From The Daily Mail:
A veteran Tory councillor has been accused of making racist and sexist comments when he was introduced to a black fireman.
Andrew Dransfield, vice-chairman of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority, made onlookers wince as he shook the firefighter’s hand and declared “You’re the first one I’ve seen.”
The crewman looked embarrassed and stayed silent following the remark from the councillor, who was on an official visit to Great Holm fire station in Milton Keynes. Undeterred, the councillor tried to clarify things by ploughing on with “You know....ethnic minority.”
The black firefighter, who hasn’t been named, did not respond but, according to witnesses, looked furious as Mr Dransfield added: "Now all we need is a woman. Are there any here?”
Just as truth is a defence to a defamation claim, why can't it be a defence to this sort of accusation? If, as a matter of fact that was the first black fireman the councillor had seen, why should he not be allowed to point it out? And, assuming no woman firefighter was present, who was there to take offence at the second comment?
Some people are way too sensitive! When I worked in Germany I was the first English tax advisor that most clients had ever met, and I got bored silly with clients mentioning it, but never did I feel offended, and even if I had done, I would have kept my mouth shut. Did nobody ever ask Thatcher what it was like being the first female English Prime Minister? As boring as it must have been for her, it's the sort of thing which she had to accept.
Plus, as a matter of fact, his comments were mildly amusing in a Prince Philip sort of fashion, you are laughing at him as much as with him. Doesn't that count in his defence as well? At least he didn't keep going and ask if they employed any disabled fire fighters, maybe a visually impaired driver or something...
Stormlight
5 hours ago
13 comments:
"Just as truth is a defence to a defamation claim, why can't it be a defence to this sort of accusation?"
I'm not a lawyer, but I've been told that when it comes to alleged racism, the law very specifically states that the TRUTH IS NO DEFENCE. That is, the prosecution simply has to prove that the intention was to racially humiliate someone, or whatever.
If I'm right there, then that is one of the most revolting and uncivilised bits of legislation in the statue books. But then "revolting and uncivilised" is what I expect from lefties.
I wonder what would have happened if he'd said "do you know, you're the first red-haired fireman I've ever met, I suppose it sort of goes with the colour of the fire-engine" to someone with ginger hair. It's a vaguely offensive remark, unlike the other one, but I doubt it would have been reported in the Daily Mail.
In "To Sir, With Love", Eric Braithwaite describes his encounter in an airport with two small very blond children who looked like they came from somewhere near the Arctic Circle, how they were amazed by his appearance and how they shyly came up, touched his face then looked at their fingers to see if he had painted himself. He was enchanted, but no doubt today the children's mother would have been on the receiving end of a stiff talking to, if not a pillorying in the DM.
Anybody with any brains and any idea what he was doing inspecting a fire station would have asked himself (silently!) why there was so little diversity in the place.But this is your standard insensitive Tory fuckwit in an area of the country not far from the stamping ground of Andrea "Loathsome" Ledsome who was nearly PM and where pubs are openly racist.
Agreed, but local councillors are more noted for venality and incompetence than intelligence. However, "Local councillor makes stupid remark to fireman" isn't going to sell any newspapers. Given that this is the DM, we can't even be sure that it actually happened that way. They didn't have a reporter there and, for the reaction of the fireman may be going entirely on the word of someone who was, who may have had his own agenda, like proving the councillor was "your standard insensitive Tory fuckwit".
Speak your mind. There is no law that says you can't give offence, although is is mostly taken not given.
There is no law that says you can't give offence
This is not entirely true in employment law. Racist incidents are generally held to be from the point of view of the offended party, not the offensive party or the rest of the workforce.
If you complain to your employer about discriminatory or offensive behaviour, they'd better take it seriously, whether they agree with your sentiments or not, lest they face a tribunal.
SL, I am of course opposed to actual offensive behaviour towards individuals in the work place, whether there is a racist undertone or not. Everybody has to put up with the occasional stupid remark, the point with racist behaviour from colleagues is that the effects are cumulative and grind you down.
However, this was not really a 'work place' situation, the councillor was making a flying visit and I don't think his remark was in the slightest offensive, it was possibly a bit stupid but hey. If all the other people at the fire station made the same remark every day, then that would be offensive on a cumulative basis.
Wait a minute. This is not some private idiot, this is someone who has been selected for, and by, election and has been appointed to a specific committee.He should have known better being in an official capacity, not standing round with his mouth open in one of the areas's outstandingly racist pubs.
"This is not some private idiot, this is someone who has been selected for, and by, election"
Not that that's a process renowned for selecting the best candidate, is it? In fact I'd say that it's a system that actively works against selecting the best candidate.
@B Dunno about "actively works against".The local party probably thought he was "sound on the race issue" by which they meant" reliably racist like us but not so it would notice". This guy could not pass for non-racist even by these lax standards.
DBCR, my thinking behind "actively works against": You have two candidates in the election. One tells it how it is, the other tells people what they want to hear. Which do you think is more likely to get elected and which would you prefer as your MP/councillor?
@B I wouldn't be voting Conservative in nutter areas around here!
What do you mean tell it like it is? Donald Trump style; "Some of these fire stations round here have got black crew:they're no good ; you can't see them in the dark."
Nobody in the areas concerned reads or listens to anything candidates say but being noticeably non racist would not help your chances of being selected or elected.
It was a general point, not specific to local elections in the 'Shires. "Tells it like it is": well I could have said "calls a spade a spade" but that would have been misleading in this context. I just meant, tells the truth.
Post a Comment