Motoring3 mins ago
Should We Now Be Very Careful What We Choose To Discuss?
71 Answers
http://
/// Discussing the ‘Golliwog’ image on Robertson’s jam is “inherently racist” as the term is so offensive, a judge ruled ///
/// Lord Justice Floyd, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said that saying the term in front of a black person, whatever the context, was “offensive", as he upheld a ruling that chef who discussed the image was guilty of racial harassment. ///
Even if one is not in front of a black person????????????
/// Mr McAleese's account was that he and Miss Lindsay had their backs turned to each other as they innocently discussed food and packaging. After chatting about Walker's crisps, he said the conversation turned to Robertson's jam and the fact that its label had changed. ///
Though it seems for this person it was too late to get her hands on some easy money.
/// But the Court of Appeal’s decision may give little comfort to Miss Lindsay who was told she had lodged her complaint too late (5 months after the offence) and that it would not be 'just and equitable' to allow her to continue with her compensation claim against the LSE. ///.
/// Discussing the ‘Golliwog’ image on Robertson’s jam is “inherently racist” as the term is so offensive, a judge ruled ///
/// Lord Justice Floyd, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said that saying the term in front of a black person, whatever the context, was “offensive", as he upheld a ruling that chef who discussed the image was guilty of racial harassment. ///
Even if one is not in front of a black person????????????
/// Mr McAleese's account was that he and Miss Lindsay had their backs turned to each other as they innocently discussed food and packaging. After chatting about Walker's crisps, he said the conversation turned to Robertson's jam and the fact that its label had changed. ///
Though it seems for this person it was too late to get her hands on some easy money.
/// But the Court of Appeal’s decision may give little comfort to Miss Lindsay who was told she had lodged her complaint too late (5 months after the offence) and that it would not be 'just and equitable' to allow her to continue with her compensation claim against the LSE. ///.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You don' understand racism , do you AOG, and this case is evidence of it. Look what the judges said of the ribunal's decision. This man knew that the other would be offended, seeing the comment as racially motivated, he wasn't truthful when recounting the incident and the conclusion is that he intended it to hurt when he said it.
You and I can say gollywog as much as we like, but not as a term of abuse to a black man.
You and I can say gollywog as much as we like, but not as a term of abuse to a black man.
If one talks about a golliwog doll then what is the problem?
If one talks about an image which appeared on a jam jar then what is the problem?
Tying up an innocent toy with a racism discussion does not work.
When that particular toy was common then it was given a name; and it will always be referred to as a golliwog.
If one talks about an image which appeared on a jam jar then what is the problem?
Tying up an innocent toy with a racism discussion does not work.
When that particular toy was common then it was given a name; and it will always be referred to as a golliwog.
"The Appeal Court judges dismissed Miss Lindsay's challenge to the dismissal of her case on grounds of delay. Her other claims of race discrimination had earlier been rejected by the tribunal, although she still has a victimisation claim against the LSE extant. "
its pretty obvious what her game is.....just another one jumping on the "racist" bandwagon
its pretty obvious what her game is.....just another one jumping on the "racist" bandwagon
"Lord Justice Floyd, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said that saying the term in front of a black person, whatever the context, was “offensive","
oh really "whatever the context"...this man isnt fit to for job he is doing
so if there were any blacks in the court he by his own definitions is also guilty
another unfunny joke of a case
oh really "whatever the context"...this man isnt fit to for job he is doing
so if there were any blacks in the court he by his own definitions is also guilty
another unfunny joke of a case
From what I can gather about this case, is the fact that a group of people were discussing product labels and the conversation turned to the old Robinson's Jam label which featured a gollywog, thus the actual word was mentioned, and the person who had her back to the person who said it chose to be offended, but didn't report the fact until weeks later.
Nothing more nothing less, it is not as if he had taunted her with the word.
Nothing more nothing less, it is not as if he had taunted her with the word.
but then this all comes back to the heding of the OP
"Should We Now Be Very Careful What We Choose To Discuss?"
this is exactly what the PC lefties want...everybody all kow towing their line , nothing less than brainwashing...you have to think according to their dogma
and if you dont they then lambast you with all sorts of insults and names and pointless court cases like this one
these are the real dangerous fascists amongst us
"Should We Now Be Very Careful What We Choose To Discuss?"
this is exactly what the PC lefties want...everybody all kow towing their line , nothing less than brainwashing...you have to think according to their dogma
and if you dont they then lambast you with all sorts of insults and names and pointless court cases like this one
these are the real dangerous fascists amongst us
@AoG Your reading of the article, and other peoples interpretations differ, it seems. Based upon the judges summation, these 2 people were in conversation with each other, even if their backs were turned, and in the opinion of the judge based upon the testimony given, the defendant used the term "golliwog" deliberately with the intent to offend.
And even by your usual standards, AoG, This piece of weaselling stands out;
"Even if one is not in front of a black person????????????"
To claim that because they had their backs to each other, this explains your question is utter nonsense. From the rest of the article, they were clearly in conversation with and cognisant of each other.
And even by your usual standards, AoG, This piece of weaselling stands out;
"Even if one is not in front of a black person????????????"
To claim that because they had their backs to each other, this explains your question is utter nonsense. From the rest of the article, they were clearly in conversation with and cognisant of each other.
"Should We Now Be Very Careful What We Choose To Discuss?"
Surely we already are; any decent people are anyway
For example; would I discuss car park security or getting stuck in a lift in a casual, flippant and 'uncensored' way? yes I would
Would I do so if a particular employee was within earshot? No. I would be more careful because a few years ago she was trapped in a car park lift and violently raped.
It wouldn't be to protect myself from prosecution
It would be because I respected that other person's feelings
Would I discuss Robinson's Marmalade labels in a casual, flippant and 'uncensored' way? yes I would.
If a black person was present I would be more careful because the gollywog was based on a derogatory stereotype of black people used in Minstrel shows which originated at a time and place where black people were bought, sold, repressed and abused.
It wouldn't be to protect myself from prosecution
It would be because I respected that other person's feelings
Surely we already are; any decent people are anyway
For example; would I discuss car park security or getting stuck in a lift in a casual, flippant and 'uncensored' way? yes I would
Would I do so if a particular employee was within earshot? No. I would be more careful because a few years ago she was trapped in a car park lift and violently raped.
It wouldn't be to protect myself from prosecution
It would be because I respected that other person's feelings
Would I discuss Robinson's Marmalade labels in a casual, flippant and 'uncensored' way? yes I would.
If a black person was present I would be more careful because the gollywog was based on a derogatory stereotype of black people used in Minstrel shows which originated at a time and place where black people were bought, sold, repressed and abused.
It wouldn't be to protect myself from prosecution
It would be because I respected that other person's feelings
/// You don' understand racism , do you AOG, and this case is evidence of it. ///
What I don't understand is some's interpretation of it, the word has been overused by certain groups who can decide on an almost daily basis what they chose to become offended over
whereas many others can be offended but these are ignored.
True racism is when a person is physically harmed or discriminated against because of their
race.
What I don't understand is some's interpretation of it, the word has been overused by certain groups who can decide on an almost daily basis what they chose to become offended over
whereas many others can be offended but these are ignored.
True racism is when a person is physically harmed or discriminated against because of their
race.
Only physical? What about verbal abuse? Doesn't that count? True racism is when people judge others based on their skin tones, as if that made the slightest bit of difference. Whether the person holding racist views does anything physical about it or not matters not a jot as to whether or not he is a racist.
/Racism
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
(Oxford Dictionaries)/
The traditional Minstrel Shows portrayed blacks in a stereotypical and largely derogatory manner as figures of fun and were rooted in the American south where slavery was normal.
That concept was borrowed for the Gollywog character by the American illustrator who invented it.
I am white and happily accepted the Gollywog character when i was a child but now that I am older and appreciate its origins and connotations I personally find it distasteful - regardless of whether there are any black people around
Because it conflicts with my personal Values and Beliefs
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
(Oxford Dictionaries)/
The traditional Minstrel Shows portrayed blacks in a stereotypical and largely derogatory manner as figures of fun and were rooted in the American south where slavery was normal.
That concept was borrowed for the Gollywog character by the American illustrator who invented it.
I am white and happily accepted the Gollywog character when i was a child but now that I am older and appreciate its origins and connotations I personally find it distasteful - regardless of whether there are any black people around
Because it conflicts with my personal Values and Beliefs
Latest Posts
The Mail On Sunday Prize Crossword
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Body & Soul39 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.