brand offensive before she opens her mouth.

Juliana

I might take Jo Brand`s being offended a tad seriously if she were black herself. And of COURSE it was because it was Carol Thatcher who said it... Brand can`t have been able to believe her luck when Thatcher actually behaved in what Brand would regard as character. I`d love to know what she`d do if she`d been in the Green Room with the Duke of Edinburgh and he had come out with some of his choicer remarks.

Pete, Scotland

AngloWelshDragon, great idea.

Everytime somebody on the BBC says something that offends anybody there should be a complaint lodged.

Judging by the BBC standard, even if you 'think' offence has been caused then that is a reason to complain.

So lets get started and let the BBC know what really offends us.

Anybody know where to start?

Marina Colby

Give it a rest now PLEASE.
Reinstate Carol now.
Who wants to sit with the other two at ANYTIME?
Sit with Carol and at least the conversation might be interesting.

hadrian

The most offensive aspect of this, yet more, BBC double-standards, is their blatant selectiveness in what is regarded as sackably offensive. I repeat- I vividly recall Ms Ann Robinson's diatribe against the Welsh, but clearly they are not 'minority' enoough to merit ditching one of the BBC's top earners. As a Scot I had to laugh at Jeremy Clarkson's perfectly accurate description of the No10 occupant.
As for Carol Thatcher, are we now to believe she is a ranting, hate-filled racist, inciting us all to violence? What unutterable rubbish! As for gollywogs, are we now to regard any toy, other than a white visaged one, as somehow racist?
Finally, I have never understood why the Black and White Minstrel Show somehow incited us all to hate blacks. Wasn't it celebrating their perceived musical talents? Or is that supposed to have latent stereotypical overtones? Again, what pure, value inverted nonsense. I would never gratuitously offend anyone for their skin colour/nationality or bully or belittle them but for pete's sake, this trivialises the whole thing and helps mask really malign attitudes.

Ken

@ curbishly
Say no more. Join The Golligwogg Club - golliwoggclub.blogspot.com

Verity

Does the French tennis player speak enough English to be offended? Has he ever heard of a golliwog, given that it's not a French tradition? So, if he's not offended, why are all these honkies busying themselves with being offended on his behalf?

Incidentally, I hate to think how many hours a day that boy spends in front of the mirror getting his hairstyle perfect down to the last ringlet. He has the look of a man whose hair is his hobby.

Anyway, if Jo Brand speaks French, she could give him a call and encourage him to be offended. The BBC could do one of their boring specials on this. In fact, we have the makings of a boring new reality series here! "Help! I'm Offended! Sack Someone!"

Pete, Scotland

Let's all get offended and start complaining to everybody about something that has offended us!

How about starting with the filth and smut of Ross and Brand.

Alexandrovich

The BBC issue warnings, prior to most programmes after the watershed, letting us know that we may be offended and then proceed to broadcast them.

Should CT have issued a warning to her company in the green room, prior to her remarks, that would have then been fine and dandy.

No, hold on. I've obviously not thought this through.

Verity

Actually, I'm warming to my idea above. A new series called Help! I'm Offended! Sack Someone!©

It has possibilities for real brutality.

von

I know I will make some dolls with blonde hair and call them girlywags. Reckon that will get me into trouble?

The People's Democratic Republic for Gollywogs

Craig StrachanIt

''it's a bit worrying how many people (or maybe one or two weirdly obsessed ones) want to jump in on these comments to use the word
"golliwog".

''Wait - does that make me one of them?''

Eh, yes it does .

A Gollywogs Human Rights Lawyer

We all know what this is about , dont we ? and it isnt about gollywogs. Its about lefty Joe Brand hating Magaret Thatcher. Its payback time.

The fact is Carol didnt get on with her mum, the son Mark was the favourite child.

A social worker for gollywog diversity at the local council

I think fat slob Joe Brand is offensive, where do I complain ?

ColinG

Hawkeye,

Mr J Ross Esq?

Archie

James: You are evidently part of the problem!
And by what stretch of the imagination could the odious Jo Brand be described as a "comedienne"?

cgf

Pete, Scotland @ 10:24 - What Next,?

Brainectomy?

The Gollywog Outreach And Diversity Coordinator

Whose head would you rather see on the next pillow when you wake up in the morning - that of Jo Brand, or a gollywog?

Just as an aside, I'd never heard of Adrian Childs, but certainly is awful looking, isn't he? Why are lefties always so ugly? The Left is a giant ugly people's club.

Verity

An now Carol Thatcher has received death threats. Death threats! What the hell for? Referring to a childhood toy! What is the psychosis of the Left that they hunger for iron-fisted control over other people? From Pol Pot to Hitler to Stalin to Kruschev to the fleas that infest local government in Britain ... the ravenous hunger for control over others. The fury that a contrary opinion inflames.

What is even more bizarre is, these are the people who preachily counsel "tolerance".

Anyway, here we have Lesson No 1: do not say anything that goes against the prevailing wisdom of the thought fascists or they will seek to kill you professionally, or corporealy.

Nick Kaplan

George Laird;

At its most basic a ‘right’ can be defined as a moral claim that ought to be legally enforced. From this very general outline it follows that contradictory rights cannot exist, for two things that contradict each other cannot at the same time be enforced.

Thus your comment which ran: “What about Jo Brand’s right of free speech? What about her right not to be offended? What about her reputation; are these things meaningless? Does Carol Thatcher’s right to be offensive outweigh everyone else in the Green room? Why is she so special?” is self evidently ludicrous.

If Carol Thatcher does (as you seem to be conceding) have a right to free speech and consequently a right to be offensive, it necessarily follows that her right does indeed outweigh any other claim for this is entailed by the definition of a right. Thus the reason why 'she is so special' is because she has a right and the others do not.

If there are rights to free speech (which entail rights to be offensive) then it necessarily follows that Jo Brand (and others) have no 'right not to be offended,' for how could one enforce both these rights simultaneously? The only way to enforce a right to not be offended is to stop people giving offense, but this manifestly contradicts the right to free speech, which itself can only be enforced by ensuring that people are not forced into silence on the spurious grounds of feigned offence. So yes, Jo Brand’s ‘right not to be offended’ is indeed meaningless.

It seems then that you are confronted by a choice: Do people have a right to free speech, or do they have a right to not be offended? The two are incompatible so you cannot declare that both exist.

I would suggest that it only makes sense to say that a right to free speech exists given that this can be objectively defined. A right to not be offended is necessarily subjective, for different people will take offense at different things. Hence a law which says one has a ‘right not to be offended’ is bound to be totalitarian, since it would have to be enforced on the arbitrary whims of those involved, i.e. it would consist in the totalitarian ideal of the exercise of arbitrary power. Since the purpose of the law, in any free society governed by the rule of law, is to state objectively that which people can and cannot do, such a subjective principle should be manifestly abhorrent. So your above choice essentially reduces to the following: Are you a liberal (supporting the right to free speech) or are you a totalitarian thug (supporting the right not to be offended)?

I really find it quite incredible that someone purporting to represent a campaign to support human rights should need to have such obvious basics of any consistent rights theory spelt out to him.

Yours sincerely

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

Al

Well said James - nice to get a rounded view from the Spectator. And why do so many people think that her being MT's daughter has got anything to do with it!

Al

Verity, you and some of the other people obsessed with "PC-ism" are a very worrying. What has this got to do with Hitler and Stalin? What is so wrong with having GOOD MANNERS, whatever our politics???? I would have thought that would not be beyond dear Carol. Yes, the death threats are over the top. But referring to a black man as a golliwog IS serious stuff and unless we recognise that certain types of language are not acceptable, there is no hope for us!

Obnoxio The Clown

What a load of fetid gollywogs' kidnies.

George Laird

Dear Nick Kaplan

You obviously still haven’t forgiven me for my stance on condemning Israeli war crimes.

Carol Thatcher entered into a contract of employment in which she freely subjected herself to the terms and conditions of that contract. She agreed to abide by that contract which includes a disciplinary element when or if a complaint is filed against her.

A complaint was filed.

“If Carol Thatcher does (as you seem to be conceding) have a right to free speech and consequently a right to be offensive, it necessarily follows that her right does indeed outweigh any other claim for this is entailed by the definition of a right. Thus the reason why 'she is so special' is because she has a right and the others do not”.

Carol Thatcher does have a right to free speech but that right doesn’t apply to using racist terminology in public. At home, she can be as offensive as she likes, the Green room is not her home but BBC property.

If Carol Thatcher stood in Oxford Street and was calling black people, “Golliwog” as they walked passed; do you think she should be arrested?

If the answer is yes, then does that make you a “totalitarian thug”?

If the answer is no, does that mean you condone racism?

Jo Brand does a right not to be offended by others because the BBC puts in place procedures to regulate the conduct of their staff. If staff chose to ignore what some could term commonsense then they may face sanction. Carol Thatcher according to Adrian Chiles knew that her words could cause offence so she was aware what she was doing at the time. It could be argued that by being drunk she was in effect in breach of contract while being on the premises but then she argue back that since alcohol was provide by the BBC they were liable and partly to blame.

You ask;

“Are you a liberal (supporting the right to free speech) or are you a totalitarian thug (supporting the right not to be offended)?

I support freedom of speech but that doesn’t extend to supporting people who want to use racist language then claim they have a right to privacy when they have done it in a public place. I also support the rule of law and Thatcher’s right if it had gone further to a fair trial.

Finally, you don’t hide your obvious contempt for me by use of “The Campaign to get George Laird to stop writing such twaddle”.

I support your right to be offensive because it is legal.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Verity

Al - The fact that you are unable to see the nexus between physical fascism - as in Hitler and Stalin, for example - and thought fascism, as in the BBC, the Labour Party, local government run by Labour, hospitals with mores directed by Labour (as in suspending a nurse for offering to pray for a patient) and schools which do not teach anything and specialise in equality of outcome, is very worrying.

You appear to be morally tone deaf.

There is nothing wrong with having good manners. There is everything wrong in forcibly strapping people into a straightjacket because what they say does not conform to your personal mores.

You write: "... unless we recognise that certain types of language are not acceptable, there is no hope for us!" But didn't people go to court to get "Lady Chatterly's Lover" and "Ulysses" into the public domain? The language used in both books was unacceptable, and the left militated to get the "unacceptable" made acceptable.

The obscenities that Jonathan Ross uses are still largely unacceptable, but has not the BBC paved the way, with great energy and expediture of the licence fee, to make them acceptable?

Hoist by your own petard, if I may say so. And you prove my point about thought fascism. Because what you are saying is, whatever you personally do not like should be rendered "unacceptable".

Who elected you, by the way? And who elected the BBC?

Nick Kaplan

George Laird;

I agree that the BBC had a right to deal with Thatcher if the terms of her contract so specified this. However, they still require reasonable grounds on which to do it, the fact that she had caused offence on a one off occasion is no reason to fire her, especially as her contract never stipulated that she could not make such remarks in a private conversation. If her comments had been broadcast, like those of one J. Ross, then she would have brought the BBC into disrepute (more so than it already is anyway) and they would have had reasonable grounds. As it stands they should have, at most, given her a warning.

A right to free speech must extend to public spaces, and whilst it would be utterly deplorable if anyone were to scream racist abuse in public, the only grounds for dealing with such a person would be under some ‘disturbance of the peace’ law and not because of the content of what was said.

In civilised society racists should be marginalised by right thinking people. However it does not follow that the government has any right to gag such people and prevent them from expressing their beliefs however offensive. The correct response is to ignore or criticise not to arrest an imprison racists. The latter course of action is simply thought fascism. Moreover who is to decide what is racist or offensive and on what grounds? Would you deny David Irving the right to deny the holocaust however stupid such denial may be, would you imprison him for it?

It is therefore perfectly possible to support someone’s right to be racist whilst condemning (rather than condoning racism).

When you say you support freedom of speech but that your support does not extend to the use of racist language, what you mean is that you support freedom of speech only in so far as you can tolerate what others might say, if not you will not extend people the right you grant others. But on whose authority do you grant or remove such rights of free-born men?

I support my right (and anyone else’s) to be offensive, and your's to write nonsense, and others to deny the holocaust, and others to make inconsiderate remarks (like Thatcher) because such a right is a demand of morality and the most fundamental basis of liberalism. That the law happens to concur is merely incidental, if the law were to remove such rights I would oppose the law and seek to have it changed. That you support rights merely because they are legal speaks volumes about your apparent belief in those rights. Instead your support is more for the unlimited authority of the state, and the idea that anything legal goes.

Fergus Pickering

What on earth can make Jo Brand aghast? Anything goes is her watchword surely?

Paul B

Nick, I don`t like to go round correcting people, its not my style, but shouting racist abuse in a public area would be more than a breach of peace (BOP), which is not really used nowadays. It could a contravention of Section 5 Public Order or a (more likely) a contravention section 31 crime & disorder-racially aggravated. Its recordable offence either way, whereas BOP is not.

George Laird

Dear Nick Kaplan

“I agree that the BBC had a right to deal with Thatcher if the terms of her contract so specified this”.

The right to be disciplined would not have been expressed in specific terms with regard to her rather in general terms of the contract.

“However, they still require reasonable grounds on which to do it, the fact that she had caused offence on a one off occasion is no reason to fire her”.

Yes, it can be, you will probably find it comes under the heading of gross professional misconduct.

“especially as her contract never stipulated that she could not make such remarks in a private conversation”.

Did her contract stipulate that she could crap on the floor? Does that mean if it is not in the contract she can do it?

Clear not!

“If her comments had been broadcast, like those of one J. Ross, then she would have brought the BBC into disrepute (more so than it already is anyway) and they would have had reasonable grounds”.

She did broadcast her views; the only difference the audience was smaller. It therefore could be argued she did bring the BBC into disrepute.

Have you heard any other BBC broadcaster who at this present moment openly refers to black people as “Golliwogs”?

“As it stands they should have, at most, given her a warning”.

Not if they view the matter as gross misconduct, one instance is enough to get you fired.

“A right to free speech must extend to public spaces, and whilst it would be utterly deplorable if anyone were to scream racist abuse in public, the only grounds for dealing with such a person would be under some ‘disturbance of the peace’ law and not because of the content of what was said”.

No one is arguing against free speech but that wouldn’t apply if someone decided in a public space to call people “Golliwogs”.

“In civilised society racists should be marginalised by right thinking people”.

Are you implying Carol Thatcher is a racist?

Who should do the marginalising, the courts? Certainly you are not advocating trial by public opinion or clique?

“However it does not follow that the government has any right to gag such people and prevent them from expressing their beliefs however offensive”.
Well obviously the government does that is why we have the Public Order Act.

“The correct response is to ignore or criticise not to arrest an imprison racists”.

Have not the BBC decided to in effect “ignore” Carol Thatcher by simply giving her the boot?

How can you square your statement above when you are for Carol Thatcher not being sacked? Surely both positions can’t be correct?

“The latter course of action is simply thought fascism”.

So in the case of David Irving which you raise below, the Austrian Government were acting like fascists when they jailed him?

“Moreover who is to decide what is racist or offensive and on what grounds?”

Well, that would be for a Court of Law to decide.

“Would you deny David Irving the right to deny the holocaust however stupid such denial may be, would you imprison him for it?”

Irving acting in a stupid manner and like Thatcher brought trouble on himself. Would I have stuck him in prison, no I would not.

“It is therefore perfectly possible to support someone’s right to be racist whilst condemning (rather than condoning racism)”.

There is no right to be racist, just as there is no right to be a murderer.

“When you say you support freedom of speech but that your support does not extend to the use of racist language, what you mean is that you support freedom of speech only in so far as you can tolerate what others might say, if not you will not extend people the right you grant others”.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, there are always boundaries and those boundaries are set by society, not me personally, did I not support your right to be offensive by your snide, “The Campaign to get George Laird to stop writing such twaddle”? This is a dig by you to be offensive and belittle me for standing up for the introduction of Human Rights at Glasgow University.

“But on whose authority do you grant or remove such rights of free-born men?”
Me, I have no authority to grant or remove anything; I am not a politician or a member of the judiciary.

“I support my right (and anyone else’s) to be offensive, and your's to write nonsense”.
Actually, you don’t support my right to write “nonsense” as you have repeatedly stated in writing (see above).

“and others to deny the holocaust, and others to make inconsiderate remarks (like Thatcher) because such a right is a demand of morality and the most fundamental basis of liberalism”.

If people want to deny the holocaust that is their business and if people want to be stupid that is their business too. The BBC decided in the case of Thatcher they weren’t prepared to be associated with her at present. The right to free speech, does mean you have the right to have an audience, your individual right doesn’t extend to other people. Therefore Thatcher’s claim of privacy is meaningless because she cannot speak for the rest of the people in the Green room.

“That the law happens to concur is merely incidental, if the law were to remove such rights I would oppose the law and seek to have it changed”.

It is hopefully by law and the right to air grievances in a Court of Law that people can have belief in society, that justice and fairness will prevail.

“That you support rights merely because they are legal speaks volumes about your apparent belief in those rights”.

Just because something is legal does make it ethical, I judge matters on a case for case basis, on the merits of the case.

“Instead your support is more for the unlimited authority of the state, and the idea that anything legal goes”.

I don’t believe in unlimited authority of the state, I believe in people’s right to justice and fairness. If I believed in unlimited authority I would have to support the injustices carried out by the British State as well, I could hardly do that as a Human Rights Campaigner, could I? It wouldn’t be logical.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

valdemar

Are we supposed to believe that a dimwit like Carol Thatcher would have ever got a cushy job at the BBC if she wasn't a major celebrity's daughter? She's barely of QVC standard, and everybody knows it. Sacking her was merely correcting an earlier mistake. I hope more idiots will be dismissed and more competent presenters hired.

As for the golliwog issue - I'm sure she is a racist of the 'they don't really mind' school i.e. crassly stupid and insensitive. Being thick is no excuse - ask Jade Goody. And if CT thinks she's hard done by, let her take the Beeb to a tribunal or to court. Rich people like her can afford that sort of thing.

hilda

So I'll try again - they wouldn't post my post response to Anan's ageist remarks. So I guess 'racist' is heinous, but you can kick, insult, kill, steal, etc. from older people ad infinitum: especially if they're white.

I still say Anan should publish his secret for eternal infancy - though, on reflection, some people will have to grow up just so they can look after the ones who never age.

So, after all, there'll be a chance this hapless, thick, vile 'inhuman' race can learn some small thing over the next milliion years.

Michael Booth

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

Nick that was...ACE!

Nick Kaplan

George Laird;

Having a private conversation in which you use offensive language is by no stretch of the imagination ‘gross professional misconduct’ given that it is neither a ‘gross’ misconduct (it is debateable whether it is misconduct at all) nor anything to do with her profession. As I said earlier this would not be the case if her comments were broadcasted, but she never said them on air and thus the BBC has no grounds to take such a rash course of action. Only in the wild imagination of a leftist could this be gross misconduct and it is because it is so contraversial that it should have been specified or clarified that such remarks could not be made. This is clearly very different from things that are self-evidently ‘gross misconduct.’

Broadcast in this context clearly means “to transmit via radio or television or some other media.” To equate broadcasting to speaking as you have done is as childish as it is ridiculous.

“No one is arguing against free speech but that wouldn’t apply if someone decided in a public space to call people “Golliwogs”.”

Translation: No one is arguing against free speech, except in those incidents in which one is arguing against free speech. I think the stupidity of this speaks for itself (if you will allow it to).

No I am not implying Carol Thatcher is a racist, if I were I would have added ‘as such Carol Thatcher should be marginalised’, as I did not it is quite obvious that I did not imply this, so God only knows from whence you inferred it.

And yes I am advocating a ‘trial by public opinion’ of sorts. Everyone would be well within their rights to ignore and refuse to associate with such people (racists), and I think this is what reasonable people would do and ought to do. What is not reasonable is to involve the actual courts and to arrest someone for what is essentially a thought crime, and is no province of the law.

The BBC have hardly ignored Thatcher they have made her comments widely known when they would or could have been ignored. And, just to reiterate, you need reasonable grounds to fire someone, this was at most grounds only for giving her a warning (as is due process).

There is no inconsistency between individuals in an organisation choosing to ignore someone, and those at a head of that organisation choosing not to fire someone. In fact firing someone involves not ignoring them. Moreover I said that reasonable people should ignore racists, I nowhere said that Thatcher was racist and there is no evidence of her being so. Thus there is no reason to ignore her (although there is a right to).

Yes the Austrian government were, ironically, acting like fascists when the imprisoned Irving and, even more ironically, their decision led to increased support for him and his crass stupidity.

Of course there is a right to be racist, it is a right derived from the right to free-thought, since racism is a state of mind. Clearly being a racist and committing a murder are very different things; being racist does not involve doing anything, committing murder does, the two things are in a completely different class and it is ridiculous to compare them.

There are certain things that ‘society’ (and it isn’t clear what you mean by society; is it a majority? A plurality? Everyone?) has no right to decide. A society has no right to decide to sacrifice certain individuals for its own good, like for example ethnic minorities. Essentially society has no right to decide to violate rights. Consequently it also has no right to ban people from saying certain things unless those things are incitement to murder, or physical harm of others.

On whose authority does the state remove the rights of free-men? How does it gain this authority except at the point of a gun?

I do support your right to write nonsense, a campaign to get you to stop writing it was a parody of the annoying epitaph which you put at the end of your comments. Moreover, a campaign to stop you saying something, even if it were serious, need not involve the violation of rights. What was meant was a campaign to convince (not to force) you to stop writing nonsense... sadly it failed.

I completely agree that Thatcher’s right to free speech does not mean a right to an audience (which I assume you meant to write although you did not). It would also be within the rights of her former colleagues to ignore her. But the BBC had no right to fire her for it as they did not have reasonable grounds; it did not go through due process, and moreover it had set the opposite precedent by refusing to fire Jonathan Ross.

“Just because something is legal does [I presume you mean doesn't...you really need to sort out your use of negations] make it ethical”

Then why did you say earlier “I support your right to be offensive because it is legal.” What you should have said is ‘I support your right because it is ethical.'

George Laird

Dear Nick Kaplan

“Having a private conversation in which you use offensive language is by no stretch of the imagination ‘gross professional misconduct’ given that it is neither a ‘gross’ misconduct (it is debateable whether it is misconduct at all) nor anything to do with her profession”.

You seem to love the word “private” as some sort of justification for Carol Thatcher, who declared it “private”. Does declaring it private circumvent the BBC disciplinary code?

Clear not!

With regard to me terming her conduct, “gross professional misconduct”, I am willing to drop the word professional if you concede that she acted unprofessional.

“As I said earlier this would not be the case if her comments were broadcasted, but she never said them on air and thus the BBC has no grounds to take such a rash course of action”.

Yes, the BBC does have the right to take action and plainly have taken action.

“Only in the wild imagination of a leftist could this be gross misconduct and it is because it is so contraversial that it should have been specified or clarified that such remarks could not be made”.

My point of that nowhere does it state in her contract that crapping on the floor is forbidden is still valid, is calling people “golliwog” normal? Is this the act of a normal person during a normal conversation?

Yes or no?

“This is clearly very different from things that are self-evidently ‘gross misconduct.’
Broadcast in this context clearly means “to transmit via radio or television or some other media.”

Sorry, wrong again, she did broadcast her views public, the medium is not the issue.

“To equate broadcasting to speaking as you have done is as childish as it is ridiculous”.

So people who speak at Speaker’s corner are not broadcasting their views? They don’t have transmission by tv or radio but they still have an audience.

“No one is arguing against free speech but that wouldn’t apply if someone decided in a public space to call people “Golliwogs”.”
Translation: No one is arguing against free speech, except in those incidents in which one is arguing against free speech. I think the stupidity of this speaks for itself (if you will allow it to)”.

Using racist language is not in mind what free speech is all about.

“No I am not implying Carol Thatcher is a racist, if I were I would have added ‘as such Carol Thatcher should be marginalised’, as I did not it is quite obvious that I did not imply this, so God only knows from whence you inferred it”.

You said;

“In civilised society racists should be marginalised by right thinking people”.

Doesn’t that imply that people using racist language should be marginalised?

“And yes I am advocating a ‘trial by public opinion’ of sorts”.

So you openly support witch hunts of people, how very fascist of you and you had the cheek to want to brand me a “totalitarian thug”.

“Everyone would be well within their rights to ignore and refuse to associate with such people (racists), and I think this is what reasonable people would do and ought to do”.

Sounds very Politically Correct to me!

“What is not reasonable is to involve the actual courts and to arrest someone for what is essentially a thought crime, and is no province of the law”.

Carol Thatcher’s action wasn’t a “thought crime”; she opened her mouth and blurted it out.

“The BBC have hardly ignored Thatcher they have made her comments widely known when they would or could have been ignored”.

I am not impressed, having decided to turn on her; they were just milking it to shore up their trendy left wing PC credentials.

“And, just to reiterate, you need reasonable grounds to fire someone, this was at most grounds only for giving her a warning (as is due process)”.

On paper yes, in practice as seen countless times, you don’t, this isn’t a fair society.

“There is no inconsistency between individuals in an organisation choosing to ignore someone, and those at a head of that organisation choosing not to fire someone. In fact firing someone involves not ignoring them. Moreover I said that reasonable people should ignore racists, I nowhere said that Thatcher was racist and there is no evidence of her being so. Thus there is no reason to ignore her (although there is a right to)”.

Well the BBC obviously doesn’t share your view as her sacking demonstrates.

“Yes the Austrian government were, ironically, acting like fascists when the imprisoned Irving and, even more ironically, their decision led to increased support for him and his crass stupidity”.

Austrian government made legally clear their position by legislating under the Verbotsgesetz 1947 (Prohibition Act 1947, Irving like Thatcher shot himself in the foot. He was the architect of his own misfortune.

“Of course there is a right to be racist, it is a right derived from the right to free-thought, since racism is a state of mind. Clearly being a racist and committing a murder are very different things; being racist does not involve doing anything, committing murder does, the two things are in a completely different class and it is ridiculous to compare them”.

Crime is crime.

“There are certain things that ‘society’ (and it isn’t clear what you mean by society; is it a majority? A plurality? Everyone?) has no right to decide. A society has no right to decide to sacrifice certain individuals for its own good, like for example ethnic minorities. Essentially society has no right to decide to violate rights. Consequently it also has no right to ban people from saying certain things unless those things are incitement to murder, or physical harm of others”.

So, you know except limits on free speech now?

“On whose authority does the state remove the rights of free-men? How does it gain this authority except at the point of a gun?”

In Britain, they do by stealth.

“I do support your right to write nonsense, a campaign to get you to stop writing it was a parody of the annoying epitaph which you put at the end of your comments”.

A Parody? Are you a registered comic? What is funny however is that you don’t even know what you are talking about regarding my campaign but instead opt of the position of ignorance, research being too much like actual work?

“Moreover, a campaign to stop you saying something, even if it were serious, need not involve the violation of rights. What was meant was a campaign to convince (not to force) you to stop writing nonsense... sadly it failed”.

I write nonsense, bit rich coming from you.

“I completely agree that Thatcher’s right to free speech does not mean a right to an audience (which I assume you meant to write although you did not). It would also be within the rights of her former colleagues to ignore her. But the BBC had no right to fire her for it as they did not have reasonable grounds; it did not go through due process, and moreover it had set the opposite precedent by refusing to fire Jonathan Ross”.

The BBC did have a right to fire her and clearly did as her position was made untenable by her. If she had said straight away that she was sorry for causing offence because she was drunk, it wouldn’t have led to her being sacked. As for Ross, I would have fired his arse into orbit.

“Just because something is legal does [I presume you mean doesn't...you really need to sort out your use of negations] make it ethical”
Then why did you say earlier “I support your right to be offensive because it is legal.” What you should have said is ‘I support your right because it is ethical.'”

Sorry but I am noticing typos because I am trying to proof read as I write sometimes not successfully.

Finally; your comment;” What you should have said is ‘I support your right because it is ethical.'”

There is nothing ethical in being offensive.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Nick Kaplan

George Laird;

“You seem to love the word “private” as some sort of justification for Carol Thatcher, who declared it “private”. Does declaring it private circumvent the BBC disciplinary code?”

Saying the conversation was private is no justification for Thatcher, it is however a justification for her being able to say certain things without being fired. Where in the BBC disciplinary code does it say that someone may be fired for making comments to colleagues in a private and not broadcasted conversation?

“With regard to me terming her conduct, “gross professional misconduct”, I am willing to drop the word professional if you concede that she acted unprofessional[y].”

If you expect me to say that Thatcher’s conduct was unprofessional in what sense have you dropped the idea of professional from ‘gross professional misconduct?’

“is calling people “golliwog” normal? Is this the act of a normal person during a normal conversation?”

To the first question; it may not be normal it depends on the person. To the second; yes it is that act of a normal person, I don’t think only abnormal people can say or type Golliwog as I am now demonstrating.

“Sorry, wrong again, she did broadcast her views [IN- for god’s sake] public, the medium is not the issue.”

No she did not broadcast her views, if you actually understood English (which is far from clear given the number of mistakes in your posts) you would realise that the medium is very much the issue, since his is one way broadcasting and talking are distinguished. Thatcher talked in a conversation, she did not broadcast her remarks.

“You said; “In civilised society racists should be marginalised by right thinking people”. Doesn’t that imply that people using racist language should be marginalised?”

No that implies only that racists should be marginalised, whence did you infer anything else? Racism is a state of mind, thus a word or language (not being able to think) cannot be racist it can only be a word used by racists to convey a racist thought. A racist thought is one that is about a hierarchy based on race and suggesting some races are inferior to others. Thatcher did not use the word Golliwog to imply that black people were racially inferior to her, hence there is no evidence she is racist and no reason to marginalise her. You really are not very good at making subtle distinctions.

“So you openly support witch hunts of people, how very fascist of you and you had the cheek to want to brand me a “totalitarian thug”.

Do you understand the meaning of the words “OF A SORT???” Did you read what sort of ‘trial’ i was advocating? Or are you deliberately misinterpreting my words? I am not supporting show trials or vigilantism I am supporting everyone’s right to free association i.e. to not associate with people they think are racist. This is far less fascistic than what you advocate.

“Carol Thatcher’s action wasn’t a “thought crime”; she opened her mouth and blurted it out.”
She blurted out what she was thinking, which was essentially A looks like B (which may or may not be true I don’t know or care) i.e. a matter of opinion and you want her punished for it, sounds like a thought crime to me.

“On paper yes, in practice as seen countless times, you don’t, this isn’t a fair society.”

Are you suggesting it was unfair to fire her? If so we are in agreement.

“Austrian government made legally clear their position by legislating under the Verbotsgesetz 1947 (Prohibition Act 1947, Irving like Thatcher shot himself in the foot. He was the architect of his own misfortune.”

If the government made it illegal to breathe would choosing to breathe make you ‘the architect of your own misfortune, just because the law was clear?” The issue surely is whether the Austrian government had any right to ban people saying such things, I fail to see where this right comes from.

I said “Of course there is a right to be racist, it is a right derived from the right to free-thought, since racism is a state of mind.” Which you followed with “Crime is crime.”

Are you now admitting that there are thought crimes?

“A Parody? Are you a registered comic? What is funny however is that you don’t even know what you are talking about regarding my campaign but instead opt of the position of ignorance, research being too much like actual work?”

Of course one need not be an actual ‘registered comic’ (where do they register??) to parody something, but your confusion probably results from your seeming inability to understand English (is it your first language, if not I apologise.). I don’t much care what your campaign is about; I just think there is no need to write it on every post.

“There is nothing ethical in being offensive.”

Neither did I say there was. There is however something ethical about supporting people’s right to be so.

Wilhelm

Game Set and Match to Nick Kaplan.

Wilhelm
The Campaign to Get Comedians Registered.

George Laird

Dear Nick Kaplan

We will have to accept the fact that both of us aren't going to be on each other's Christmas cards list.

It seems that neither of us are going to budge an inch from our opinions.

Finally, I noticed that you have a supporter, Wilhelm, formerly of the Glasgow Herald Blogsphere, no luck for you there.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University