Jonathan Ross returns...

That's why she was given the opportunity over the weekend to unequivocally apologise; but she chose not to. It was at that point she was sacked.



I would agree that in the first instance problems like this should be tackled by having a discussion - and that's what they did.

"Golliwog", and later, "wog" became known as highly offensive words - you'll remember. I'm sure we're a similar age. Its no more acceptable to say "wog" than it is "n*****" - both are words of a different era, and Carol's no dummy.

Again, this comes down to a foolish sensibility. Not meaning to cause offence is irrelevant if what you say DOES offend.

Would it be acceptable for someone to talk about "poofs and lessies" with gay people present and then say, "oh but I didn't mean to offend you, so I'm sorry if you were, but that's just a word I use and I'll continue to use it".

That, in essence, is what took place.

What is your view in that scenario?

What I'd like to hear is why she declined the offer to make a full public apology which seems to me to be the missing link in this whole affair.
There must have been very good reasons and also a reason why she has not yet gone public on the matter.
I suspect Carol is probably old-fashioned in that she thinks conversations in private should remain private.
I suspect also that is one of the reasons why she appears to have considerable public support.

Why did she call him a golliwog? He doesn't even resemble the doll.

Are you not going to answer my question?



I have explained that to you, several times now.

Her agent made it clear that Carol apologised to those who were offended by the conversation, but was adamant that she is perfectly entitled to use the word "golliwog" to describe a black man if she so chooses.



She has. Her agent went public on Monday. Again, I have made this abundantly clear in my earlier posts.



Well if "old fashioned" means having a blatant disregard for race relations then I would agree.

And by the way - I've seen both this tennis player and a picture of a golliwog.

They look NOTHING alike.

hear hear

And you get the likes of Shami Chakrabhati on Question Time last night saying "these are offensive words and thank god we don't use them in society today!". Well only a few days ago, Sandringham were selling "golliwogs" in the souvenir shop.

The problem is Carol associated the term "golliwog" with a black person - I'm sure if she was just talking about the fact she used to collect "golliwog" tokens, nobody would have said anything.

Isn't that obvious though?

You can be served faggots in rum sauce in a restaurant, but if you use it to describe the waiters, then that's quite different, surely?

I don't think this is a case of the "thought police", or some other reactionary nonsense.

Its about putting yourself in someone else's shoes - if you were black, wouldn't you find it offensive to be described as some grotesque illustration from a bygone time?

Unfortunately you've slipped back into pompous mode again.
What I said was I would like hear Carol Thatcher explain her reasons and not her agent.
I also said public opinion - in the shape of the complaints to the BBC and a straw poll such as the one in the Guardian - would suggest that many others do too.
You've also conveniently forgotten to answer whether you think it is acceptable to call someone a " one-eyed idiot " in clearly abusive terms.
You really mustn't be so selective about which high horse you climb on - leave that to an expert like Tony McCoy.

No - that was me being exasperated.



I'm not in control of that, I'm afraid, but I think its fair to say that her agent speaks on her behalf. That's how it usually works.



But for the fact that the story went public, I would have said it was a private matter between employees of the One Show, the EP and Carol.

And you know what they say - opinions are like ar$eholes - everyone's got one.



I apologise for the oversight.

I think "one-eyed" might be considered mean, perhaps cruel - but offensive? No.

Not in my view.

I notice you have failed to answer my hypothetical scenario about "poofs and lessies" being the same kind of offensive language.

Would you care to oblige?

Can you find anywhere on here where I have said it is acceptable to call someone golliwog, poofs or lezzies ? I think not, which answers your question.
I would like to hear exactly what was said, and in what context, before passing judgement on Carol Thatcher .
And no I do not think it acceptable to ridicule someone for having one eye - especially someone who has achieved the top political office in the land despite such a disability.
But, of course, Thatcher is expendable to the BBC whereas Ross and Clarkson are not.

Fair enough - but if it turns out that what she said is exactly as has been outlined above, could you tell me what your opinion is?

I'd hate to think she doesn't make a further statement, and we're left wondering what your point of view is.



I don't think Gordon considers himself disabled, but its been some time since he and I spoke.

Yup - still in pompous mode.
No wonder the window-lickers in Metropol are in awe of you ...

Pompous? I fail to see how you arrived at that conclusion.

But, "window lickers"? Isn't that an old fashioned insult for mentally ill people?

I suppose I needn't ask what your opinions are with regard to the use of "golliwog" in that case.

Thank you for the clarification.