By golly!*
The BBC have gone stark raving mad, if Iain Dale’s blog is to be believed, and his comments on the Today Progamme on Radio 4:
Carol Thatcher was fired by the BBC – not disciplined, but fired – from the One Show, after she likened a tennis player’s hair to that of a golliwog. It was a jokey remark made off air in the Green Room. And the tennis player concerned is allegedly the hideously white Andy Murray.
But the Daily Mail suggests a different target:
Miss Thatcher is said to have referred to a black tennis player, understood to be Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, noted for his physical resemblance to Muhammed Ali, as a ‘golliwog’.
I can find no evidence in the media for Iain Dale’s claim, apart from the above Daily Mail article which includes a picture of Murray, but no evidence he was the player called a golliwog. Without such evidence I think it is a little irresponsible to appear in the media suggesting that the player was white, when we don’t know either way.
Obviously, the target of the use of the term golliwog makes some difference to the situation, although whether or not Carol Thatcher is employed by the BBC is hardly an earth-shattering issue.
However, is there not a danger that the media focus on this type of issue distracts attention from real issues of racism and plays into the hands of those with racist politics who will exploit it as propaganda to show that they are being “oppressed”.
* By Golly, is a euphemism for God, before we have complaints.
Comments
| 4 February 2009, 9:50 am |
But Iain Dale’s blog is not to be believed – if Iain Dale’s blog is to be believed. He now writes that he was mistaken about the Murray identification. This is embarrassing because a million Radio 4 listeners heard him waxing angry about PC and harmless gollies this am based on his (then) definitive understanding. Listen to it again on the BBC website. Listen and enjoy.
| 4 February 2009, 9:59 am |
* By Golly, is a euphemism for God, before we have complaints.
So blasphemy is more acceptable than racism then?
You should tremble before the LORD my boy.
I kind of think that what she said in a private conversation should be of no import, or indeed, of nobody’s business except those involved in the private conversation.
Not that I could care less for this odious modernist “television” device and its corrupting idiot-making ways (among both participants and viewers, it would appear), in any case.
| 4 February 2009, 9:59 am |
although whether or not Carol Thatcher is employed by the BBC is hardly an earth-shattering issue
It most certainly is. Whether someone – anyone, Carol T., you, I – is picked on and victimised in the name of the BBC’s utterly distorted and sick system of ‘values’, is fundamental to its place in what is still sometime referred to as a civilised society.
| 4 February 2009, 10:04 am |
I honestly had no idea when I was a kid that gollywogs had anything to do with black people. Obviously they did. How stupid of me.
| 4 February 2009, 10:08 am |
You should tremble before the LORD my boy.
They’d roll over onto their belly and demand I stop trembling and feed them instead.
| 4 February 2009, 10:09 am |
Being brought up in what was then Rhodesia we used to eat Robertson’s jam and also had no idea it referred to blacks. Nobody ever called anyone a Golly (though offensive phrases were plentiful).
| 4 February 2009, 10:11 am |
I was genuinely shocked, about a year ago, to go into an arty shop in a really rather nice and cultured Essex town (as opposed to one of those horrendous nouveau riche Essex towns that seem to attract footballers and pop stars and gangsters to streets of designer shops and spit-roasting-friendly nightclubs), to find that they were selling, or at any rate, had on display, boxloads of gollywogs.
I was brought up in such a PC environment (in some regards at least) that I don’t think I ever saw a gollywog, ever, as a child.
| 4 February 2009, 10:14 am |
He was on national radio just over an hour ago claiming Thatcher was referring to Andy Murray’s hair.
And now he’s saying he’s mistaken?
| 4 February 2009, 10:14 am |
Welcome to the Harry’s Place Show Trials. Confess! Confess your intrinsic racism. There is no-one who is not guilty. Thank you, Neil D. Thank you, David T.
(May I just add: Adrian Chiles. What a wanker.)
| 4 February 2009, 10:17 am |
*stirrs the pot*
Ki-ora adverts anyone?
| 4 February 2009, 10:18 am |
I can confess my intrisic dislike of “those horrendous nouveau riche Essex towns that seem to attract footballers and pop stars and gangsters to streets of designer shops and spit-roasting-friendly nightclubs”
(Buckhurst Hill, although pretty and near some great bits of forest, probably is near the top of the list, although its not really a town, I suppose. Gants Hill (faces faces everywhere everywhere) ditto. I think Upminster has been creeping up the ranks somewhat lately too, although at least it has a windmill)
| 4 February 2009, 10:19 am |
The consensus on Dale’s blog now seems to be that she was referring to Gael Monfils – who is black.
Although where this information is coming from I don’t know!
| 4 February 2009, 10:23 am |
Ki-ora adverts anyone?
Umbongo, Umbongo, dey drinki it in dee Congo.
| 4 February 2009, 10:28 am |
According to wikipedia -
Um Bongo is not marketed in either the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
So now you know.
| 4 February 2009, 10:31 am |
But it is available in Waitrose.
| 4 February 2009, 10:50 am |
Always brings Alan Clark (and the praise he received from Pres. Omar Bongo, or whatever name he is adopting this year, of Gabon) to mind
| 4 February 2009, 11:05 am |
I don’t know if Carol Thatcher is racist. Certainly, “golliwog” is a racist term and is as unacceptable as “paki” or “nigger”. It depends on the context of the remark and no-one but those who were there at the time really knows the context. The problem is that this is a remark said in private. If things people say in private and possiubly taken out of context can be used against them and lead to their dismissal from their jobs, then we are going down a dangerous road.
| 4 February 2009, 11:14 am |
But it wasn’t really said in private. It was said in front of two colleagues in a place of work. If my colleagues started throwing around racist remarks at the university where I work, I’d think it perfectly reasonable that they were subject to disciplinary proceedings.
| 4 February 2009, 11:16 am |
Whether the player was white or black is beside the issue; what matters is that people will now be afraid of making jokes in private conversations. This is exactly the sort of fear which used to be installed into the psyche of citizens of former socialist countries. At the time, a joke against the Party would have landed you in a re-education camp and this is because the rulers knew they (and their policies) were unpopular, and this was their way of ‘keeping the lid on things’. A government which pursues unpopular policies will eventually resort to this kind of control; hence the rise and rise of political correctness.
| 4 February 2009, 11:39 am |
I think Marin’s point illustrates how pushing such incidents into the media attention can be counterproductive.
Marin seems to think people being upset about someone calling a black player a golliwog is akin to being under the hell of a totalitarian government.
I think if I was in a similar situation I would have said, “Don’t you think that is a rather stupid thing to say, given that golliwog is widely seen as a derogatory term these days?” and then moved on from there depending on the response. I certainly wouldn’t have reported the person’s comment, unless it was followed up by racist sentiment after they were challenged.
I think there is a difference between unthinking ignorant people (who may not even think of golliwogs as black) and people who are deliberately racist. Certainly, it would be professional suicide for many workers if they said, “Don’t you think [that student, client, customer, colleague] looks like a golliwog”, I don’t see why Thatcher should be immune from such challenges.
| 4 February 2009, 11:47 am |
Hypothetical question – if Andrew Sachs had not been white, would the outcome have been different?
| 4 February 2009, 11:48 am |
I think there is a difference between unthinking ignorant people (who may not even think of golliwogs as black) and people who are deliberately racist.
I think there is also an enormous difference between those old enough to know golliwogs as an everyday nursery object and those for whom the doll is something akin to a BNP membership badge.
| 4 February 2009, 11:52 am |
If my colleagues started throwing around racist remarks at the university where I work, I’d think it perfectly reasonable that they were subject to disciplinary proceedings.
Spoken like a coppers’ nark (or, even worse, someone drumming up work for lawyers), I’m afraid
Far more reasonable, sensible and decent in every sense that you approach them personally and say that you are offended, and explain why.
Fuck political correctness! Instead, long live decency (not in the pejorative political sense) and honour!
| 4 February 2009, 11:53 am |
This was said in PRIVATE!
If she offended those present, I think they should say so and get the deserved apology from her at the time. The main worry is that this is deemed worthy of a sacking by the BBC and of publication by the national media -on what grounds? I can only imagine on the subjective evidence of perceived injury by someone actually there at the time?
If the remark had indeed been “what a pasty faced, miserable jock Murray is..” it would have not made news outside of the Green Room, where it is alleged she made her remarks.
This is an interesting dilemma though; when does racism trump personal privacy and individual freedom? Seems like the answer nowadays is always, unless it’s anti-semmetic or aimed at “the W.A.S.P.’s” in which case it’s more like self-expression, or a cultural thing, or a response to eons of oppression..bla bla bla..
Racism is always abhorrent, but does every context deserve the same harsh reprisal, rather than an apology to the one offended and an admission of ignorance, after which both parties move one chastised and wiser?
Also, in these times where there is uber-sensitivity to anything remotely considered racist, what is the point of magnifying the original sin by making it news? I mean, really..is it news?
| 4 February 2009, 12:21 pm |
“Far more reasonable, sensible and decent in every sense that you approach them personally and say that you are offended, and explain why.”
It depends upon the context. The sales director at my last workplace used to complain about having to send black members of staff to visit clients. He was an inapproachable drunkard. Eventually he was only dismissed because of complaints against him in private.
| 4 February 2009, 12:24 pm |
You may be right; I reckon that this will only be good news for the likes of the BNP, who can point to it as another example of “one iof us” being shat on because of “one of them.”
I wonder if the liberal PC police at the beeb actually think far enough ahead to see the outcomes of their actions; or is abundant self-righteousness only good as a short term plan?
| 4 February 2009, 12:26 pm |
It’s funny that golliwogs, harmless, smiling caricatures, get people so upset. Most racist people actually think black people quite threatening and violent – if you wanted to be offensive about one you wouldnt compare one to a smiling doll.
| 4 February 2009, 12:31 pm |
Golly Gosh!
If Carol Thatcher had a golliwog doll as a child and like millions of children found no signifigance in it being a black doll, and if she has simply remarked that someone’s hair reminds her of the hair on her golliwog doll then I see nothing wrong with that.
She has used the word in relation to her experience as a child and not as a term of abuse.
I never found the original Golly on the jam particularly offensive as a child but then I am not black. I might look at it retrospectively as an adult and I can intellectualise that it might be racist.
In the same way other people cannot synthesis whether something is antisemitic or not.
| 4 February 2009, 12:33 pm |
Alex Ross, true
| 4 February 2009, 12:36 pm |
If my colleagues started throwing around racist remarks at the university where I work, I’d think it perfectly reasonable that they were subject to disciplinary proceedings.
You are no longer allowed to have a private conversation at a workplace? Everything you say at any moment will be monitored, recorded and submitted at your show trial?
Welcome to Kafka’s / Orwell’s / Stalin’s / Brown’s Britain.
| 4 February 2009, 12:42 pm |
Arguably, it was not a private conversation.
True the conversation was not broadcast, but Thatcher was still at work (i.e. at the BBC). She was not speaking to Adrian Chiles at home.
Or are people suggesting that BBC employees are only working when we see them on the television?
| 4 February 2009, 12:52 pm |
I think, technically, The Green Room is not considered working if you are “talent”.
If I remember correctly, the Public Order Act only needed a 3rd person to be insulted by your comments for it to merit an “offence”; so rather than a workplace reprimand, the injured party could,in theory, have reported Thatcher to the police for proceedings to be taken against her.
I think the injured party concerned may have had other issues on their mind rather than their own sense of justice in this particular example, but then again I am a cynic!
| 4 February 2009, 1:02 pm |
Racism is always abhorrent
Not quite. It’s always right and proper to rubbish the French!
I remember the Robertson’s jam golliwog, on the back of the jar and the one on Noddy; I never twigged the connection with Black people at the time.
There was of course The Black and White Minstrel Show, far more dodgy. But then Cape Town still I think holds the ‘Coon Carnival’.
The different treatment of Carol Thatcher vis-a-vis Jonathan Ross and that other shitface speaks volumes about BBC values, and not in a good way.
| 4 February 2009, 1:04 pm |
The different treatment of Carol Thatcher vis-a-vis Jonathan Ross and that other shitface speaks volumes about BBC values, and not in a good way.
Exactly.
| 4 February 2009, 1:07 pm |
(although in fact I’d say it was more indicative of a lacuna in the values of our wider society, not just the BBC, although their liberalism has certainly played a part in appearing to legitimise sexual immorality)
| 4 February 2009, 1:18 pm |
“It’s always right and proper to rubbish the French!”
I will be doing so this weekend at Croke Park no doubt….but; whilst I can probably get away with shouting “you stupid French twat!” as their back dives into the try area, I doubt that shouting “you stupid black French twat!” would be acceptable.
Now that is only racist if I am saying he is a twat because he is black; rather than a twat who happens to be black.
That context thing again…
| 4 February 2009, 1:42 pm |
Here’s a bit of conspiracy theory then. Hypothetically speaking, what if the people in the Green Room reported Carol because they, themselves, were afraid they would be reported, by someone else in the room, because the didn’t report Carol? Read about Stasi before deciding how to respond to this question.
| 4 February 2009, 1:57 pm |
*stirrs the pot*
Ki-ora adverts anyone?
I loved that advert! Was I a racist child without knowing it?
But yeah, golliwogs were banned in our household. And Carol Thatcher shouldn’t be on telly anyway, she is ridiculous.
| 4 February 2009, 2:09 pm |
“Arguably, it was not a private conversation.”
Arguably, it was not necessarily an offensive remark. We don’t know the context. We don’t know what she actually said. And we don’t know the motives of those who complained to the management and then to the mass media. The sensitivities surrounding race make people feel stifled. I’ve seen with my own eyes white people, particularly the elderly, struggle with words in order not to offend. Fear of causing intended offence is a barrier, and the hysteria over the Carol Thatcher debacle (even if she did make a racist remark) has just helped increase the height of that barrier.
| 4 February 2009, 2:43 pm |
But yeah, golliwogs were banned in our household.
I’m guessing you are at least 20 years younger then me Biss.
I had a golly when I was about 2 (I have no idea where it came from) it was taken away when I was about 4 and it was explained to me that (this being Brixton) it might offend my friend Desmond. I didn’t find it a great loss as I remember (I had a teddy that supplied all my cuddly/plush needs at least until I reached my teens. When I asked Desmond why he was offended by my toy box he said he didn’t even know I had a golly and we both marvelled as only 4 year olds can at what liars adults were!
| 4 February 2009, 2:50 pm |
Always rated Chiles. Not any more.
| 4 February 2009, 3:19 pm |
So we’re clear then: calling someone a gollywog in private conversation – grounds for losing your job.
Calling someone an eyetie on TV surrounded by a mob of angry men holding “British Jobs for British workers” placards – understandable, nothing to do with racism, onward to victory, brothers!
And HP has the nerve to write: “However, is there not a danger that the media focus on this type of issue distracts attention from real issues of racism …”
Priceless.
| 4 February 2009, 3:33 pm |
So we’re clear then: calling someone a gollywog in private conversation – grounds for losing your job.
Who said that?
| 4 February 2009, 3:34 pm |
You are no longer allowed to have a private conversation at a workplace? Everything you say at any moment will be monitored, recorded and submitted at your show trial?
Welcome to Kafka’s / Orwell’s / Stalin’s / Brown’s Britain.
Why do you hate black people so much?
| 4 February 2009, 3:47 pm |
[...]is there not a danger that the media focus on this type of issue distracts attention from real issues of racism and plays into the hands of those with racist politics who will exploit it as propaganda to show that they are being “oppressed”.
So, come on, tell us then. What are the ‘real’ issues of racism?
Okay, unintentional theoretical ideological racism™ quiz:
You’re standing in a bus shelter in Seven Sisters, when a gaggle of Korean tourists with cameras come a chirruping towards you. Do you…
a) Cross to the other side of the road as they might be highly-trained hapkido assassins bent on revenge for the shameful portrayal of Kim Jong-il in Western media.
b) Run away in case they turn about to be the Seoul Survivors Crew, a motley collection of graffiti artists, game designers and kimchi smugglers.
c) Relax, smile, and pass the time of day.
You’re standing in a the same bus shelter in Seven Sisters, when a pack of assorted African yoot come swaggering towards you. Do you…
a) Run like the clappers just in case they happen to be the Big Man Dem Collective, a motley collection of African sadists who think nothing of raping girls in a pack before pouring bleach over them to cover up DNA evidence.
b) Cross to the other side of the street, just in case they have violent intentions.
c) Relax, smile, and pass the time of day.
| 4 February 2009, 3:58 pm |
Herman, have you taken your pills today? You are raving.
I don’t hate black people at all. There is nothing in my post on which any sane person could base such a libellous accusation. Your attribution of such hatred to me is an indication of your own sickness and hatred.
| 4 February 2009, 3:58 pm |
I think it’s more about “packs” of “youths” who “swagger”, than race.
This is a better test
http://tukopamoja.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/the-real-racism-test/
| 4 February 2009, 3:59 pm |
Herman, have you taken your pills today? You are raving.
I don’t hate black people at all. There is nothing in my post on which any sane person could base such a libellous accusation. Your attribution of such hatred to me is an indication of your own sickness and hatred.
Touched a nerve did I? Why is it OK in your world to insult black people? If Thatcher had said “Oh those bloody Jews” you’d be wanking yourself silly over the fury
| 4 February 2009, 4:14 pm |
By Golly, is a euphemism for God, before we have complaints.
I am glad that you wrote that down. I still use the expression and was suddenly afraid that it had acquired a racially offensive overtone that was not there when I was a kid.
I have a new word that may be encouraged instead of ‘gollywog’.
‘galloway’.
| 4 February 2009, 4:14 pm |
“a libellous accusation”
Can you really libel someone who only identifies him/herself through a moniker?
| 4 February 2009, 4:34 pm |
Those are really cute dolls. My kid would love them to bits.
–Please don’t ban me!
| 4 February 2009, 5:06 pm |
Touched a nerve did I?
Not in the least. I simply detest illiterate fuckwits who can’t read anything containing words of 2 or more syllables and understand it.
Why is it OK in your world to insult black people?
When are you planning to stop lying, Herman? Is it some sort of hobby? I recommend building model airplanes or collecting top-shelf magazines as a healthier hobby for 14-year olds like you.
I didn’t say it was ‘OK to insult black people’. I said that snooping on private conversations and grassing people up to the PC police for saying the ‘wrong’ word is a totalitarian approach that has no place in Britain. It’s the sort of thing they did in East Germany, and no doubt still do in North Korea (with appropriate variations).
I would do the same thing whatever the expression used.
Now go and try to parse the above with the help of your English literacy tutor.
| 4 February 2009, 5:12 pm |
Might the action taken by Jo Brand have anything to do with who Carol’s mother was?
| 4 February 2009, 5:52 pm |
Nick (ex-SA)
“Racism is always abhorrent”
Not quite. It’s always right and proper to rubbish the French!
That’s xenophobia, not racism. UKIP rather BNP, if you will.
The different treatment of Carol Thatcher vis-a-vis Jonathan Ross and that other shitface speaks volumes about BBC values, and not in a good way.
What different treatment? Ross saved his job by apologising copiously, and acknowledging that what he did was offensive and wrong. Thatcher has refused to do that, and that’s what has cost her her slot on ‘The One Show’ (but only on that show – Ross was barred from the whole of the BBC during his suspension). It is, in fact, the different reaction from certain right-wingers, that speaks volumes (in the case of Venchika’s reply above, it tells us that some people apparently see racism as being less offensive than sex). Iain Dale, for instances, emerges as a hypocrite – attacking the BBC for not acting swiftly enough during the hysteria over Sachsgate and now attacking them for taking swift action in this case, when it seems painfully obvious that if they hadn’t acted pre-emptively then when this story leaked out later, the corporation would have again been crucified by the newspapers.
| 4 February 2009, 6:25 pm |
Well neither of us in the case of Carol Thatcher know what was actually said and the context – it’s hearsay based upon a private conversation. She’s been sacked on that basis, without any due process.
Ross and the other geezer broadcast their deliberate verbal assault left as a voice message on Sach’s answer machine.
Yet Thatcher has been sacked and Ross was merely suspended.
Can’t you see the huge difference?
Do you think any civil servant, army officer or policeman would keep their job if they left such a message on anyone’s answer machine….not a chance.
| 4 February 2009, 6:31 pm |
when it seems painfully obvious that if they hadn’t acted pre-emptively then when this story leaked out later, the corporation would have again been crucified by the newspapers.
Obviously the BBC were not going to be attacked in the newspapers for a private conversation that took place off-air. That is absurd and really little more than a blatant attempt to displace the blame for this incident from the BBC to Fleet Street.
Rather, the BBC regards itself as the self-appointed “conscience of the nation” and has simply punished Carol Thatcher for not being sensitive to political correctness — an attitude, as revealed in a recent investigation of itself, that runs so deep in the culture of the BBC as to be quite unquestionable by its staff.
| 4 February 2009, 6:39 pm |
After long hours of research, It happens to be true. It is too orangey for crows
| 4 February 2009, 7:13 pm |
Nick:
Well neither of us in the case of Carol Thatcher know what was actually said and the context – it’s hearsay based upon a private conversation.
It is my understanding, from various accounts, that she has been accused of and admitted to comparing a black tennis player to a golliwog. I think that does provide us with enough information about what she said, and the context.
She’s been sacked on that basis, without any due process.
She hasn’t been sacked – she has only been dropped from one programme (and that’s only unless and until she apologises). Contrast this with Ross, who was barred from all BBC programmes during his suspension.
Ross and the other geezer broadcast their deliberate verbal assault left as a voice message on Sach’s answer machine.
And they were wrong to.
Yet Thatcher has been sacked and Ross was merely suspended.
Because he apologised, at length, and she refuses to and keeps insisting it was just a joke. If Ross had been similarly haughty, he would have been sacked too.
Can’t you see the huge difference?
Yes – Brand and Ross were treated as pariahs, Thatcher is being treated as some kind of victim.
Do you think any civil servant, army officer or policeman would keep their job if they left such a message on anyone’s answer machine….not a chance.
I suspect they would recieve a written warning and be required to apologise. That’s what happened to me when I lost my temper and spoke extremely offensively to a customer over the phone (much more offensively than Ross and Brand, and with threats of violence).
SeaKitten:
Obviously the BBC were not going to be attacked in the newspapers for a private conversation that took place off-air.
Of course they would be. Certainly the tabloids – especially those, such as the Mail and the Sun, with a financial relationship with its competitors – wouldn’t pass up any opportunity to attack the BBC.
That is absurd and really little more than a blatant attempt to displace the blame for this incident from the BBC to Fleet Street.
And that is where the blame lies. Whilst what Thatcher said was wrong and she did deserve to face some kind of sanction, the BBC only acted as quickly and decisively as it did because the hysteria whipped-up by the tabloids over Sachsgate has made its staff hawkish about anything that could lead to a similar media storm.
Rather, the BBC regards itself as the self-appointed “conscience of the nation”
You’re confusing the Beeb with the Daily Mail.
and has simply punished Carol Thatcher for not being sensitive to political correctness — an attitude, as revealed in a recent investigation of itself, that runs so deep in the culture of the BBC as to be quite unquestionable by its staff.
I am strangely untroubled by the revelation that the BBC’s employees are intolerant of racism.
| 4 February 2009, 7:24 pm |
Just as an historical curiosity: a teatime children’s TV programme, called ‘Nice time’ in 1970 had a cast including Kenny Everett and a comparatively youthful Germaine Greer, who sported a rather imposing afro hairstyle. Her character’s name was ‘Golly’. How times change!
| 4 February 2009, 7:34 pm |
I am strangely untroubled by the revelation that the BBC’s employees are intolerant of racism.
Of course you are untroubled by the sacking of people for things they say. You are a totalitarian jerk.
| 4 February 2009, 7:56 pm |
There’s a simply charming pic. of two golliwogs on the Internet that was put there not long ago by the BBC! Yes, the BBC itself!!
newsimg.bbc.co.uk bbc golliwog
Chorus of Liberal Fascists:”Fire the DG!! Fire him!”
Recently some Royal got into trouble for referring to a friend as “Pollywog”, (Yes, with a P) Shame, shock horror! Even the Sunday Telegraph took notice!
Well, look it up: it’s some kind of tadpole, and it appears that the word “Gollywog” is derived from that.
Hilaire Belloc sang:
“Be kind and gentle to the Frog
And do not call him Pollywog…”
There was a hilarious exchange in the Commons on Nov 2 1920, when one member told another to “Shut up!” and was silenced by another shouting “Old gollywog!”. I don’t think anyone was suspended.
I never thought I’d support anything a Thatcher did or said, but here it is now, “Reinstate Thatcher” (oh, and apologise to her…)
| 4 February 2009, 8:10 pm |
There’s another word, which you can all guess and which is supposed to be INTRINSICALLY offensive, but wild horses won’t drag it from me, even though it’s been mentioned above.
All right then, I’ll tell: an Afghani comes from Afghanistan, and a Turkmeni comes from Turkmenistan, and, um, and therefore … a ….GEROFF, LEMME GO, HELP, AAAAAAargh…
| 4 February 2009, 8:15 pm |
Of course you are untroubled by the sacking of people for things they say.
Again, she hasn’t been “sacked” for what she said, but for what she now refuses to say.
| 4 February 2009, 10:45 pm |
Again, she hasn’t been “sacked” for what she said, but for what she now refuses to say.
Liar.
“Carol Thatcher will no longer work on the One Show on BBC One because she used the word “golliwog” to describe a tennis player in a private conversation.” (Today programme)
“The One Show reporter, Carol Thatcher, has been sacked for using the term “golliwog” in the green room.” (Jeremy Vine Show)
“Carol is mortified that anyone should take offence at a silly joke. She has summarily apologised.” (BBC News website)
She apologised, she is still sacked. But of course she’s failed to congratulate her prosecutors on the wonderful job they’ve done and demand they take her back to the Lubianka and blow her brains out, so she’s not going to get her rehabilitation.
You totalitarian jerk.
| 5 February 2009, 12:21 am |
She apologised, she is still sacked.
She didn’t apologise, she has said it was just a joke and therefore doesn’t matter. She refuses to even acknowledge that what she said was offensive. Can you imagine if Brand and Ross had taken that attitude? That they were too good, too important, to lower themselves to apologising – and, hey, it was just a joke after all. Now her agent is demanding that people apologise to her. The woman’s so far up her own arse, she’s cleaning her teeth from the inside – and you seem to be up there with her.
You totalitarian jerk.
Yes, I understand that opposing racism is “totalitarian” in your view. I think that says more about you than it does about me.
| 5 February 2009, 12:26 am |
After long hours of research, It happens to be true. It is too orangey for crows
It’s just for me and my dog!
| 5 February 2009, 12:31 am |
It’s just for me and my dog!
(At the risk of breaching Ven’s sexual mores) I’ll be your dog!
| 5 February 2009, 12:55 am |
Golliwog never made it here in the US as a term of insult except perhaps in the Eastern Establishment of Bush Sr. Never heard of it in the Mid-West and believe me we had plenty of insulting terms. Interesting to find out the root of the insult word, Wog that the British used in the old days of the Empire to put down the non-white peoples they were ruling over.
| 5 February 2009, 2:04 am |
I had a golliwog as a child. I remember him well. It never occurred to me that he looked anything like a black man. In fact he didn’t look like a representation of a human at all, more as some kind of magical musical creature.
If you ever see a black man who does look like a golliwog (flat as a pancake, shiny, improbably large round eyes) send for an ambulance immediately. Tell them someone has been run over by an asphalt spreader- come immediately.
| 5 February 2009, 2:24 am |
Every once and a while a nice easy target comes along, and wham!
| 5 February 2009, 4:01 am |
What this is really about is bringing down Carol Thatcher because she is upper class. People keep describing her as ‘a toff’. Why is it OK to use the word ‘toff’ but not the word ‘gollywog’? There was even a comment on the Daily Mail article saying that private education makes people racist. It’s class envy and people like Adrian Charles and Jo Brand or whoever it was who used this private comment to try to grind an axe against Thatcher betray themselves as class-warfare dinosaurs. If Jonathan Ross had an RP accent he would not have been allowed to come back on the BBC.
| 5 February 2009, 6:24 am |
The brutal suppression of Carol Thatcher is the GREATEST crime against humanity in the MODERN age! She’s a national TREASURE! She is Diana, Boudicea and Florence Nightingale all ROLLED into one! The haters are just JEALOUS of her beauty AND talent, not to mention her GREAT accomplishments!
This is as BAD as the Nazis/Stasi/Inquisition! What has happened to our GREAT cuntry when a dotty old dear can’t make casually racist remarks over the SHERRY without fear of people taking offence? It’s not as if she’d have done it if there was a darkie in the room, is it?
And just a few weeks ago it was poor Prince Harry, one of the MOST noble and yet down-trodden people of the modern AGE, again PERSECUTED for what he said in private! Like Carol he would never have EVEN DREAMT of being racist if he thought he’d get into trouble for it.
There has been enough SUFFERING! STOP THIS PC MADNESS!!!!
| 5 February 2009, 7:02 am |
Update: The campaign to Free The One Show One!!1! will be on hold until I get that damn Kia Ora song out of my head.
| 5 February 2009, 12:23 pm |
People keep describing her as ‘a toff’. Why is it OK to use the word ‘toff’ but not the word ‘gollywog’?
Here’s another Toff dealing in gollywogs:
| 5 February 2009, 1:50 pm |
IRONY ALERT
A parody version of the Kumbaya-style lyrics set to Beethoven’s ‘Ode to Joy’ would readily include ‘golliwogs’ in the rhyme.
“All hold hands in joyful union; hymies, huns and spicks and frogs
Ragheads, Pakis, Chinks and dagoes, Hindus, Japs and golliwogs”
Can someone finish this off and send it along to the dogeater at the United Nations ?
END OF IRONY ALERT
When I was a little boy, I used to collect golliwog badges. There used to be tokens on jars of jam that could be collected and kept and when there were a sufficient amount, they could be sent off in exchange for a golliwog badge. I used to love those badges.
I do not think for one second I ever associated those badges with black people although in a discussion with my sister about golliwogs, I was reminded that whilst there were not many black children where we grew up, there was a black girl in her class who used to be taunted with a golliwog chant. Realistically, I suspect that this was in no way an isolated case and it is better that golliwog toys have been withdrawn. In some ways this is a shame, I had an immense fondness for my badge collection.