- This topic has 86 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
or in a private box at ascot with lennox, eubank and benn – he’d have thought very ****
ing carefully about what he said there i reckonmaybe he had a bet with someone along the lines of the bbc journo who had to say ‘phil the greek’ in a piece about prince phillip – whatever, i’d put money on it being planned
I am only thankful he didn’t mention ‘Gyppo’s’ or there would have been major uproar on a horse racing forum somewhere
In my dictionary racism "the belief that racial differences produce an inherent superiority for a particular race".
Now maybe there are different definitions and I will stand corrected.
This comment is not racist, this comment is the inappropriate use of language. Yes I will agree that a commentator or in fact any person should refrain from using such language however there is no reason to totally villify this man and ask that he lose his job.
Keep this comment in context. It is not racist.
trackside you can use just about any word you like as an insult if thats what you mean it to be.
The word is only a racist slur if its meant in that context. By your definition the word slave should then also be banned as that can also be a racist slur?
I understand it isn’t nice or decent to use certain words but not everyone is alike some just use words without any real meaning at all, to chastise these people isn’t right surely? Their big crime is using a word with no nasty intent just usually out of thoughtlessness. Unfortunate perhaps but not a hanging offence surely?
No-one is talking about hanging, criminalisation or anything of the sort. If you work on television, you have to choose your words carefully. That is what you are paid to do and that is why working live on television is more of a skill than people generally accept.
The word we are talking about is an insult, it was coined as an insult and it has been used as in insult for centuries and a racist insult at that. The man who used it didn’t do so in his living room, with his mates in the pub or at an Eric Clapton concert, he used it on television. Should he be hung, imprisoned or have his fingernails pulled out? No. Should he be reprimanded? Yes. Was it a deliberately calculated act intended to stir up racial hatred? No. Was it clumsy and unprofessional? Yes.
Yet again we see that the really sensitive people are those who want to have the freedom to offend anyone at any time they like (a freedom which they have, by the way) but get all defensive should anyone pick them up on it.
(Edited by Aranalde at 9:12 pm on June 21, 2007)
Quote: from trackside528 on 9:15 pm on June 21, 2007[br]
Quote: from Flash on 8:49 pm on June 21, 2007[br]trackside you can use just about any word you like as an insult if thats what you mean it to be.
The word is only a racist slur if its meant in that context. By your definition the word slave should then also be banned as that can also be a racist slur?
I understand it isn’t nice or decent to use certain words but not everyone is alike some just use words without any real meaning at all, to chastise these people isn’t right surely? Their big crime is using a word with no nasty intent just usually out of thoughtlessness. Unfortunate perhaps but not a hanging offence surely?
<br>I know he didn’t mean what he said as a racist remark (he was talking about a horse FFS), and I know that, as a man once wiser than myself once put it, context is everything.
That said, given the word’s obvious racist connotations, I don’t believe it is right to say it no matter what the intent or context.
As for "some people saying words with no meaning at all," again I agree with you that this happens quite often.. certainly not a hanging offence (not sure if that was meant to be an ironic comment or not btw), but one to be chastised over IMO..
<br>I just think political correctness is going far too far. In this case is it really right that the guy should lose his job for example?
I don’t think so maybe a word in his ear saying " Hey, do you realise what you said? It was a bit silly, please think in future and make sure you don’t say something like that again".
Sufficient in this instance surely?
I think its a fine line between reprimand, suspension or sacking, but that’s for the producers of the programme to decide. I wouldn’t say it was as bad as Ron Atkinson’s comment on Desailly (I think it was Desailly?) but some sort of reprimand is probably the right thing to do. And since pretty much everyone on this thread agrees that on balance he shouldn’t have said it, I guess we’re not disagreeing over very much.
Quote: from Aranalde on 9:11 pm on June 21, 2007[br]No-one is talking about hanging, criminalisation or anything of the sort. If you work on television, you have to choose your words carefully. <br>
Spot on, Aranalde. Whether you believe the remark to be racist or just plain old offensive, either way a TV presenter should not be uttering it. I think that is all that really matters at the end of the day.
The same phrase was used by another pundit on the old ATR. It started a similar debate to this one.<br>Interestingly, the fact that it has not been mentioned here suggests it has now been forgotten.<br>I don’t know the person involved in this case or the nature of his involvement but I would guess that if he was a pundit he won’t be asked on again (why take the risk?) and that if he’s an employee he’d be liable to some kind of disciplinary action as his contract of employment would very likely include reference to not making remarks of that nature.<br>I’ve no idea what the intent was of the person using the phrase.<br>For the producers it’s a very serious matter indeed and ultimately their responsibility and they would be duty bound to take all necessary steps to ensure no repeat.<br>The fact that the phrase was used and that it has been defended by so many here is astonishing to me. I don’t understand how anyone could claim that the phrase was not of itself racist nor intended to be insulting. What does this phrase mean? How can it be deemed to be anything other than deliberately offensive? Not only does this phrase utilise one of the most politically charged words in the English language it does so in a context where the entire meaning of the phrase is based on the assumption that the subject is a hidden threat/danger/cause of upset. It has no meaning otherwise. <br>So, was it intended to be racist? Doesn’t matter the fact is it is racist and it is certain to offend would be the verdict of many viewers I’d have thought and certainly of Ofcom.<br>There’s a world of difference between over zealous PC policing and the sanctioning of language during a broadcast which is clearly based on a racist premise, uses racist terminology and is absolutely certain to offend.<br> An interesting thread though with some excellent points well made.
Quote: from benbdb on 10:50 am on June 21, 2007[br]its not the using of the word that bothers me, i never really do, i just dont see how it is offensive if a white person says it in a non-derogatory sense and yet it is accepted as normal when makes up every third word in a load of rap artists vocabulary. thats more racist than the word itself.<br>
Eddie Murphy, Richard Prior, and the likes.
In reply to Sean Boyce, yes it is a racist term, but n- in the wood pile, is a statement you pick up in the school yard, or your parents use it, so its passed down the line. Most people don’t even think about its meaning, just something everyone one of us spurts out, now and then.
As I said earlier, Sean, I witnessed both the phrase and the context of the phase there and then. I need to clarify something, as I contributed to the thread earlier.
I don’t understand how anyone could claim that the phrase was not of itself racist nor intended to be insulting
It was more a slip of the tongue than anything else and both presenters beat both a hasty retreat, continuing with the analysis in the vain hope that no-one would notice – least said, soonest mended.
The presenter delivered the phrase in the midst of a long sentence in an attempt to amplify a point he was making about the chance of a Brisbourne horse, which won. He clearly had a sneaky fancy for it. I suspect he got carried away and, I guess, forgot where he was.
It was certainly light years away from the malicious locker room viciousness displayed by Atkinson who used the N word as a verbal assault.
Whether it is racist or not, I won’t no part of a kangaroo court. The above happened. How you interpret it all is down to individuals.
From a personal point of view, it’s not a word or term that I use and I don’t think that it’s appropriate. If anyone complains he should apologise and promise not to say it again.
I agree with Max.
Quote: from Maxilon 5 on 1:01 pm on June 21, 2007[br]Racing UK employed a black paddock analyst at Sandown’s evening meeting three weeks ago.
He was excellent, picking out a big priced Channon winner. I enjoyed his pre-race commentary and didn’t know he was black until the final race.<br>
I suggest you buy a new telly – your contrast is obviously f**ked.
Surley the real scandal is why RUK are using Joe Rowntree as a pundit – it’s like when the Sportsman went tits up, who was the first person to get work back on the Racing Post? That’s right, G Lester.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.