The following are excerpts from his apology. This isn’t a typical politician “sorry if you were offended” non-apology.
This specifically states that what he said was “horrible” and “disgraceful” and he is taking full blame for it, nowhere in here does he try to shift the burden of blame to anyone but himself.
We can pick over individual words and phrasing till the cows come home but I suspect you aren’t going to be convinced by my interpretation and I’m not convinced by yours.
He doesn’t publish the exact wording of the private apology to Harry and Meghan (good) but I’m pretty certain that that too was just as full and sincere, seeing as we know if it wasn’t they’d have no problems with publishing it and exposing that insincerity.
I really am sorry.
This is me putting my hands up. Its a mea culpa with bells on.
I couldn’t believe what I was reading. Had I really said that? It was horrible.
I’m just not sexist and I abhor violence against women. And yet I seemed to be advocating just that.
“I therefore wrote to everyone who works with me saying how sorry I was and then on Christmas morning, I emailed Harry and Meghan in California to apologise to them too.
the language I’d used in my column was disgraceful and that I was profoundly sorry.
He seems to be advocating for violence against women? Why yes, he seems to be delighting in the idea. Dude, he didn’t even take responsibility for his own words. Just, “oh, that looked bad”.
What i don’t understand is how anyone can hate someone that intensely when the object of their hatred has no power over them and isn’t even someone they interact with. Unless he plays bridge with Meghan or something? Did i miss that?
I mean, i get people hating people who have harmed them. Even indirectly, as a powerful politician might. I get people who have a visceral hated for Trump or Pelosi, to use US examples. But ex-royalty? What’s broken in him that he spends so much emotional energy hating a random woman in the news?
And that depends on there being some sort of understanding that the person is positioned “higher”. And if you feel they are failing to hold up their end of the deal.
Which is how come for some of us to whom “Duchess of Sussex” means as much as Duke of Earl it’s kind of oddly entertaining and puzzling.
Sure, one way to address this would be for the Brit royals to get a ratcheting down of the notion of having to be always there looking impressive in the public eye. Pare it down. Make it so anyone but the direct heirs presumptive gets to “get a life” … and get a job. Quit the creating of royal dukeships and earldoms upon marriage. That way if some princeling at > number 5 in the order wants to just do his/her own thang, they can go right ahead… because they’d have to, on their own dime and with their own name anyway. So what if that means the Wankerhamborough Shrubbers’ Guild does not get a an HRH-ranked patron for their fundraising dinners.
But of course, that is the point, isn’t it? All sides want the institution to “be there” and play their assigned role. They just each want it to be by his/her rules.
They’re all allowed to refuse a peerage when offered. It’s happened before.
Indeed, I believe during the Blair-era reforms of the House of Lords, all the male members of the royal family were offered new peerages and they all refused them.
There’s even a provision of the law (enacted in the 1950s or 1960s, I believe) that allows a title-holder to renounce the title and become a commoner. The fact is that most of them are proud of their titles and their connections with royalty and nobility.
The one tricky issue is the family name, because, officially, the royal family itself doesn’t have one. But there are options: Windsor, Mountbatten, Mountbatten-Windsor. And, sure, like anyone else, they could choose a completely different name.
To use the analogy that Clarkson invoked, someone who pegged Cersei in the head was feeling pretty good about themselves. They may not have the slightest understanding of the politics of the situation, they just were happy to be able to bring someone down.
And that’s how I see Clarkson, someone eager to be given a chance to peg a royal in the head with some excrement, and only begrudgingly is satisfied limiting himself to doing so metaphorically.
It’s not like we don’t have celebrities to gossip over and clutch our pearls over their scandals. The fact that Megan is a minor celebrity in her own right probably adds to the glee in taking her down.
I think the US loses something in not having a royal family. A figurehead of the government that is actually powerless, that exists for the amusement and entertainment of the people, to be mocked or loved as the individual needs at the time. Instead, we focus this need on the people who are actually in charge, leading them to demagoguery to gain and maintain power.
You’re moving the goalposts. I’m not claiming that racism is the only reason, or even the primary reason, that Private Eye is mocking PM Sunak’s appearance in its “lookalikes” feature. Obviously any public figure of that prominence is going to be a target of mockery by publications that consider it witty to make fun of how public figures look.
I’m just saying that I’m not convinced by your bizarre claim that the choice of that particular comparison between a brown-skinned PM and a brown potato toy was completely unaffected by race.
(Especially since the only other “Lookalikes” appearance by Mr Potato Head, AFAICT, is a comparison with former Egyptian VP Mohamed ElBaradei, another non-white politician, in which the toy isn’t even wearing glasses to make the non-skin-color aspects of the “resemblance” more plausible. You may consider it “blindingly obvious” that these comparison choices have nothing to do with race, but I think that says more about your willful obliviousness than about the realities of race perception in modern societies.)
Yeah, just typing “Mr. Potato Head lookalikes” I get only dark-skinned individuals, including Steve Harvey (Black), who doesn’t even look like Mr. Potato Head to me, but appears to be a popular comparison. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the color of Mr. Potato Head had nothing to do with the comparison with Rishi Sunak.
I will concede that the skin tone of Mr Potato-head matches Sunak, that is obvious. If that is what you mean by “race played a part” then I’m happy to concede that also.
In the same way that there are hundreds of lookalikes in those archives where skin tone matches from picture to picture and also hundreds that don’t. Sometimes, shock, horror, the lookalikes are for people of the same ethnic group. Most often they focus on one or two outrageously caricatured features for comic effect.
If all you are saying is that the colour of Mr. Potato-head matches Sunak, congratulations. You’ve passed the basic observation test. If that is all you mean by “race plays a part” then I’m unimpressed. You seemed to pull that lookalike originally to cast Private Eye as purveyors of racist materials. If that isn’t what you did it for and you don’t think they are racist then I fail to see the point of you bringing it up in the first place.
There is nothing about the nature of that Mr. Potato-head comparison that in any way plays into harmful stereotypes or problematic depictions of people with certain skin tones.
What are your views on this example? I suspect it was chosen on exactly the same grounds as the Sunak one, with skin tone playing exactly the same level of importance and with exactly the same racist intent.
For anyone interested, feel free to browse the long list here. See if you think that the Sunak example is worthy of pulling out for specific criticism or whether it is of much the same nature as the majority of them.
(Speaking for myself, one of the great advantages of this board is that I get exposed to different ways of thinking in a way that does encourage me to reflect on and change my stance on matters that are to do with principles, opinions and beliefs. But that’s just me.)
And that is all perfectly fine, I don’t say it never happens for me, just that it is rare and very much so when compared with matters of a specific factual nature.
On matters of principles etc. when that view is modified for me it mostly tends to be not of a “I believed (X) and now I believe (not X)” nature, but more an acceptance that others see things differently for valid reasons and that cases can be made for valid exceptions to the principle, even if the principle, in general, still holds.
IOW, you do in fact agree that “race played any part in that comparison”. Okay then.
I think it suggests the same “realities of race perception in modern societies” as the Sunak and ElBaradei examples. Namely, skin color is perceived to be strongly determinative of whether somebody “looks like” someone else, or even like something else.
For example, for over 20 years on these boards we’ve been occasionally revisiting the issue of a white grandparent upset at the prospect of a non-white daughter- or son-in-law on the grounds that his grandchildren won’t “look like him”. There are, of course, hundreds of significant ways in which you can physically resemble a grandparent without having the same skin tone as your grandparent. But skin tone as a race marker is very disproportionately weighted in most people’s unexamined perceptions of what constitutes “looking alike”.
Which—in a triumphant quadruple pivot back to the actual topic of this thread—is significantly relevant to the high levels of popular antagonism towards Meghan Markle, and probably was a major factor in Clarkson’s surprise at the degree of pushback against his offensive remarks about her.
As I say, if that is what you mean by “race played a part” then yes, a completely benign part. The skin tone is incidental but it definitely matches.
I ask again, what was the purpose of you raising the subject of that Private Eye lookalike if not to try and paint them as in some way racist or problematic?
There are massive amounts of lookalikes in that list that have no skin tone correlation at all. The main driver of the lookalikes are based on exaggerated features, facial expressions, clothing, accessories or body positions. Skin tone simply isn’t an issue and certainly does not appear to be a consistent or main driving factor.
There is also the concept of the desired outcome driving the picture choice. Why is Silvio Berlesconi depicted as a baboon? simply because they had a picture of both doing the same expression and really want to show him as baboon to derive maximum comedy. Why choose Mr Potato Head for Sunak? because the ears, face shape, hair and glasses are spot-on and Mt Potato Head is a figure of fun. The skin tone correlates but is incidental, had he been bright yellow they would have used it I’m sure.
The other Sunak lookalike in that list compares him to a white english person, they happen to be sharing a rough resemblance and pulling the same facial expression but the key thing is, the comedian in question is known for playing foolish characters who are inept and clumsy.
I don’t think that you can ever get away from the fact that similar visual properties of a person’s appearance will obviously influence the degree to which they “look alike”. I don’t see that as particularly revelatory or necessarily a problem. I honestly don’t think that skin tone is chosen by Private Eye as a disproportionately weighted marker for the purpose of their lookalikes. I think looking through that archive shows this is the case. It is likely that sometimes it will match but very often it doesn’t.
I ask again, I would honestly be interested in knowing what point you were trying to make by linking to that Sunak lookalike in Private Eye.
So as the opportunity allows, at least let me reveal a little of what is at my wrongly assumed racist, bigoted core.
It should go without saying, but at the risk of “doth protest too much” I’m saying it anyway.
The example you give here is a clear, real world example of what I think is unacceptable bigotry and pernicious racism. There is never any excuse that I can imagine for being upset at the prospective colour of a family member’s skin. That’s flat out wrong and I’d condemn it wherever and whenever I heard it.
It is making a value judgement based on skin colour and it goes against every ethical principle I hold. As I said, that should go without saying.
Now were an example of that behaviour the subject of a standalone thread I would likely not post to condemn it because the groundswell of general opinion would be exactly in line with mine and I’d have nothing to add. The upshot of that? If I need to defend myself against charges of racism or bigotry I have one less data point available to me.
Of course none of that is the same as being “interested” or “wondering” what the colour of a child’s skin will be. That’s no different and no more problematic than wondering what the hair, eye colour or height would be as the result of two very different sets of parental features.
If someone started a thread conflating that scenario with that of the “upset” grandparents above, and no-one pushed back, then I most likely would post because I think to make that conflation is ultimately harmful to the cause of racial harmony.
And on such interventions are knee-jerk judgements and reputations made.
That’s fine. I almost expect that to happen given how online discussions often play out, but so be it. I can sleep easy.
F everyone’s putative I, the UK’s press regulator has issued a ruling following the numerous complaints generated by the column, and found that it breached the voluntary Editor’s Code of Practice to which the Sun is signed up. Specifically, that it contained pejorative and prejudicial references to the Duchess of Sussex’s sex. The complaint on the grounds of pejorative and prejudicial references to her race was not upheld.
The Chair of IPSO, Lord Faulks said:
“This was a serious breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. We ruled that in this article The Sun published a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the Duchess of Sussex’s sex and breached Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.”
“We found that the imagery employed by the columnist in this article was humiliating and degrading toward the Duchess.
“IPSO’s purpose is to protect the public and freedom of expression by upholding high editorial standards. In this case, The Sun failed to meet these standards. We have instructed The Sun to publish a summary of the findings written by IPSO. It will appear on the same page as the regular weekly column where the original article appeared, and online. The adjudication will be flagged from the paper’s front page and its website homepage.”
The Chief Executive of IPSO, Charlotte Dewar added:
“The Editors’ Code of Practice protects the right of commentators to challenge, to shock, be satirical and entertain, but it states that the press must avoid discriminatory references towards an individual.
“By holding publications to account, we promote the standards of journalism set out in the Editors’ Code of Practice. We will take action where these standards are not met, such as in this article which contained pejorative and prejudicial language in an article discussing a woman.”
IPSO found that the article included a number of references to the Duchess’ sex. Specifically: the writer’s claim that the Duchess exercised power via her sexual hold over her husband which, in the view of the Committee, was a reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to gain power, and also implied that it was the Duchess’ sexuality – rather than any other attribute or accomplishment – which was the source of her power; a comparison with two other individuals – Nicola Sturgeon and Rose West – and the only clear common characteristic between the three being their sex and the writer’s “hate”; it highlighted her position as a specifically female negative role model by referring to the Duchess’s influence on “younger people, especially girls”; and the end-point of these references being a “dream” of humiliation and degradation.
IPSO considered that any of these references, individually, might not represent a breach of the Code. However, to argue that a woman is in a position of influence due to “vivid bedroom promises”, to compare the hatred of an individual to other women only, and to reference a fictional scene of public humiliation given to a sexually manipulative woman, read as a whole, amounted to a breach of Clause 12 (i).
IPSO therefore found that the column included a number of references which, taken together, amounted to a pejorative and prejudicial reference to the Duchess of Sussex’s sex in breach of the Editors’ Code.
IPSO also considered in detail the complaint that the article included pejorative and prejudicial references to the Duchess’s race. It acknowledged the strength and sincerity of the complainants’ view that it did, but concluded that the elements of the article cited in the complaint did not provide a basis to establish that there was a pejorative reference to race, and did not uphold this element of the complaint.
