(Why the widespread coyness, by the way, in naming the tennis player concerned? I couldn’t find one mainstream news outlet prepared to say that Thatcher was talking about French player Gael Monfils. Didn’t any of them think it might have been instructive to get his opinion on the subject?)

This sort of thing is never about whether the person a word is directed to is insulted. or if it was intended as offensive, it’s about if society is insulted on their behalf, unfortunately.

Incidentally, is the BBC going to suspend Jeremy Clarkson for three months for the hurt he might have caused to a certain visually impaired gentleman, or others like him?

Not that I want Clarkson suspended, I think he’s funny as far as Comedy Opinionated Yorkshiremen go (funnier than Geoffrey Boycott, anyway). Some consistency would be good in this standards-of-broadcasting-decency debate though.

If there’s one thing this row has achieved, it’s the way some of Britain’s ‘finest commentators’ are coming forward.

This is Richard Littlejohn, who else, in the Daily Mail:

“[the BBC] worship at the altar of ‘diversity’ and are in a constant state of zealous vigilance for any evidence of ‘racism’. The younger members of the tribe simply don’t know any different. They have been brainwashed to believe that ‘racism’ is the most heinous crime on earth”.

http://mymarilyn.blogspot.com/2009/02/blame-parents.html
—

Another point.
Remember the row over Prince Harry last month? Now, imagine if the apologists and the cheerleaders of the “it-was-only-a-joke” and “Political Correctness gone mad” had it their own way.

I suspect, their own ideal world then would turn into a ‘paki’ and a ‘nigger’, a ‘golliwog’ and a ‘queer’, a “love thy neighbour” and a ‘chalky’ after the other. Because, after all, “it is only a joke, isn’t it” and “don’t be OTT” and “stop this loony leftist political correctness”.

Yet, give me PC gone mad any time over the days -for those old enough to remember- when England would beat Brasil 2-0, John Barnes would score a goal and the fans would come home saying the final score was 1-0.

it’s about if society is insulted on their behalf, unfortunately.

I think a deal of what’s important is if the people who heard the phrase were offended. It shouldn’t matter whether she was on or off air when she said it: if you use inappropriate language in your workplace, then your employers are entitled to discipline you or terminate your employment as they feel appropriate.

What I’d really like to see is some backing off on this current fad of analysing every single decision the Beeb makes. All this railing about whether what they allow Thatcher, Clarkson or Ross get away with is not just one of the causes of fiascos like the Gaza appeal handwringing, but is playing right into the hands of the right-wing tabloid media’s anti-Beeb campaign.

Neil: No-one with the ability to be enraged on the behalf of others can be found around Clarkson, and his comedy panders to a set of prejudices that are socially accepted, so he’s safe.

“This sort of thing is never about whether the person a word is directed to is insulted. or if it was intended as offensive, it’s about if society is insulted on their behalf, unfortunately.”

I’m going to play Devil’s advocate here and suggest that society (if by society you mean most people in this country) probably aren’t that bothered. They might consider her comment to be tactless or ill-judged but hardly an intentional racial slur worthy of a sacking.

Incidently I was in Portsmouth a few years ago and golliwogs were openly for sale. I’m told they’re quite common down in Cornwall too. I suspect the shop-owners are motivated by profit rather than racism.

Openly for sale where, Richard?

She said it at work; the correct response is to discipline her. Is it worthy of a sacking? I don’t know; I’m sure her union will represent her if she’s been treated unfairly. If she’s not a member of a union or doesn’t want to ask them then it’s her own fault.

She’s shown no remorse and her press statement suggested there was nothing wrong with her remarks.

Anyway, she’s a Thatcher. She deserves to burn in hell.

By the way, I seem to recall a certain chap working for the BBC describing it as “hideously white”. Whatever happened to him?

“Openly for sale where, Richard?”

I think they were mostly gift shops. Probably the same down in Cornwall as my friend was on holiday there.

Erm, that’s not a racial insult. It’s a description (just like saying it’s hideously middle-class).

Richard #5:

I’m going to play Devil’s advocate here and suggest that society (if by society you mean most people in this country) probably aren’t that bothered. They might consider her comment to be tactless or ill-judged but hardly an intentional racial slur worthy of a sacking.

I disagree, because it seems very much to me that people are bothered enough by the whole incident that we won’t shut up about it. Whether people are offended by what she said, or offended that she was fired for what she said, there’s still a lot of bother being had.

I suspect the shop-owners are motivated by profit rather than racism.

Motivated enough by profit to overlook the racist aspects of what they’re saying. I’m sure a lot of racist actions in the world are motivated by profit, but that doesn’t make acceptable the kind of othering and steroptyping that the gollywogs represent.

Saying someone looks like a golliwog toy is just a description too.

- ‘selling’ not ‘saying’ >_>

Golliwogs are still on sale in quite a lot of seaside towns, alas…
I do find it funny how those who rant about this sacking being ‘political correctness gone mad’ and other such nonsense are the same people who for decades have voted against union rights and other employee protections… if you think people should be able to be sacked arbitrarily, then you can’t complain when they get sacked for reasons you disagree with…

#11 but it’s using a racial slur to do so. You cannot reasonably claim that pointing out that a body funded by the public is grossly unrepresentative is the same as this.

“if you think people should be able to be sacked arbitrarily, then you can’t complain when they get sacked for reasons you disagree with…”

You can agree with a body’s right to sack someone while disagreeing with their reasons for doing so. Similarly, you can defend someone’s right to free speech while disagreeing with what they say.

On the contrary: the BBC had the bollox NOT to braodcast an appeal about Gaza. You may or may not agree with it but the aftermath quite clearly showed that their action was the HARDER path to take and that it would have been much, much easier and required no courage to do the opposite.

“if you think people should be able to be sacked arbitrarily, then you can’t complain when they get sacked for reasons you disagree with…”

You can if its a public organisation where we all have an interest in its policies.

Also nobody is in favour of people being sacked arbitrarily, but freemarketeers oppose labour regulation on private employers because we believe that, in the long term, laissez-faire promotes the interests of both employees and employers. It is irrational for an employer to sack people arbitrarily, and those that do so will find themselves with higher labour costs: http://oxlib.blogspot.com/2009/02/depression-economics.html

“Incidentally, is the BBC going to suspend Jeremy Clarkson for three months for the hurt he might have caused to a certain visually impaired gentleman, or others like him?”

The fuss over this is absolutely nuts incidentally. Gordon Brown *is* blind in one eye and he *is* Scottish. So what we ultimately appear to be saying is that it’s not allowed for anyone working for the BBC to call the Prime Minister an idiot. Which is just bizarre.

In the league table of personal insults, calling someone a ‘golliwog’ ranks about on a par with calling them a ‘muppet’.

You’ve obviously never been told ‘to fuck off back to the jungle you fucking golliwog’ in your life then.

In the league table of personal insults, calling someone a ‘golliwog’ ranks about on a par with calling them a ‘muppet’. Even as a racial insult, it’s not quite the sort of epithet that you hear bandied about at BNP meetings

I have to disagree. A lot. For me, it ranks up there with calling someone a nigger.

The clue is in the last syllable.

Point of information, 5cc: ‘wog’ is short for ‘gollywog’, and still a reference to the doll.

Having said that, the doll itself is an obvious alienation of the other and is widely disliekd for its racist connotations, and the word well established as a racial slur. Unless there’s a history of bigotry in the muppets that I’m not aware of, the comparison of the two words is ridiculous.

Short version. She made an off colour joke that wasn’t meant to offend. It did. She was told that colleagues were unhappy, so she should apologise to them or else they’d not use her freelance services again.

She chose not to apologise. Her choice.

Other than that, I agree with Debi and Leon.

Steve, are you sure it was Monfils? I’ve seen that refuted and someone else named.

As to the etymology of ‘wog’ there really is no satisfactory explanation for it. It first emerges in India in 1920 to describe the poorer babus there. Gollywog was a child’s toy from the late 19th century. It’s possible the one derived from the other, but it’s not a given.

Not that it particularly matters. Wog is offensive, Gollywog is offensive, Carol Thatcher shouldn’t have used the word and ought to have apologised once she did so.

“So what we ultimately appear to be saying is that it’s not allowed for anyone working for the BBC to call the Prime Minister an idiot.”

Simple question: Was it acceptable for someone who works for the BBC to call the Prime Minsister a one eyed Scottish idiot in the 1950s? If not, this is more proof that broadcasting standards have declined since then and we’re all going to hell in a handcart, etc

…is what I don’t expect to read in the Mail. Except maybe Peter Hitchens’ column.

Debi Linton:
Having said that, the doll itself is an obvious alienation of the other

Could you explain what that means please.

If I say you look like Hitler, does that mean that you are Hitler or Hitler like? The doll is/was racist because of it’s characterisation of black people along with the language that was used against black people at the time…in a sense it got adopted, despite never intending to be racist, due to it’s association with other racist terms. However, if Monfil’s is the guy talked about then he does bare a resemblance to the doll…there is absolutely nothing racist in that comparison.

If Carol had come out and said “He looks like that gollywog, but then they all do don’t they?” then you might have a point.

Lee:
Gael Monfils
golliwog
Notice any differences? Because I certainly do – note the skin that is the colour of human flesh, the lips that aren’t bright red, the presence of a nose, and the whole being a human being rather than a racist caricature thing…

Trofim:

Sorry for the poor communication.

The doll, and the character it’s based on, was designed by white people for white people, depicting a definite ‘Them’ from which amusement and entertainment can be found. It emphases racial characteristics for fun. Any deliberate malice or otherwise in that intent is irrelevent: it demonstrates that They are not like Us: they are Others.

Is this any clearer?

I’ve read that she referred to the tennis player as ‘that golliwog’. (And, according to the Telegraph, she was referring to Tsonga: )

Even so:

However, if Monfil’s is the guy talked about then he does bare a resemblance to the doll…there is absolutely nothing racist in that comparison.

If she (or anyone else) described someone by saying they ‘look like a nigger minstrel’ would that be okay? Even if the person had really really big eyes and a wide smile?

I’d hope not.

Sorry for the double post. Links missing from that last one.

Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4511804/Carol-Thatcher-golliwog-jibe-referred-to-black-tennis-player-Jo-Wilfried-Tsonga.html

‘That golliwog’: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23634925-details/Thatcher+said+golliwog+twice/article.do

“If she (or anyone else) described someone by saying they ‘look like a nigger minstrel’ would that be okay? Even if the person had really really big eyes and a wide smile?”

If you’re saying person A looks like item X then the connotations that item X has over all people like person A (through race or otherwise) doesn’t hold. I’d wonder why someone would feel it necessary to say nigger specifically, but I feel you’re loading the comparison unnecessarily.

I’d wonder why someone would feel it necessary to say nigger specifically, but I feel you’re loading the comparison unnecessarily.

Why? The word ‘golliwog’ includes the word ‘wog’.

More on the actual incident: Carol Thatcher’s golliwog remarks ‘made eyes roll in the green room’:

Thatcher, who had been drinking, her spokeswoman admitted, is alleged to have referred to “the golliwog frog”, thought to be a reference to the French player Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, who has a white French mother and a black Congolese father.

As some rolled their eyes and others challenged Thatcher about her use of the word, she is said to have responded, “well, he’s half-golliwog”, prompting Brand to leave the room in disgust. It is understood that Thatcher then said: “Now I’m in trouble, just like Prince Harry.”

Lee, “[Person A] looks like [Object X]“, where Object X is a clear and obvious caricature of stereotyped features associated with race M, is pretty much the equivalent of saying “[Person A] looks like [Racial Sterotype M].” I’m not really seeing how this is not racist, even without the historical connotations of “[Object X]” being used as a racial slur.

“[Person A] looks like [Racial Sterotype M].”

Just because someone looks like a racial stereotype doesn’t make it racist…it just means they happen to look like a stereotype. They’re pretty much the exception to the rule.

“Why? The word ‘golliwog’ includes the word ‘wog’.”

The word wog came from Golliwog, and while some people want to take golliwog as an offensive name because some people used the term wog it is a million miles away from the word nigger and it’s use.

That being said, (i’ve fixed your link, it wasn’t working), if the events are as described then of course it’s not defensible, but then if it’s true she wasn’t saying he looked like a golliwog (which is what my arguments have been based on).

Just because someone looks like a racial stereotype doesn’t make it racist…

What would be the point of saying it otherwise?? Do you call someone a nigger because you don’t know what else to say?? Do you casually throw in the word Paki because you can’t think of another description?

What would be the definition of racism?

If I casually said I think the world was dominated by a Jewish Lobby, you wouldn’t think I’m a bit of an anti-semitic crank?

the term wog it is a million miles away from the word nigger and it’s use.

Lee, have you ever heard a bunch of racists talking? Or seen someone attacked because of their skin colour?

I have, on both counts, and the both words are equally charged with negative connotations; “Wogs out” has been scrawled in exactly the same way, with the same meaning, as “niggers out”. You might not have encountered such a usage, but I can assure you I and many others have. You’re wrong on that point. Really.

Let’s be clear, that what I’m referring to was the previous allegation that she said the tennis player looked like a gollywog (as in the toy).

If you can’t see the difference between saying someone looks like a toy, and saying someone looks like a nigger, then I really haven’t the time to engage with you.

As for you Mat, let’s try putting that statement in context shall we?

“The word wog came from Golliwog, and while some people want to take golliwog as an offensive name because some people used the term wog it is a million miles away from the word nigger and it’s use.”

I don’t believe Wog and Nigger are a million miles from each other, I think golliwog (referenced as a toy) and nigger (referenced as a racist adjective to minstrels) are, regardless of the fact that Wog came about due to the golliwog’s existence. Wog is the insulting word here, god forbid we start also deeming the words that insults are derived from as being insults too when not used in an insulting context!

Boris Johnson (or Johhhnson according to the Times) has now defended Thatcher. I’m not sure whether the analogy “pot calling the kettle black” is inappropriate, or too appropriate.

If you can’t see the difference between saying someone looks like a toy, and saying someone looks like a nigger, then I really haven’t the time to engage with you.

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, then you better make some time.

I can’t see the difference really because in the latter case you’d just then argue that saying someone looked like a nigger or a paki was just describing what they looked like, as opposed to being used as an insult.

Furthermore, why hasn’t she apologised for at least the offence it may have caused?

In what context would comparing someone to a golliwog ever be acceptable?

It managed to compact into one doll all the archetypes of racism towards blacks, all the kind of imagery which Enoch Powell would invoke in Rivers of Blood.

Perhaps we should re-evaluate that speech and claim it was perfectly reasonable to refer to black children as charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies whose only English was the word “racialist” because as far as we know that’s what they looked like.

Would Lee like to write an article for LibCon entitled “In defence of blackface?”

“I can’t see the difference really because in the latter case you’d just then argue that saying someone looked like a nigger or a paki was just describing what they looked like, as opposed to being used as an insult.”

Well then you can’t see the difference, I can’t make you see the difference.

“Furthermore, why hasn’t she apologised for at least the offence it may have caused?”

God knows, not my issue.

“In what context would comparing someone to a golliwog ever be acceptable?”

When they actually do bare a passing resemblance to the toy.

“It managed to compact into one doll all the archetypes of racism towards blacks, all the kind of imagery which Enoch Powell would invoke in Rivers of Blood.”

Really? Did it automatically go to your job and take it from you, perhaps rape your wives? My understanding is that during a time socially that black people were misrepresented in this way that it was little more discriminatory than we in current society treat chavs. In 50 years time will we have people crying rivers in outrage when a tv presenter says “my gosh, that celebrity looks just like Vicky Pollard”?

When they actually do bare a passing resemblance to the toy.

So it would, be extension of logic, be acceptable to remark that someone looks exactly like a minstrel in blackface?

Provided they have the googly eyes, watermelon smile and “a purple wound” for a mouth?

Really? Did it automatically go to your job and take it from you, perhaps rape your wives? My understanding is that during a time socially that black people were misrepresented in this way that it was little more discriminatory than we in current society treat chavs. In 50 years time will we have people crying rivers in outrage when a tv presenter says “my gosh, that celebrity looks just like Vicky Pollard”?

So you see no connection between the fact that golliwogs were based on blackface minstrels and Powell’s references to “children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. ‘Racialist’, they chant.”

Surely, if golliwog is not racist, neither is piccaninny?

You’re not very familiar with social history then? Like, as an example, the signs which read “No Dogs. No Irish. No Coloureds.” Or perhaps the fucking Notting Hill riots in the 1950s where we had 300-400 whites screaming “Keep Britain White” and attacking Afro-Caribbean immigrants?

Remind me when you saw a similar mob descending on Dewsbury.

43 posts on name calling. What a fuss over nothing. She was wrong, but she was on a hiding to nothing amongst such well-known lefties.

Personally, I’m quite happy to see her get the sack. The more the BBC cuts its slack the better, and there’s a lot of it:

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2235926/bbc-slammed-blocking-nao

Really? Did it automatically go to your job and take it from you, perhaps rape your wives?

This really is sophistry. Does racism only happen when you have the National Front throwing bricks at your window?

If someone scrawled on your car or your house or said it to your face – you’d think it was ok? Because all they’re doing is saying that your face looks like a toy? After all, I suppose all black people look the same, isn’t it?

Stop digging that hole Lee…. I appreciate you’re our resident devil’s advocate but this is getting rather tedious.

Last month the BBC decided that the Night Garden Upsey Daisy doll wasn’t black enough and replaced it: now it looks more like something off a jam jar. It’ll be interesting how that decision looks 20 years from now.

Is ‘wog’ a derivative of ‘gollywog’ or vise versa? The former is a more general term.

I’m white with very curly hair and have been called golliwog and called myself golliwog many times – I thought it just meant someone with curly hair. I obviously won’t use it again!

Also, what is the point of making people stop saying these words in fear their careers would be over. It doesn’t stop them having the feelings, just makes them repress it. Isn’t it better to have everyone saying what they feel in public so we as a society can deal with it ?

Steve Bell portrayed Tony Blair as one-eyed for years but it was accepted because he had two. Now that we’ve actually got a one-eyed PM we can’t mention it.

Lee, you can spot ‘xenophobia’ and ‘jingoism’ at Lindsay but not when a Thatcher desribes someone as looking like a gollywog?

“The word wog came from Golliwog, and while some people want to take golliwog as an offensive name because some people used the term wog it is a million miles away from the word nigger and it’s use.”

Sorry – that’s not why I think the name golliwog is offensive at all. Sorry if I gave a different impression. ‘Golliwog’ is in and of itself a racist epithet that probably became shortened to ‘wog’. Both terms – ‘wog’ and ‘golliwog’ are offensive, and it’s almost impossible to separate the two. That’s why you often see them described as ‘golly dolls’ or ‘gollies’.

That’s also why I compared it to ‘nigger minstrel’. That term also describes something in a way that it was once commonly described, which also includes something that is also racist term.

Describing someone as ‘looking like a golly doll’ might possible be slightly more acceptable. Trouble is, even then they’d be saying someone looks like an extreme racist caricature that, as Debi said, emphasised racial characteristics for fun.

“If someone scrawled on your car or your house or said it to your face – you’d think it was ok? Because all they’re doing is saying that your face looks like a toy? After all, I suppose all black people look the same, isn’t it?”

Haha! This is amazing. I’m going to copy and paste what I said early, as clearly this debate is going to go the way of the prison reform ones where more subtle distinctions are unable to be made.

If you’re saying person A looks like item X then the connotations that item X has over all people like person A (through race or otherwise) doesn’t hold.

Or, to clarify, saying someone looks like a toy doesn’t logically extend to saying that person looks the same as all other people of their race..not unless you believe the toy to look like every person of a certain race. You are making quite a leap of faith, though it is all irrelevant seeming as it doesn’t appear to have happened the way I originally read.

“That’s why you often see them described as ‘golly dolls’ or ‘gollies’. ”

Yep, gollywog is so offensive we simply shortened the name and it became more acceptable again. Give me a break.

“emphasised racial characteristics for fun.”

If someone happened, through no fault of their own let’s say, to share enough of those “emphasised racial characteristics” to bare a passing resemblance to the toy, would it still be wrong to state the obvious?

But anyway, we’ve been here before, lots on LC would rather we all didn’t say anything even remotely near to insulting lest we say anything offensive, I would rather people stopped getting so offended over nothing, this debate obviously isn’t going any further than that. Thatcher clearly referenced this tennis player in a way that is absolutely not acceptable, so the original point is moot anyway.

“Surely, if golliwog is not racist, neither is piccaninny?”

People on this site need to stop making their own extensions to what people are saying to allege they’re saying something they’re not.

Yep, gollywog is so offensive we simply shortened the name and it became more acceptable again. Give me a break.

How is ‘golly doll’ shorter than ‘golliwog’?

The word ‘nigger’ is derived from the Latin ‘niger’ meaning ‘black’, by way of the Portugese ‘negro’, a term still considered acceptable by Martin Luther King in the 60′s.

Knowing that makes sod-all difference to the word’s offensiveness: words accrue meanings and connotations with little regard to their origin. It’s also the eighth most common expletive involuntarily uttered by American sufferers of coprolalia (a symptom of Tourette’s).

I am officially giving up on Lee’s Wall of Privilege. I’ve hurt my head too many times knocking against it.

Lilliput #46:

Also, what is the point of making people stop saying these words in fear their careers would be over. It doesn’t stop them having the feelings, just makes them repress it. Isn’t it better to have everyone saying what they feel in public so we as a society can deal with it ?

I’d say definitely not, because words and feelings are a constant feedback loop, and if you know words are offensive because they echo thoughts, it’s best to have the kind of society where it’s acknowledged certain modes of speech is offensive. Right Speech being as important as Right Thoughts and all that. And beyond that, words are harmful and can cause hurt. And when someone uses words that cause harm, they should face consequences for that usage.

People on this site need to stop making their own extensions to what people are saying to allege they’re saying something they’re not.

They’re both racial epithets, they both refer to the same visual image of someone who is black. The only difference is that golliwog was a doll and a picaninny was an image of a black child.

Yet picaninny is regarded as offensive by you?

Thanks for the in-depth rebuttal though.

I would rather people stopped getting so offended over nothing, this debate obviously isn’t going any further than that

Let me put it this way. I would rather not that certain words that have racist connotations come back into acceptable use just because some people think I should grow a pair.

As I said before in the ‘paki’ debate. If someone though I looked like a ‘wog’ or a ‘Paki’ I’d still punch them in the face.

Now, someone else might not punch them in the face, but I guess I’m more willing to make a point about what’s offensive. Now, you can argue endlessly about whether words hurt, but you’ll find a consensus among non-whites that they find the word ‘golliwog’ or ‘wog’ offensive.

I think it’s time you started accepting that not everyone comes from the same background as you, and hence some people carry baggage that reflects a different world-view. Sure, you don’t like it. I’m just still pointing out that your attempts at explaining this away are pretty lame I think.

I don’t think it suggests any degree of sympathy for the use of racially-based epithets, however, to feel that the reaction to Thatcher’s foot-in-mouth has been just a little OTT.

The whole issue is a load of fuss about nothing. Who cares what a minor celebrity said in a private conversation? I don’t.

I suspect the word ‘picanniny’ would have disapeared entirely if Enoch Powell had never used it: I’ve honestly never heard it outside that quotation.

Though, to add to that, I think that I don’t really care what people say in private, though this wasn’t really a point made to friends – it was made in wider company where inevitably the words might have gotten out.

I’m more pleased that the BBC have half-dropped her, because I wouldn’t expect PBS broadcasters to endorse such behaviour.

I suspect the word ‘picanniny’ would have disapeared entirely if Enoch Powell had never used it: I’ve honestly never heard it outside that quotation.

Boris Johnson used it on a number of occasions.

The whole issue is a load of fuss about nothing. Who cares what a minor celebrity said in a private conversation? I don’t.

Inevitable progression of a news story, it has now developed into a mutli-headed hydra of people defending the BBC’s decision, people defending Carol Thatcher, some nutters who are ranting about free speech and setting up front sites for themselves and a thousand shades of opinion in between. Needless to say, each individual head is trying to kill the others.

The word ‘golliwog’ includes the word ‘wog’.

And the word snigger contains the word……….

Ha Ha Ha

The word ‘golliwog’ includes the word ‘wog’.

And the word snigger contains the word……….

Good comparison – those two things are exactly alike.

That was sarcasm.

To be fair to Boris, when he used it he was trying to make the point that there’s an element of condescension in British attitudes to the Commonwealth which could be regarded as racist. He was not using the word in propria persona, and this is perfectly clear in context.

Thatcher, on the other hand, even in the reports most favourable to her, appears to have been at least breathtakingly insensitive; I would say downright racist. Good riddance to her.

BTW, I love the conspiracy theory that this is the BBC’s cunning way of getting at her mother. “What can we do to tick off Lady T? I know, let’s hire her daughter, employ her for several years, wait for her to make a racist remark, then bingo, we can FIRE her! That’ll show the old bag!”

“Good comparison – those two things are exactly alike.”

No need for sarcasm. They are exactly alike. They are both words.

Whenever any word is prohibited or it’s usage is restricted that fact demeans us all and threatens all of our freedoms. The words that have been deemed acceptable to refer to individuals and groups of individuals with dark skin colours have changed over time and location. Some have no doubt been used mainly in a derogatory context and with the intention of causing offence. Some have been prohibited, then partially rehabilitated.

But they are all words, none having any greater intrinsic value than another. The offended will try to interpret offence whether intended or not but I refuse to bow down to their intimidation and accept that there are certain words I am prohibited from speaking or writing. Because my thinking is also done in words and once the word ceases to exist I am unable to have the thought.

‘But word are words, I never yet did hear
‘That the bruised heart was pierced through the ear’

Still, anyone who calls me a ‘chav’ can expect a smack in the gob.

Incidentally, pagar, you don’t think in words otherwise you wouldn’t need to struggle to put your thoughts into words and you would remember what you had heard or said exactly, not just the gist: it also implies babies and animals are incapable of thought.

The idea that words are the stuff of ideas is a myth put out by postmodernists and self-important writers.

At least she didn’t sleep with Manuel’s granddaughter.

“The idea that words are the stuff of ideas is a myth put out by postmodernists and self-important writers.”

Words are the medium through which ideas (or thoughts) are expressed. If the word does not exist the thought cannot be effectively communicated.

There is no doubt that that there is an agenda by the PC tendency to censor thought by controlling language.

I won’t have it Shatterface, you bloody chav. (Glad to be offensive to a honky whilst I still can).

“There is no doubt that that there is an agenda by the PC tendency to censor thought by controlling language.”

You’ll have no problem citing the minutes from the meeting of “the pc tendency” where they resolved to censor thought by banning people from saying golliwog then.

Pagar, you hove now been formally notified I owe you one smack in the gob

“prompting Brand to leave the room in disgust”

So a woman who made a career at being offensive gets upset when someone else is being similarly offensive. Pathetic.