Fully agree. The fact Jane and her mother are not racist, in her story, is not the point. It was the fact that 'blacks' were being discussed, as an alien species, in the first place, which was very uncomfortable for Natalie being the only black person in the room.

It was very condescending and patronising.

It's equivalent to there being only one white person, for example, in Nigerian BB (if there is one) and a similar conversation going on by the rest of the group about how their family liked 'whites', yada, yada.. and were not racist etc... The conversation is by default actually then ostracising and distancing the only person in the group, of a different race, as being in some way inferior as they are different to them - and get racist abuse by others, on the outside.

The situation would be uncomfortable and upsetting for anyone. If two or more people had been of the same colour, in the room, then Natalie and/or whomever would not feel so 'singled out' by the conversation - although it still would have been 'off'.

Nor Irish or dogs

So how was Jayne supposed to tell people how her mother was falsely accused of racism without mentioning that the carer who abused her was black?

Its called the race card.

This post just proves if you want to find offence then by hell you can find it.

This is exactly what happened. Well said.

This title is racist. It's "black people" not "blacks". Dehumanizing!

How, precisely?

Natalie 52
Jayne 49
Chelsea 48
Jason 45
Are the four older HMs this year.

Best post I've read all night.

This is exactly what happened.

The story was about Jayne's mother, but I guess people will always find a way to make things about themselves...

I think this is a fair post and shouldn't be shot down too quickly. I found Jayne's over-emphasis on how wonderful the Nigerian carers were cringeworthy and disingenuous as well. However, I think Natalie completely over-reacted and handled it very badly.

The problem is that we're all hyper-sensitive about discussing race and that's the same in there as it is out here. I think they were trying to let Natalie know how 'un-racist' they are in a not so subtle way. But it came across as patronising.

Another factor was that we didn't hear the beginning of the conversation. Did Andrew just decide to bring it up? Was he stirring, do you think? I'm finding his 'I'm Stephen Hawking smart' delusions quite amusing, I have to admit. But at least he's interesting.

I am a black carer from Nigeria and I was not offended, Jayne made very valid points.

Does anyone remember the race row around Jemima a few years ago? She got a warning for that, and I complained about it. She was saying about how she wasn't attracted to black men, and apparently that was offensive. By the same logic, a gay man saying how he isn't attracted to women would have to be pulled up for sexism.

I couldn't stand Jemima, but I was totally on her side on that occasion.

Yes and saying 'We' doesn't help.


Clearly how the conversation began wasn't shown but I understood it was supposed to be about racism so what was the point of her story other than to say one person she knows isn't racist and yet suffered being falsely accused of racism and that she herself loves her carer who is black so everything is ok with the world.

Well said. IMO Natalie did overreact and get it wildly out of proportion, but she did have a legitimate grievance with the patronising, somewhat 'othered' way the issue was being discussed by Jayne.

Agree, except for the Ryan to win.

I very much remember it and very much disagree with your opinion about it and your comparison here. Sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with taste. I also remember Jemima began by saying specifically that she liked dark skinned and dark haired men and then immediately qualifying it by saying not black men though. How can anyone not see the offence there?

OP Who the f.uck is 'WE' and why the f.uck you calling us 'Blacks'?

Waiting for an answer Whites.

It wasn't as clear-cut as this argument, I'll say that much.

I think it's because who you're attracted to is not related at all to general opinion. In this case, I'd say it's equally about sexuality. Some people are only attracted to people with certain attributes - eye colour, hair colour, gender or ethnicity. It doesn't say anything about your opinions of people on the whole, it's just who you find attractive sexually and you can't help that.

Exactly, that's what it was. And the start of the conversation was shown - Andrew was talking about being duel heritage and the racism that his parents have faced, so Jayne brought in her own anecdote concerning racism and then Natalie blew her top. It's people like that who hinder progress - if you take offence at everything you think you can get away with, it arms people who complain about the so-called 'PC brigade' and undermines all genuine attempts to tackle casual racism.

I do agree that there was an overreaction from Natalie, however, I can understand her being annoyed.

I appreciate that the colour of the woman was necessary for the story, but I found the emphasis on the new Nigerian carer being 'lovely' extremely patronising, as if we're to assume that they're usually not.

It reminds me of when straight men say things like "I've got a gay friend and he's cool".

I just got around to watching it. It thought it was very cringey and clumsy from Jayne. I don't think she had any bad intent but I can understand why Natalie was pee'd off.

Calm down dear, - We is anyone who refers to black people as blacks - it is a group name, do you seriously expect white people in a group to be offended if they were called whites. I have been called black, brown and coloured, do I care - no not at all. But then again white people are not really white are they and calling black people black or white people white may be an offence to a Dulux/Crown colour chart.

That's an excellent comparison actually. Before Natalie reacted at all I was thinking 'oh DO shut up Jayne, you doth protest too much'.