[News] Alistair stewart

[clapham_gull]

Wondered how long it would take for this descend into a debate about whether Shakespeare is racist.

Let's break this down.

He is a newsreader on a major terrestrial channel and is bound by impartiality rules.

However, he decides to get into an argument online regarding the financing of the Royal Family. He is a newsreader, not a commentator.

When he feels the argument isn't going his way he pompously quotes a Shakespearean put down that likens an opponent in a debate to an ape.

Unfortunately he directs it towards someone of colour.

Racist? Most probably not but at least has an air of self entitlement and pomposity. Not a good look for a newsreader.

He has rightly apologised but has also effectively put his hand up for redundancy.

I bet he is feeling a right plum this morning.



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

The quote was used and intended by AS as a put down, the character in the play is saying the judge or sheriff or whatever is a small minded ignorant fool who is just reveling in their small bit of power. The misjudgement in quoting that passage is that the character compares the judge to an ape. Now if racism didn't exist we could no doubt compare anyone we wanted to an ape because they are a creature with certain habits and characteristics that can be likened to many human beings of any race you care to mentioned. However we are in a society where racism exists, so the misjudgement is not having the forethought to imagine that the quote in a certain context could be misconstrued.

So David Attenborough can quite happily talk about apes to persons of any colour or race, however if he used the comparison to an ape to form an insult, then I'd imagine even Sir David would find himself in the dock - not that I imagine Sir D would ever find himself in such a predicament.

But we are allowed to refer to white men as pigs, right?

 

[clapham_gull]

My immediate thought when it was mentioned was that the man who complained could have been Lenny Henry because I have never heard anybody with such a colour complex as him, but that is ok as he is a popular, to some, comedian.

My immediate thought when I read this post was that it written by you.



Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

 

[daveinplzen]

But we are allowed to refer to white men as pigs, right?

Gammon is a term to describe some, not all white people ie angry, frustrated men, who go red in the face when getting angrier. The description is usually delivered to them by people of the same race.
Who have you heard describing all white men as gammons?

 

[Billy the Fish]

The quote was used and intended by AS as a put down, the character in the play is saying the judge or sheriff or whatever is a small minded ignorant fool who is just reveling in their small bit of power. The misjudgement in quoting that passage is that the character compares the judge to an ape. Now if racism didn't exist we could no doubt compare anyone we wanted to an ape because they are a creature with certain habits and characteristics that can be likened to many human beings of any race you care to mentioned. However we are in a society where racism exists, so the misjudgement is not having the forethought to imagine that the quote in a certain context could be misconstrued.

So David Attenborough can quite happily talk about apes to persons of any colour or race, however if he used the comparison to an ape to form an insult, then I'd imagine even Sir David would find himself in the dock - not that I imagine Sir D would ever find himself in such a predicament.

@Bold your description is spot on, but on that basis I can't for the life of me understand why anyone thinks it's ok to take the side of someone who's deliberately taking words out of context.

It's because people like you pander to these idiots that situations like this keep happening. It's been almost universally accepted that there is no racism here, that should simply be the end of it. If people misconstrue the meaning, intentionally or otherwise, then it should be considered their problem.

 

[peterward]

Interestingly the other fella at the centre of this, Martin Shapland is not only being pretty universally condemned for playing the race card. There are screen shots of his Twitter, (in replies in link below) where he is clearly making racist skin colour comments about white people. And others who say they've saved his Twitter comments accuse him of trying to quickly delete them.

Edit: someone new now weighs in support of him that he's linked.

https://twitter.com/MShapland/status/1222851976582565889

 

[Baker lite]

Gammon is a term to describe some, not all white people ie angry, frustrated men, who go red in the face when getting angrier. The description is usually delivered to them by people of the same race.
Who have you heard describing all white men as gammons?

G****n is an insult used by racists David.

 

[Gwylan]

and as for his vile and disgusting failure to say anything positive about the LGBT community - well, that is completely beyond the pale.

Antonio and Bassanio are not represented negatively. And there are plenty of hints in Romeo and Juliet that some of the male characters swing both ways (to say the least).

 

[daveinplzen]

G****n is an insult used by racists David.

No, it isnt.
The only people who say that, are people who want to blur the lines as to what racism is, in order to accommodate their views

 

[A1X]

Interestingly the other fella at the centre of this, Martin Shapland is not only being pretty universally condemned for playing the race card. There are screen shots of his Twitter, (in replies in link below) where he is clearly making racist skin colour comments about white people. And others who say they've saved his Twitter comments accuse him of trying to quickly delete them.

Edit: someone new now weighs in support of him that he's linked.

https://twitter.com/MShapland/status/1222851976582565889

View attachment 119620

I don't see how any of those comments are racist.

 

[GT49er]

But we are allowed to refer to white men as pigs, right?

Yes, it's absolutely fine. We're all tolerant after all, aren't we?

Gammon is a term to describe some, not all white people ie angry, frustrated men, who go red in the face when getting angrier. The description is usually delivered to them by people of the same race.
Who have you heard describing all white men as gammons?

I have seen the term 'gammon' bandied around on these boards a lot, usually in an abusive manner, with intent to offend, particularly on the Brexit thread (I presume the people using it on there are adding a mental caveat that they're not including the many black and brown people who voted for Brexit!}
On the other hand, I have never (I'm very glad to say) seen a post on NSC describing black people as apes, not even some of them.

 

[peterward]

I don't see how any of those comments are racist.

What difference does the skin colour of the guy's he's referring to make? Whoever they are, whatever their ethnicity, they're just people. Whatever he is upset about (and he may be justified) why does he choose to differentiate these people by the colour of their skin?

I'm not offended btw, it's the double standards he himself uses to cry racism, because of comment he construed refers to colour but by the same token does exactly that himself They're either both racist type comments or either both not.

Skin colour should never have anything to do with anything and never used to differentiate or highlight in such manner. You're either an idiot in someone's eyes or not, a terrorist (as he highlights) or not....skin colour plays no part.

 

[GT49er]

Antonio and Bassanio are not represented negatively. And there are plenty of hints in Romeo and Juliet that some of the male characters swing both ways (to say the least).

So?

 

[A1X]

What difference does the skin colour of the guy's he's referring to make?

Without seeing the posts he's quote tweeting it's impossible to make a judgement.

 

[Triggaaar]

Gammon is a term to describe some, not all white people ie angry, frustrated men, who go red in the face when getting angrier.

Racist terms are usually only used to describe some people from that race. Most of the racist people I've encountered seem to exclude some members of a race from their insults, often saying something like 'oh he's alright, he's one of us'.

When I see Gammon written here, it's generally used by someone who can't see the subject, and has no idea whether they're red or not (or even white to start with).

 

[Gwylan]

So?

You wrote that Shakespeare had nothing positive to say about the LBQT community and that's clearly not the case

 

[Beach Seagull]

No one is outraged! The only outlets carrying the story as main headlines are The Mail, Express and The Sun. This notion that we're constantly bowing down to the 'outraged' is a myth. It's simply perpetrated by those who keep saying there is outrage. Keep repeating the same lie enough times enough people will think it's the truth. Where is it? I can't find the outrage, I've had a scoot around the t'internet, despite poster's on here claiming there is outrage, it's invisible if it is.

For all we know ITN wanted to stand by him but Alistair had enough and walked. We know he quit, but that is about all. So much conjecture, so much BS. And you finish with some classic whataboutism. Fantastic. The thread now has the complete set.

I guarantee if he hadn't stood down there would've been a twitter driven campaign to get him to resign or to get ITN to sack him. The fact he resigned has prevented it.

Please can you elaborate by what you mean by 'whataboutism.' Not a word I've ever come across before. Many thanks.

 

[Baker lite]

No, it isnt.
The only people who say that, are people who want to blur the lines as to what racism is, in order to accommodate their views

You know what you are David.

 

[GT49er]

You wrote that Shakespeare had nothing positive to say about the LBQT community and that's clearly not the case

Yes it is. You may be able to detect nuances that x or y might have been gay, but the great William certainly never wrote in praise of LGBT. Tolerance at best - and that at a push. Something positive - no.
And for heaven's sake, look at the context of a post before picking up on the minutiae!

 

[Bold Seagull]

@Bold your description is spot on, but on that basis I can't for the life of me understand why anyone thinks it's ok to take the side of someone who's deliberately taking words out of context.

It's because people like you pander to these idiots that situations like this keep happening. It's been almost universally accepted that there is no racism here, that should simply be the end of it. If people misconstrue the meaning, intentionally or otherwise, then it should be considered their problem.

I completely agree, and it should be their problem, but because of our press, and you can read my previous post, millions see The Sun, Mail and Express lead with their twisted version of things, and it becomes something it isn't. ITN aren't reacting if none of these leading media outlets don't pick it up.

So when you say 'people like you', no you're wrong, it's people who perpetuate the likes of the Mail, Sun, Express and all their lies, deceit and drivel that situations like this keep happening. If it wasn't for them, it would have largely stayed as an incidental quickly forgotten spat on twitter.

No one has been outraged by this, and people like yourself suggest it's other people, like me, like you've just done because you swallow what these media streams tell you, that its the liberals, that its PC gone mad etc. etc. etc. just like they did for 40 years with the EU. They need something else to invent now, so it's outrage and political correctness. "Oh it's political correctness gone mad, oh it's all the liberals outraged" - bollocks basically. There hasn't been any outrage.