On The Guardian's website today was this article:



Roy Atkinson has quite rightly now lost his job, much to The Guardian's approval. All good so far.

However also on The Guardian's website today was an upbeat positive little piece with Dennis Bergkamp, but wait:



So The Guardian sack Atkison as one of their columnists with righteous indignation then flaunt this offensive and prejudiced nonsense with jolly disregard. For a paper that pats itself on the back with smug thoughts of 'liberalism' and low tolerance of all that is 'Un-PC' they seem to have committed an act of extreme hypocrisy. It seems The Guardian have no problem with sacking writers for racism against black people, but when it comes to working class members of East London - well you can take the piss all you want apparently

In my opinion such a comment should have the repercussions for Dennis Bergkamp as Atkinson's have for him. At least Atkinson didn't knowingly broadcast his comment whilst Bergkamp is happily joking around with The Guardian's journalists.

Does anyone else find this appaling?

I don't. The Guardian is known for it's tongue in cheek approach to some issues. Although it's debatable whether or not that particular quote is tongue in cheek or not, there is an important difference: Atkinson worked for the Guardian. Bergkamp was being interviewed and therefore it's the journalist's and the Guardian's job to publicise the interview. If you were the editor, would you omit a comment you and your readers disagree with, hence showing the person who made it in a better light?

The Guardian treated this more as a joke they too were enjoying, rather than exposing Dennis Bergkamp's Un-PC views. My point therefore being that I would have thought The Guardian would make comment over such a view rather than saying nothing, in light of their treatment of Ron Atkinson and their standpoint.

Hmm, I don't pay much attention to the sports section (or sports in general) so I'm sketchy, but I would imagine that whether a comment is un-PC or not (which is less of an obsession of the Guardian than it would appear) would be fairly low on the priorities of a sports journalist, compared to say, a political correspondent.

Meh, I don't know. Perhaps you should email the journalist in question or the appropriate editor?

I think the two examples are at two ends of a spectrum, the slur against desailly was quite blatantly hateful and racist and specific to one person whether it was ment to be broadcast or not. Where as the comment about cockney accents was not ment as an insult but more of an example, remember to Bergkamp, english is a second language, to say that probably came to him easier than any other way to describe it.

Perhaps you should have thought about it more before jumping down the collective throats of those involved, seems to me you over reacted....

Edit: havn't you seen that famous sketch the two ronnies did, one going into a hardware shop and asking for "fork 'andles" in a cockney accent and the other behind the counter thinking he asked for four candles?

Whether Bergkamp or anyone else said it, makes no difference, so no, I didn't overeact.

Secondly the famous sketch in no way implies that a cockney accent it inferior or that it isn't a 'proper english accent'. A joke based around the misinterpretation of an accent can be funny, without showing that accent to be inferior or not proper.

I don't really think it was an implication it was inferior, at least, thats not how i saw it, and technically, it is improper english, reguardless you're apparently the only person that is bothered, still, you're indignity on behalf of the residents of south east london (that can hear the bow bell) is heart warming

Don't you think that a not-proper thing would be inferior to a proper thing?

Also an accent is not subject to such terms as 'proper', you could argue however that spelling could be. So technically, no, it isn't improper.

Even if I were the only person that was bothered, should I not be, just because other people are not? No, one should stand by what they believe unless their belief changes - not because noone else seems to agree.

There's a huge difference between calling someone a n****r and commenting on a particular accent or dialect.

Where as Atkinson's comment was obviously meant as an insult and was brought over in an aggressive way - Bergkamp was specifying on how his sisters speak.

I think PC is taken to the extreme nowadays. I find it interesting that people go out of their way to investigate what others have said and then twist it to their own ends.

Snugglebummy took most of what I was going to say. Regardless, it IS a BIT hypocritical, but what can you expect?

What gets me more angry is the fact that no one analyzed the use of the word "nigger", in that sense I slightly differ from Snug. My outrage would be more over the use of that word and the consequences it did/should've brought. "Nigger" is one of those words that's tricky. Some people manage to use it all the time without objection, but otherwise...it's become a swear. *stops before getting to censorship issues*

THat was terribly off topic. Forgive meh.

I really don't like the word. And I don't say it.

I respect that, and it also proves that it's becoming more of a swear. When used in a nasty way, I think it's worse than a swear, because of its history.

It's a little odd. Beacuse a black man could say it to another black man with absolutely no repurcussions.

Whether he meant it as an agressive insult or whether it was an off-hand comment doesn't effect its severity

The word is unacceptable either way.

Edit - which are you talking about? Atkinson or Bergckamp?

*nods* I wish it weren't racial like that.



I believe it does. Otherwise, you're just taking words.Words are not enough most of the time. That's why we use these -->

....what?

EDIT: 'whether he meant it...' referred to Bergkamp

I disagree. It wasn't said as a racial slur or an intentional dig. Where as what Atkinson said, was.

That's the difference.

Of course there is a difference, but that does'nt mean Bergkamp's comment is any less excusable, or should be treated in such a manner by The Guardian

I have to admit to avoiding the Guardian like the plague.

I'm a Liberal too - what does that say?