That is, however, part of Clarkson's "act" - his stage/screen persona, just as any comedian or presenter is while they're on screen working. Carol Thatcher was presumably being herself in the green room, and used language which is unacceptable.
Can we drop this now? There are far more important things going on in the world yet this seems to have made front page news in the gutter press.
But I thought we'd already accepted that a person can't make offensive comments at the BBC either on-air or off-air.
I certainly think there are people who would be offended by Clarkson calling our Prime Minister a one-eyed Scottish idiot.
And why should we drop it because it doesn't fit into your cosy TV forum world - all these incidents are raising fundamental questions about how the BBC is run and this is the perfect place to discuss them.
And before you trot out your trite " gutter " press jib I'm reading about all this on the Telegraph,Guardian,Independent and Mail websites.
That is, however, part of Clarkson's "act" - his stage/screen persona, just as any comedian or presenter is while they're on screen working. Carol Thatcher was presumably being herself in the green room, and used language which is unacceptable.
Can we drop this now? There are far more important things going on in the world yet this seems to have made front page news in the gutter press.
But I thought we'd already accepted that a person can't make offensive comments at the BBC either on-air or off-air.
I certainly think there are people who would be offended by Clarkson calling our Prime Minister a one-eyed Scottish idiot.
And why should we drop it because it doesn't fit into your cosy TV forum world - all these incidents are raising fundamental questions about how the BBC is run and this is the perfect place to discuss them.
And before you trot out your trite " gutter " press jib I'm reading about all this on the Telegraph,Guardian,Independent and Mail websites.
It depends where you draw the line at offensive. Racism is way over the line, whereas non-racial name calling is behind the line, it seems.
We should drop it because these sort of things happen in companies, private and public, every day. Yet not one of them seems to get the oxygen of publicity that this toff moron gets for her dull views and her famous lineage.
If those newspapers are making a fuss then it just shows how far the gutter press extends. I'd be more concerned about the 1% interest rate and the effect that's having on banks and consumers.
But I suppose it's easier to trot out a story about the BBC's moral standards and its running than it is to make serious financial analysis, and cover more important stories around the world.
But I thought we'd already accepted that a person can't make offensive comments at the BBC either on-air or off-air.
II think I understand your point now - but I suspect it is YOU who has decided that "if one person can't say anything, no one should say anything", or rather, "all must pay the same price for being offensive".
I don't subscribe to a one size fits all approach. I think each comment should be examined on its own.
I appreciate that you don't share that opinion.
Quote:
I certainly think there are people who would be offended by Clarkson calling our Prime Minister a one-eyed Scottish idiot.
You do? More offensive than calling a black person a golliwog?
That does surprise me.
I would have thought "golliwog" was fairly indefensible.
The BBC are now paying the price for their complete over-reaction to Sachsgate - nobody can say anything now without a call for blood. By the end of the year I expect the BBC will be specialising in silent movies!
Interestingly a current poll running in mediaguardian - not normally a hotbed of Thatcher support either for mum or daughter - is roughly split on whether the BBC was right to sack her.
51.4 % Yes
48.6 % No
Quite clearly " golliwog " is a term no longer considered normal in conversation but I would suggest much depends on the context in which this was said and so far we have not had an exact version of what was said from any of the parties involved.
Certainly Jo Brand has said she did not feel sufficiently offended to lodge a complaint.
The closeness, for instance, of the Guardian straw poll and the number of people registering a formal complaint about the severity of the punishment suggests to me that many people's opinion of Carol Thatcher - based on what they see on television - is that she is not a vindictive racist but more someone from an old-fashioned, conservative background who has said something without thinking of the consequences.
I do not believe she genuinely intended to cause offence and racist hostility.
But, depending on context, why on earth would she say "golliwog" anyway? Unless she was making a specific reference to the doll, there is no need to use it any more. Careless toff comes to mind.
Quite clearly " golliwog " is a term no longer considered normal in conversation but I would suggest much depends on the context in which this was said and so far we have not had an exact version of what was said from any of the parties involved.
I'm afraid that is untrue. Both Carol and Jay Hunts versions of what was said is precisely the same. She said she thought this particular black tennis player resembled the image of a golliwog on a jam jar.
Quote:
I do not believe she genuinely intended to cause offence and racist hostility.
No, neither do I.
I believe her misjudgement was to believe that if she didn't mean offence, then none should be taken.
Quite clearly " golliwog " is a term no longer considered normal in conversation but I would suggest much depends on the context in which this was said and so far we have not had an exact version of what was said from any of the parties involved.
I'm afraid that is untrue. Both Carol and Jay Hunts versions of what was said is precisely the same. She said she thought this particular black tennis player resembled the image of a golliwog on a jam jar.
Quote:
I do not believe she genuinely intended to cause offence and racist hostility.
No, neither do I.
I believe her misjudgement was to believe that if she didn't mean offence, then none should be taken.
But that's not really how life works, is it?
Perhaps you might throw up the source of where Carol said this .
Perhaps you might throw up the source of where Carol said this .
Her agent.
The only point of contention (and one I would agree with), is that the story in its entirety shouldn't have been released to the press. Her agent says, "The BBC has more leaks than Thames Water" - but the rest of the statement matches with what Jay Hunt said on BBC Breakfast.
So she didn't actually call him a golliwog - merely that his physical appearance reminds her of the golliwogs from the jam jars of her youth.
Again, it's a rather old-fashioned description but it should hardly be the subject of someone losing their job.
She obviously meant no offence and I'm sure if Adrian or whoever it was took offence said so to her at the time the matter could and should have been easily resolved.
And no I do not believe the BBC should simply shrug off Clarkson calling the prime minister a one-eyed Scottish idiot.
A Scottish idiot, maybe, but the use of the term " one-eye " was clearly intended to cause offence.
It really does amaze me in this country, especially with our media & people who complain.
We have a buggered economy, crime rates all over the place at present & lots of other actual news stories about more pressing issues in today's world, and yet the media & the moaners kick up a bigger stink about someones foul language (of which I think Carol Thatcher was a posh tw*t who really should have known better than to say "Gollywog") of which really are just words.
I really wish that the media & moaners would be more upfront & insistant that something was done when it comes to real issues like they do with offensive language TBH. But then again this is the UK we're talking about.