This isn’t racism you damn fools

Circulating the light-hearted pictures of a child dressed in a water melon costume on Monday, Lord Sugar wrote: ‘The kid in the middle is upset because he was told off for leaving the production line of the iPhone 5.’

Jaysus, Mary and Jossph, this isn’t racism you damn fools.

Police contacted the complainant twice, urging her to make a statement at a police station, which she eventually did, and yesterday police confirmed that officers from Merseyside’s Hate Crime Investigation Unit took several days to decide whether a crime had been committed by the Labour peer’s tweet.

However, the remark was in the end classed as a ‘hate incident’ – which means no further action will be taken, although details will be kept on file.

Can we hanbg them all, including the police, for wasting police time?

17 thoughts on “This isn’t racism you damn fools”

  1. I am genuinely baffled as to what the racist interpretation is meant to be. When I read “watermelon” I thought it might be because that is associated with American blacks, but the child is Chinese. Is it simply that the child is not white???

    Genuinely mystified. Possibly because I’m not quite clear what the joke is.

  2. I know some social workers which gives me a glimpse into some of the thinking here.
    The real beef here is with generalisations, especially generalisations about people who are poorer than us (in general – yes I do see the irony). We are all unique special snowflakes to be celebrated in all our glorious multicultural differences. And generalising is the opposite of that.
    But rather than saying it clearly, it gets reframed as racism, cos the alternative is to say is clearly as have the argument exposed as lame.

  3. It’s a good job you only want to hanbg the useless bastards otherwise you could find yourself in gladiator school vewy qwickly (is that lispist hate speech?).

    If you wanted to hang ’em, well, we can all read between the lines to see you are clearly only referring to non-white plod so that is racist and there is obvious incitement to violence. You’d be in chokey before the ink is dry on the European arrest warrant.

  4. Showing your age a bit. Among young Catholics, “Jesus Mary and Joseph” is generally shortened to “JMJ!”, like “OMG!”

  5. Sugar took the Labour whip, and mostly this is the work of Labour, so, in a way, fuck him.

    On the other hand, he’s worth £700 million, and has lawyers to burn, so I hope he sues the cops for ‘classifying’ this as ‘a hate incident’.

    It’s a clear libel.

  6. Every cloud contains a silver lining & the one hanging over the Brentwood oik is not Sterling but purer Britannia. Harass away stout servants of the law, harass away. Do not stint yourselves in your endeavours.

  7. Remember this incident when the police union stooges start bleating about how the Terrible Tory Cuts means we will never see a bobby on the beat ever again…

  8. Interesting how people can read the same words but arrive at different conclusions. I thought Sugar was making a joke / comment on the stories this year about child labour in Chinese factories, there have been a few, and the child-like fascination with the iPhone.

  9. Also interesting is how she didn’t want to report it and the police pursued her until she did. Frequently on these stories you’ll get commenters claiming that the police don’t WANT to be politically correct, but ‘the bosses’ make them do it, the poor lambs.

    Well, anyone think a chief super was breathing down their necks here? Anyone? Bueller?

  10. SMFS: you´ll love the other “works” by the same author, titled ““Grand Theft Auto” maker: Video games hate liberals” … with tidbits like: “In the end, Rockstar sides with the rebels, but quite unenthusiastically. And the publisher seems to go further, cynically suggesting government can never be representative of the people’s interests, no matter the circumstances, no matter how much the masses struggle. This, of course, leaves no room for progressive change.” and “While Rockstar does criticize the right wing, it casts equivalent doubt on the personal motivations of progressives and the feasibility of their goals. To accept this “neutral” view presumably leads to political disengagement — which benefits the powers that be.”


  11. There’s a theory that Salon is ‘link-trolling’ with these articles. They’re first-class examples of Poe’s Law: an equally plausible case could be made for either satire or fuckwittery. It being Salon I tend to lean towards fuckwittery but you never know. James Taranto’s column in the WSJ has a section called ‘Life Imitates the Onion’ and Salon has been cornering the market lately. As for the dozy mare that reported Sugar to the rozzers: she needs to understand that she has no right not to be offended by things. Perhaps someone could write “You Do Not Have a Right Not To Be Offended” on a baseball bat in pokerwork and give her right good twatting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *