Naga Munchetty - censored or censured ? OR both?

[Aruntraveller]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49825570

I remember seeing this exchange on Breakfast TV when it happened. And I also remember thinking at last a TV presenter on the BBC news has called out Trump for exactly what he is.

The BBC says she breached their rules.

I think she was bang on the money, and if people don't hear these responses from those affected by the language used by politicians when will the majority get to hear a response borne out of experience. And before some wag says you can talk to people, yes you can - but how often does the population as a whole seek out BAME people and ask them how they feel about language used.

What do others think?

[Roses]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49825570

I remember seeing this exchange on Breakfast TV when it happened. And I also remember thinking at last a TV presenter on the BBC news has called out Trump for exactly what he is.

The BBC says she breached their rules.

I think she was bang on the money, and if people don't hear these responses from those affected by the language used by politicians when will the majority get to hear a response borne out of experience. And before some wag says you can talk to people, yes you can - but how often does the population as a whole seek out BAME people and ask them how they feel about language used.

What do others think?

She probably breached the BBC rules, but GOOD FOR HER! Racism should always be challenged it is EVIL!

[Outrider]

The BBC, as ever, treads a fine line as a publicly funded broadcaster - it has a tendency to err on the side of caution in its rulings, but it also has a tendency to update its guidance in response to events like this.  It's decided, from the wording in that article at least, that she broke their guidelines that were in place at the time, but it also suggests that there is at least some sympathy for her point of view - part of the issue is likely the nature of the programme she's on, and the role she's supposed to be playing on that programme, where it's not the nature of her opinion that's the issue but rather the fact that's she's supposed to not be editorialising in that particular moment.

I agree with her completely, and I think the statement makes clear that no-one in the judgement is actually disagreeing with what she said, I think there is a slight issue with her timing and how it fits with her job in that particular segment.

O.

[Udayana]

Yes, she was right - although sometimes just a word or two arranged differently can get across your ideas without breaching rules.

[Sriram]

It need not necessarily be about racism. It is possible that some English people tell the Irish or the French or the Polish to 'go back where they came form'.   It need not be racial.

[Gordon]

It need not necessarily be about racism. It is possible that some English people tell the Irish or the French or the Polish to 'go back where they came form'.   It need not be racial.

But if they did as you say, Sriram, then surely that would be racist?

[jeremyp]

It need not necessarily be about racism. It is possible that some English people tell the Irish or the French or the Polish to 'go back where they came form'.   It need not be racial.

We would call that racism in the UK. Race isn't just being a different colour.

[Roses]

We would call that racism in the UK. Race isn't just being a different colour.

I agree.

[ippy]

It need not necessarily be about racism. It is possible that some English people tell the Irish or the French or the Polish to 'go back where they came form'.   It need not be racial.

We're a small island and I would prefer to not have the people you're referring to coming here to live in such vast quantities and all arriving here in such  short spaces of time.

Nothing to do with racism, just common practical sense.

Regards, ippy.

[Walter]

We would call that racism in the UK. Race isn't just being a different colour.

i don't call that racism. I call it "I'dont like you and I don't want you here ism "
A bit like an unwanted guest at a dinner party

[Outrider]

We're a small island and I would prefer to not have the people you're referring to coming here to live in such vast quantities and all arriving here in such a short spaces of time.

Why?

I suspect there are many countries who, historically, didn't want so many of us (the British, white Europeans, whichever) coming to live in their countries in such vast numbers in such a short period; the difference is, rather than contributing to their economies and being an integral cog in such machines as the health service and social care sectors, we conducted massacres and slavery and subjugated the local populace, stripping them of their brightest people and natural resources, setting their economies back centuries.  If we hadn't done quite so much of that, perhaps their homelands would be economically secure and developed enough that they wouldn't feel the need to come here for a chance at life.

We are living off the benefit of the deliberate subjugation of their societies, whether that's the direct colonisation of India, Africa the Americas and more, or the abandonment of Eastern Europe to soviet serfdom - these people deserve a fair crack of the whip.  Why does the accident of birth of being British entitle me to job opportunities in an advanced economy whilst they should be restricted to second or third world economies, civil wars and religious persecution because our ancestors cut and run and didn't clean up the mess they left behind?

O.

[Walter]

Other opinions are available !

[Outrider]

i don't call that racism. I call it "I'dont like you and I don't want you here ism "
A bit like an unwanted guest at a dinner party

If, though, your rationale for not wanting them is their racial background, then that's pretty much the textbook definition of racism.

'I don't want them here' explains the what - racism is about the why.

O.

[Roses]

Why?

I suspect there are many countries who, historically, didn't want so many of us (the British, white Europeans, whichever) coming to live in their countries in such vast numbers in such a short period; the difference is, rather than contributing to their economies and being an integral cog in such machines as the health service and social care sectors, we conducted massacres and slavery and subjugated the local populace, stripping them of their brightest people and natural resources, setting their economies back centuries.  If we hadn't done quite so much of that, perhaps their homelands would be economically secure and developed enough that they wouldn't feel the need to come here for a chance at life.

We are living off the benefit of the deliberate subjugation of their societies, whether that's the direct colonisation of India, Africa the Americas and more, or the abandonment of Eastern Europe to soviet serfdom - these people deserve a fair crack of the whip.  Why does the accident of birth of being British entitle me to job opportunities in an advanced economy whilst they should be restricted to second or third world economies, civil wars and religious persecution because our ancestors cut and run and didn't clean up the mess they left behind?

O.

Very true, the British Empire was a huge blot on our history in the way it was acquired.

[Walter]

If, though, your rational for not wanting them is their racial background, then that's pretty much the textbook definition of racism.

'I don't want them here' explains the what - racism is about the why.

O.

racism is not neccesarily the only reason though .
Speaking purely for myself , I quite simply don't like some people/groups

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ippy,

We're a small island and I would prefer to not have the people you're referring to coming here to live in such vast quantities and all arriving here in such  short spaces of time.

Nothing to do with racism, just common practical sense.

Yeah, bloody foreigners coming here with all their qualifications and expertise working and paying their taxes, adding all that cultural diversity. Who do they bloody well think they are eh?

Tell you what too, if we don’t keep a really close eye on them next thing you know they’ll be joining our lovely army and risking their lives for the British way of life. Bloody foreigners.

[Roses]

What some people don't seem to get is that most of our ancestors were likely to have been incomers.

The UK is going to be up the creek without a paddle where the NHS is concerned if people from the EU and other 'foreigners' don't come here anymore as so many of them work in our hospitals, not enough home grown Brits want to train as medics these days.

[Stranger]

We're a small island and I would prefer to not have the people you're referring to coming here to live in such vast quantities and all arriving here in such  short spaces of time.

Nothing to do with racism, just common practical sense.

What do you call "vast quantities"? How many would be acceptable? Given that immigrants contribute a lot to our economy and national life, why has it got anything to do with "common practical sense"?

[ippy]

Where have I ever said we shouldn't be having any immigrants coming to the UK?

I suppose this another part of the, anyone that mentions immigrants other than the welcoming of millions of immigrants coming to the UK is now automatically designated as a racist bigot, or the anyone that doesn't see things the same way as this self appointed committee in the sky party says is a shit. 

ippy

[Outrider]

racism is not neccesarily the only reason though . Speaking purely for myself , I quite simply don't like some people/groups

If you don't like, say, arrogant people, fine.  If you don't like a race of people, that's racism.  If you don't like a race of people because you think they're arrogant, that's also racism, because there isn't an entire race of people who are arrogant.

O.

[Outrider]

Where have I ever said we shouldn't be having any immigrants coming to the UK?

When did anyone suggest that you did?  You suggested your issue was with 'too many', and someone asked how many you'd be happy with.

I suppose this another part of the, anyone that mentions immigrants other than the welcoming of millions of immigrants coming to the UK is now automatically designated as a racist bigot, or the anyone that doesn't see things the same way as this self appointed committee in the sky party says is a shit.

Quick, quick, play another victim card and we can have snap!!!  If you object to people coming here from foreign places then it's likely there's at least an element of racism to it simply because it's overwhelmingly the major contributory factor to that attitude - it colours (if you'll excuse the term) people's view of things like their economic and social impact on the country, the proportion of the populace that they represent and the influence they have on shifting of political attitudes.

However, so far people have refrained from making the accusation, instead querying of you (and others) why you feel that there is a need for an increased restriction on immigration.  You aren't being instantly accused of racism, but you are espousing comment points that are often support by racist tropes, and people are trying to ascertain if that's the case here.

O. 

[ippy]

Why?

I suspect there are many countries who, historically, didn't want so many of us (the British, white Europeans, whichever) coming to live in their countries in such vast numbers in such a short period; the difference is, rather than contributing to their economies and being an integral cog in such machines as the health service and social care sectors, we conducted massacres and slavery and subjugated the local populace, stripping them of their brightest people and natural resources, setting their economies back centuries.  If we hadn't done quite so much of that, perhaps their homelands would be economically secure and developed enough that they wouldn't feel the need to come here for a chance at life.

We are living off the benefit of the deliberate subjugation of their societies, whether that's the direct colonisation of India, Africa the Americas and more, or the abandonment of Eastern Europe to soviet serfdom - these people deserve a fair crack of the whip.  Why does the accident of birth of being British entitle me to job opportunities in an advanced economy whilst they should be restricted to second or third world economies, civil wars and religious persecution because our ancestors cut and run and didn't clean up the mess they left behind?

O.

Why the history lesson?

The post of mine you're referring to that post stands and it's an overall assessment and I don't think it needs clarification unless you're looking for an encyclopaedic length explanation that you'd probably fall asleep over if you were to try to read it, come on you're not by any means a thicko.

Regards, ippy. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Why the history lesson?

The post of mine you're referring to that post stands and it's an overall assessment and I don't think it needs clarification unless you're looking for an encyclopaedic length explanation that you'd probably fall asleep over if you were to try to read it, come on you're not by any means a thicko.

You referred to Britain being a "small" island and to "vast numbers" of immigrants. What do you consider the optimum number of people per square mile to be then, and why?

See, it's all too easy to regurgitate the Daily Mail type trope of "bloody foreigners coming here and swamping our already crowded country" or some such but it's all meaningless rabble rousing unless you can put some argument to it. We'd agree that a population of, say, one person would allow for many more people and that a population of, say, one billion would make life impossible for practical reasons. Where though would you set the optimum level between those extremes and why?       

[Outrider]

Why the history lesson?

Because there are reasons both that these people want to come here, and why we shouldn't be stopping them doing so.

The post of mine you're referring to that post stands and it's an overall assessment and I don't think it needs clarification unless you're looking for an encyclopaedic length explanation that you'd probably fall asleep over if you were to try to read it, come on you're not by any means a thicko.

I thought, and still think, that it needs expanding upon, and I think I reasonably explained why.

O.

[Walter]

If you don't like, say, arrogant people, fine.  If you don't like a race of people, that's racism.  If you don't like a race of people because you think they're arrogant, that's also racism, because there isn't an entire race of people who are arrogant.

O.

im okay with arrogant people they tend to know their own minds and are not afraid to give an opinion . Wether that opinion is right or wrong is a different matter .
As to race I see only one race on this planet what troubles me is religions.