My thanks to B-BBC reader Martin for bringing up the curious reluctance of the BBC to take action against Strictly Come Dancing judge Anton du Beke who referred to contestant Laila Rouass as “a paki.” This compares with the alacrity with which the BBC moved to dismiss Carol Thatcher following her “golliwog” comment. Now then, I see no reason why Du Beke should be dismissed for what was a clumsy but not a nasty comment on the rather beguiling Ms Rouass, but since a precedent was set in the case of Carol Thatcher, surely it has no choice but to axe their Strictly star? Perhaps Arlene Philips could be brought back in his place?
Anton du Beke is one of the dancers David, not a judge. So it would be rather ridiculous for Arlene Philips to replace him as Laila’s partner.
Oh I don’t know, it might make for a good laugh. The issue is the BBC have played tihs down across most of the network (in fairness blubber man Stephen Nolan has covered it on 5 live late at night, mostly because callers have wanted to cover it) and it is rather curious. I understand that in the case of Carol Thatcher she was ‘dismissed’ as she refused to apologise, yet Du Beke initially denied the incident.
It doesn’t look good though, I wonder if Du Beke is a Labour party supporter perhaps?
David
You may see no reason, but the BBC has been clear that du Beke apologised unconditionally, whilst Carole T flailed around trying to explain why calling people Golliwog was a joke. Just as important, I’d have thought, is that Carole was a reporter, representing the BBC, while Mr du Beke is one of a dozen hoofers chosen to escort the, er, stars of the series around the dance floor.
Du Beke is more than a Hoofer, I think he’s actually done other TV shows for the BBC. I think the point here is that Jonathan Ross apologised and got a short ban, Carole Thatcher didn’t actually say what she said to a particular person (it was in what she thought was a private conversation) unlike Du Beke who actually did say it to the woman who from what I’ve read was in tears at the comment. I’m sure we all remember the awful chav woman that verbally abused Indian actress Shilpa Shetty and the BBC indulging in their racist accusations there.
Thatcher did apologize. She just didn’t apologize in the approved manner, confessing to her racism. She no more represents the BBC than does du Beke. He said it was “in jest”, and got away with it because he didn’t deny that he was a racist for saying it.
BBC One controller Jay Hunt said that Thatcher apologized, but did not agree that she meant it in a racist fashion. She, too, said it was made in jest. For that, she was fired. du Beke has done nothing different, yet for some unknown reason, his apology was accepted. I guess he apologized in the approved, Maoist fashion. Listen to Hunt’s words. She says very clearly that not only was the apology “key”, but maintained that an apology was not enough without admitting that her thoughts were offensive as well has her words.
I guess he apologized in the approved, Maoist fashion
If giving a straightforward apology is Maoist, perhaps. Presumably a grudging apology is the acceptable, non-Maoist version?
Not grudging. One may apologize for causing offense even if one did not intend to cause offense. Jay Hunt said that Carol Thatcher was required to admit that she intended to cause offense. There’s a difference.
Either du Beke was not required to admit that he intended to cause offense, or he he gave in to keep his job. Hence it’s being reported that he apologized “unconditionally”.
There are times when one unintentionally causes offense. In those cases it is generally acceptable for one to apologize for having caused offense, while still maintaining that is was unintentional. BBC employees do this all the time, actually. In the case of Thatcher, it seems that she was additionally required to confess a thought and intent which she did not have in her mind at the time.
That’s Maoist.
Aside from that, do you care to defend the BBC against my charge that they lied in the article to which David V has linked?
The BBC has pointed out that Thatcher refused to apologise for her comments.
This is a lie. At 1:49 into this video clip, BBC One Controller Jay Hunt states very clearly that Thatcher “apologized”. Her issue was that Thatcher did not apologize in the approved manner, admitting that she meant to cause offense. Thatcher was required to apologize for intending to cause offense. She refused to say that she intended to cause offense, and was fired for it.
Can you defend the BBC against my charge that they have now lied about it?
Boris
I bow to your superior knowledge of this quality BBC programme.
Guest,
So, “Paki” is ok then but “golliwog” not? I see,
David,
That’s not what I said. The issue is whether the individual accepted the offence. Dancing du Beke did. Ms Thatcher did not.
No – the difference is one is called Thatcher and the other isn’t
The difference is one didn’t apologize in the approved fashion. They both said the remarks were in jest. You have no way of knowing what was in du Beke’s mind when he made his apology. All you know is that his apology was accepted because he didn’t try to claim he wasn’t a racist and apologized in the quasi-Maoist fashion which was required of him.
Thatcher was immediately demonized by her colleagues, while du Beke was fortunate enough not to make his remarks in front of Jo Brand and other busy bodies. The subject of Thatcher’s remark wasn’t even in the same country at the time, while du Beke made his remark straight to the person’s face.
But otherwise, yeah, Thatcher’s offense was far worse.
Here are two sackings the BBC did earlier:
1.) Ms. Sam Mason.
“Sam Mason sacked from BBC radio Bristol”
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Local-BBC-radio-presenter-sacked/article-464172-detail/article.html
2.)Mr. Kilroy-Silk.
“BBC bans Kilroy-Silk in racism row.”
(Note the role of the Muslim Council of Britain.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1451318/BBC-bans-Kilroy-Silk-in-racism-row.html
Has BBC sacked any non-white staff for anti-white ‘racist’ remarks off-air?
David,
Anton seems a pretty nice bloke and he has apologised. He is also the presenter of the wall and auntie was building him up to be the housewives favourite.
What is really sad about DuBeque and Thatcher is both their remarks were made off Camera. Both made a slip in a private moment and both were ‘sold out’ by colleagues.
It really is sad as I think both are genuinely good people whos intention was not to offend and yet Stephen Fry and his mates on BBC2 are allowed to talk about the funeral of an old lady not yet dead. They are allowed to say that the funeral would be a day of celebration and that people would use her grave as a lavatory. She may be thatcher the curse of the Left but she is still a frail old lady with altseimers.
I ask all the beeboids here which is worse Carols of the cuff outdated but naff rather than offensive observation or the total lack of respect from the peopl on QI for a former prime minister and war leader.
I am from the North East and people dont care much for maggie up here but at least they have the taste and decency not to mock someone who can no longer fight back
Above should have my name oops
(With apologies to Rod Seacole Liddle.):
“Change your name to Seacole will eradicate your inner racist”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/rodliddle/5385933/changing-your-name-to-seacole-will-eradicate-your-inner-racist.thtml
There is a differnce here, Du Beke made his comment face to face with th person concerned with other people present, Carole Thatcher made hers in a private moment, Du Beke’s was clearly aimed at a woman of mixed race Thatcher simply made reference to a child’s toy.
Surely the BBC pronunciation Unit would insist that the correct pronunciation is PAHR-KI?
There is a massive difference; Carol Thatcher is the devil’s daughter and so must be punished to show who are the masters now.
NotaSheep,
Thatcher should have been fired simply for getting the reference wrong. The guy wasnt a gollywog, he was a gollyfrog! 😀
Mailman
More PC nonsense. Du Beke’s dancing partner should get a life and grow a thick skin. If she continues to bleat then she’s minus one dance partner and the Beeb is minus Brucie’s successor.
Yet another example of how political correctness is imploding with ever more farcical episodes.
Yup, one was called Thatcher and Adrian Chiles was not invited to Strictly – these are the differences.
I’ve never heard of this woman until now, but boy if you google her she’s one sexy lady, I guess that makes me a sexist pig? Well guilty and proud.
That’s two of us Martin.
Phwooaarr!