Originally Posted by arlene's boy:
“It just seems rather bizarre that someone has been accused of making a supposedly racist remark and any "condemnation" of him has almost immediately been superceded by talk of "let's hope Matthew replaces him"! If you accept that he's guilty, and personally I am very sceptical, then Matthew replacing Anton should be the least of your concerns. And I repeat, why is this coming out now when Lailas under such pressure and is talking of her marital problems, missing her daughter, etc? I'm always wary of any stories where insiders ask to remain anonymous, even the man who blew the whistle on the MP expenses row became public.”
I was the one who first raised the idea that Laila ought to be given the option to dance with someone else. I didn't suggest Matthew, although at this stage he is the only viable option. But my reason for saying it was not because I want Matthew to come back, but because I thought Laila ought to have that choice. Otherwise it comes down to- leave the show, which she may not want to do, or accept Anton's apology in order to keep dancing. Even if she doesn't feel strongly enough about it to leave, the BBC (IMO) have a duty to give her a third option which is to say you don't have to stand and listen to someone use racist language towards you in order to be part of our show. If you're not happy, we'll give you a different partner.
Also bearing in mind this is the second publicised instance of Anton making an ill-advised/ignorant/racist comment (interpret as you wish). Given that the terrorist comment fell completely flat, I would expect him to have the sense to steer clear of any racial comments completely.
Originally Posted by 88Paul99:
“I can’t believe people are calling for him to be sacked. What a nightmare PC tyranny you women are creating.
I dare say he realises it was a mistake, but it’s still just a word, save your fury or you won’t have any left for things that really matter.”
It's a word that has offensive connotations. I hate to quote Wikipedia, but this is a pretty good explanation:
Quote:
“The abbreviation P*** acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "P***" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England.
In recent times there has been a trend by second and third-generation British Pakistanis to reclaim the word. The word has been turned into a keepsake for the young British Pakistani community that is not acceptable for someone outside the community to say it, including Indians and Bangladeshis.”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/P***
It's just not a word he should be flinging about.
I also note when I copied and pasted that explanation, that DS automatically replaced the word itself with ****. So even DS T&Cs are saying it's not an acceptable word to use in conversation.
I'm pretty sure I'd be facing disciplinary action if I used the word at work- not sure why the BBC should be different.