Ot Danny Baker Sacked

[WanChaiMiller]

Doesnt take much to see the link between the chimp and an implied line of heritage from one side of the family that is prevalent in certain sections of the community.

I believe him when he says there was no racial basis for it. But, for him not to see it from the outset is stupid.

Should organisations sack people for these mistakes however hurtful they me be?

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Doesnt take much to see the link between the chimp and an implied line of heritage from one side of the family that is prevalent in certain sections of the community.

I believe him when he says there was no racial basis for it. But, for him not to see it from the outset is stupid.

Should organisations sack people for these mistakes however hurtful they me be?

The BBC are very selective in how they hire and fire. Baker's tweet wasn't the cleverest thing he's ever done but I reckon they were quick to sack him because he's got a lucrative contract with them and they were waiting for an excuse.

Now though some "anonymous" person has complained to the police and they are investigating whether or not it was racially motivated. A witch hunt of the highest order.

Meanwhile at the BBC many people have complained that environmentalist Chris Packham has been using BBC programs to further his own agenda and activism. There's even a petition on change.org that's attracted 140000 signatures to sack him. The BBC have completely ignored it, no comment and haven't really reported it.

So Baker is sacked for one daft bad joke whilst Packham is still employed.

That's how daft it is.

[WanChaiMiller]

Grist - the simple thing with Packham is if you agree with him its ok. Cant see the link between his situation and Baker.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Grist - the simple thing with Packham is if you agree with him its ok. Cant see the link between his situation and Baker.

The BBC sacked Baker with the comment: “This was a serious error of judgment and goes against the values we as a station aim to embody.

One of the other values of the BBC is supposedly impartiality, Packham has breached that on numerous occasions and he uses the BBC as a vehicle to promote his own views, the alternative view isn’t put forward.

So sack for one mistake but don’t sack for numerous breaches of BBC values?

[sota]

Chuffin' 'ell what can we joke about nowadays? People are losing the ability to laugh at one another, bit more importantly at themselves.

[KerrAvon]

I love a good joke as much as anyone, sota and if posting piss poor jokes was a crime then several of the posters on here would be doing time for their repeated offending, but the image Baker posted wasn't even remotely funny. It was just very offensive.

[sota]

I guess we have different levels of being offended mate. I'm not as easily offended as you, that's for sure.

[KerrAvon]

The BBC are very selective in how they hire and fire. Baker's tweet wasn't the cleverest thing he's ever done but I reckon they were quick to sack him because he's got a lucrative contract with them and they were waiting for an excuse.

Now though some "anonymous" person has complained to the police and they are investigating whether or not it was racially motivated. A witch hunt of the highest order.

Meanwhile at the BBC many people have complained that environmentalist Chris Packham has been using BBC programs to further his own agenda and activism. There's even a petition on change.org that's attracted 140000 signatures to sack him. The BBC have completely ignored it, no comment and haven't really reported it.

So Baker is sacked for one daft bad joke whilst Packham is still employed.

That's how daft it is.

Do you have an example of Packham using BBC programs 'to further his own agenda and activism'. I confess that I haven't followed the debate closely, but I have never seen that suggested.

I think there is a huge difference between a presenter who expresses views on controversial issues such as Corvid shooting
and someone who posts an image that is simply and gratuitously offensive to a large swathe of the population.

[KerrAvon]

I guess we have different levels of being offended mate. I'm not as easily offended as you, that's for sure.

I wasn't offended by the image, sota, but that's not the point.

[sota]

Sorry Kerr, it's been a while. I can't keep up with all this PC nonsense. I thought the image was a skit from an old photo? What can we laugh at and what can't we laugh at these days? Who makes the rules?