Sid the apology - sack him

I don't think anybody has said, or even hinted, that all public schools pupils are the same. I do think the existence of such schools is divisive and some old boys I have known have certainly regarded themselves as superior to the hoi polio. And some haven't.
I believe that the less discriminatory remarks are made, the more hope there is of attitudes changing. Is that being politically correct? I think 'comedians' like Bernard Manning and Jim Davison did harm to minority groups by their freedom to tell nasty jokes. I am very glad that laws exist now to prevent it.

I agree about what "nobody has said", but negative remarks about people who attended public schools are often made with no further grounding about why that means those people (or their politics, or their behaviour) are to be despised. Their having been sent to a public school, I suggest, is being used against them. That, I feel, is unjust. It's a silly thing to pick on and it is prejudiced to do so, in my opinion.

I know nothing about those comedians you mention, greatnan. Can you give an example of the sort of thing you mean?

Bluebell your obsession with public schools is becoming boring, and to me deeply offensive, as both my sons went to a minor one thanks to a trust fund established by my grandfather. Do you actually know anyone who went to a public school? By 'know' I mean count them as a friend or acquaintance of course, not just by what you have seen/read of them in the media.

I also think that it would be better if fewer discriminatory remarks were made in the world. But they are made, and probably always will be, and they are challenged. The challenging is good.

I've just read the Wiki article about Bernard Manning. Thought I'd quote this bit from it: "Manning's family and friends insisted his controversial ways were all a stage-based act. He also lived next door to an Indian doctor's family, who over the years have appeared in a number of newspaper articles including the Daily Mail, defending Manning as a "perfect gentleman".

I'll go and read up about the other one now.

The Jim Davidson Wiki article makes me think he is a much more controversial figure, and not altogether pleasant.

But I still think it's better to challenge nasty utterances than to suppress them by censorship. Challenges and discussion educate people; censorship does not.

I suggest you google these 'comedians', bags, if you really want to read racist, sexist rubbish. I don't care how nice they were in their private lives (not that Davison has a good track record in how he has treated women). I repeat that by telling these jokes they encouraged some people to think their odious prejudices were justified.
Of course we don't have total free speech because some people would use it to slander and villify others or to whip up hatred against some groups - the right to free speech has to be set against the rights of others to be protected.

Our posts crossed, bags. I think you are wrong in thinking that suppressing discriminatory language did no good. Attitudes have certainly changed since the introduction of the various anti-discrimination acts. Sometimes the law has to lead public opinion.
In Germany, it is a criminal act to deny the holocaust - presumably they think that allowing that lie to be promulgated would encourage neo-Nazis.

I think if JC makes racist & /or sexist remarks he does it knowingly, for what purpose I cannot be sure but I suspect it is to do with being marketable and is a carefully planned persona. However I personally cannot approve of someone who chooses that route. I do not think he does it to 'raise awareness'.

I am not sure why objecting to racist or sexist remarks is 'politically correct'. I would say it is societally correct..if there was such a word as societally!

Ceesnan re public schools I have met many former public school people and in fact I went to a boarding school for a time. All I can say is I am pleased I had the choice to leave when I did. I think the 'reasons' 'motive', 'belief' 'values' of the families sending a child to a private/public school make a lot of difference to the way the students turn out & is not private schools per se! Just to say none on my close friends a public school educated.

Morally correct?
An interesting debate, but the sun is shining and the mountains are calling. Je reviendrai!

I was unfortunate enough to come across Bernard Manning many times, as his club and home were on the probation patch I worked on as a new officer, and the local gangs had several members working as his doormen. He was a racist, sexist bigot who liked to believe he was popular because he donated to charities and told gags. He delighted in singling out women and black people in order to humilate them. It wasn't just a stage persona - he would walk round Harpurhey market picking on those people, too. I challenged him when he insulted an Asian shopkeeper and he turned to the queue and quipped 'there's another dyke who needs a good seeing to! Got no sense of humour, darlin'?' He had a lot of followers, and upset many more. A most unpleasant character.

BM used to fly with Monarch quite a lot. My DIL is a senior flight attendant but they gave them the more glamorous title of Purser in those days. She couldn't stand him. The cabin crew had to bear the brunt of his sexist comments and banal 'jokes' while the sycophantic laughter rippled around his hangers on.

Frank Carson, however, was kind, funny and respectful.

I object to racist and sexist remarks too; I'm just not sure how effective censorship is at actually educating people as to why they are offensive. TBH, I'm more concerned about hidden racism/sexism than overt stuff. You can challenge the overt stuff and the challenge educates people who might not have thought about it much.

In the kids' rhyme Eeny meeny miney mo, I used the word "nigger" when I was a child, like everyone else. I was still a child when it was explained to me why people were avoiding that word. That made sense to me so I stopped using it (not that I used it anywhere else).

Similarly, DD3 got a right royal ticking off at school when she wrote the word "fuck". She was six. She needed a rhyme for 'muck'. The teaching assistant who gave her a row didn't explain why she wasn't to use it. That's how I heard about the incident because DD told me about it and was quite put out because she didn't know what all the fuss was about.

So, my argument is that if you just ban things, you're probably not going to help much. If you challenge things and explain your reasons for challenging them, you have a better chance.

I thought the fuss that was made about Hammond's Mexico remarks was completely ridiculous. Of course he didn't mean it literally. I really do think many people take offence far too easily.

Yes - and usually on others' behalf.

The problem is, Bags that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson continue to be allowed to make their prejudiced comments on some popular programmes, so there's an implicit endorsement of this behaviour. I support freedom of speech until sexist and bigoted comments are repeatedly uttered, and a lack of opportunity to counter such behaviour is reached. On daytime TV, presenters fall over themselves to issue apologies and retractions for the mildest of comments and swear words. It seems to swing from the sublime to the ridiculous according to the time of day.

Hasn't Clarkson apologised for some of his remarks? Though the hyper-apologic attitude of some presenters is exactly what I mean about too much political correctness and people being too ready to take offence.

I do see what you're getting at when. I'm just not sure – not convinced – that allowing outrageous stuff (most of it isn't outrageous in an offensive way; most of it is just childish silliness and can be quite funny – to many people – as their view ratings show) on a programme like Top Gear, is an "endorsement" of whatever ism is perceived as problematic. DD3 at twelve years old knows exactly how outrageous a programme it is and that's why she likes it (along with all the boys and one other girl in her 'entourage'). The wicked risque bonkersness of it is the appeal. I think it could be seen as patronising to suppose adults don't know this just as well as kids do.

I must be particularly thick skinned as I don't find JC offensive; I find him amusing and enjoy Top Gear. Bernard Manning was a different beast who did belittle anyone he perceived to be weaker and an easy target.

It always helps if you learn to laugh at yourself and are capable of giving as good as you get. Growing up with big, bossy brothers helps too

Yes, when people express surprise at my attitude to certain things, I tell them that I didn't have three brothers for nothing!

One more remark, then I really am going outside!

I find the fact that only one other girl that DD knows admits to liking Top Gear far more worrying than her liking it. Why? Because the reason they say they don't like it is "because it's for boys". Sexism ingrained in them already! Girls aren't supposed to like cars. Sigh.

Maybe the real point is that the BBC should not be sanctioning this kind of laddish rudeness. It used to be OK for comedians to tell jokes about mother in laws, minorities etc. If you listen to stand up comedians on the BBC (from the Apollo etc) they have moved on and can be very funny without saying things that would not be acceptable in most civilised workplaces, or schools.
So why should presenters be allowed to get away with it?

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1167902/BBC-presenter-Clare-Ba...

Ban her then....

Quite. Once you start, where do you stop? I really can't recommend enough Nick Cohen's book about censorship: You can't read this book.

Yes, difficult to find the line, but it's been argued before that starting isn't the slippery slope that people are afraid of. Do we try to improve society by taking a stand about insulting and belittling certain people, or allow them to continue to broadcast their unpalatable bigotry, and hope our children get it because we don't agree, and we will just swallow it because we want free speech? This horrible aspect of free speech is becoming normalised, and now the internet providers are putting in more obstacles to accessing abusive images of chidren, we may need to decide on where that line is regarding name calling and insults towards people who have certain discrimination and protection acts to call on.

I don't want my grandchildren adopting the style of banter that Clarkson and co like to dish out. It's disrespectful and cruel. Inverdale's judgement of a gifted tennis player in terms of what she looks like is as oppressive as extreme censorship. There's a happy balance somewhere - not a slippery slope.