Rachel Riley Post

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Post Reply
Tom S
Devotee
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:38 pm

Rachel Riley Post

Post by Tom S » Thu Nov 21, 2019 8:16 pm

Rachel Riley has seemingly caused upset amongst many as a result of this:
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/uk ... n-mandela/ (article for image purposes)
Given that people are calling for her sacking, I was purely interested as to what the C4C forum thought about the whole issue, and as to whether they agree with the trending "#sackRachelRiley"?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:36 pm

I was going to post about this actually. I think Rachel Riley is completely blinkered about Corbyn and plain wrong. I'm not going to call for her to be sacked or anything though.

Tom S
Devotee
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:38 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Tom S » Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:40 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:36 pm
I was going to post about this actually. I think Rachel Riley is completely blinkered about Corbyn and plain wrong. I'm not going to call for her to be sacked or anything though.
I (as a former Corbynite) think she had overstepped the line in this case in regards to the image used, but the fact that she has been branded as a "Katie Hopkins" is total sloblock and plain-out wrong.

User avatar
L'oisleatch McGraw
Enthusiast
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:46 am
Location: Waterford
Contact:

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by L'oisleatch McGraw » Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:51 pm

Is it time to start speculating about her replacement?

Given the times we live in... it won't be a sexy young girl. Not PC enough.
Perhaps, given that it has traditionally been a job given to a woman, they'll Ghostbust a man into the role? Preferably a man who ticks at least one of the following boxes:- Non-Binary, Disabled, LGBTQIABCXYZ, Ethnic Minority.

Though, I wouldn't rule out a fat lesbian. :)
Last edited by L'oisleatch McGraw on Fri Nov 22, 2019 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
:arrow: :arrow: :arrow: S:778-ochamp

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1721
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Graeme Cole » Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:59 pm

When did this mass delusion start, that people who work in TV aren't allowed, or shouldn't be allowed, to make political statements away from TV? This only applies to broadcast journalists who work in news and current affairs. Coincidentally, people only seem to want to enforce this rule when the thing being posted is something that they don't agree with. When Gary Lineker posts something pro-European or pro-immigration, it brings out the gammon brigade chanting "stick to football". Funnily enough, when Tim Martin appears on the TV to grunt about Brexit, the same people don't advise him to "stick to running pubs". And when Rachel posts something anti-Corbyn, that brings out some of the more vocal Corbyn supporters who demand that she both stick to Countdown and be sacked from it.

If a Jewish public figure has genuine concerns about antisemitism in Labour and the consequences of a Corbyn government, is it wrong for them to post about that? How is it different from someone in poverty posting about how much they fear a Conservative majority?

Whether you agree with Rachel's views on Labour and Jeremy Corbyn - and it's fine to hold either view - her views are clearly motivated by honest reasons and nothing to do with Countdown. Demanding that someone be sacked from their job because they voiced a legitimate opinion you strongly disagree with outside of that job is just absurd.

Also: remember that if you're not a target of a particular kind of discriminatory abuse, you're unlikely to be better at identifying such discrimination than someone who is a target of it. I wouldn't presume to be able to lecture a person of colour on what constitutes racism, or a woman on what counts as sexism, or a Jewish person on what is and isn't antisemitic. That doesn't mean everything Rachel says or does is necessarily always right, and I can certainly see why people are upset about the photoshopped placard on the T-shirt. But it's at least a good reason not to dismiss her views without a second thought.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Mark James » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:33 am

I think people misunderstand calling for someone to be sacked, especially through the likes of twitter, as a statement of moral imperative rather than just a hyperbolic way of saying to powers that be, "you've just lost yourself a customer".

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:09 am

Graeme Cole wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:59 pm
Also: remember that if you're not a target of a particular kind of discriminatory abuse, you're unlikely to be better at identifying such discrimination than someone who is a target of it. I wouldn't presume to be able to lecture a person of colour on what constitutes racism, or a woman on what counts as sexism, or a Jewish person on what is and isn't antisemitic. That doesn't mean everything Rachel says or does is necessarily always right, and I can certainly see why people are upset about the photoshopped placard on the T-shirt. But it's at least a good reason not to dismiss her views without a second thought.
But the specific problem in this instance is that she is doing to others exactly what you're saying here. Many of those most upset by this incident are black and/or South African, and are livid that their own recent struggle is being erased for her to make her own point - a point which could have been made in so many ways that don't involve undermining anti-black racism. Instead of considering those concerns, she's doubled down that everyone criticising her for it is a troll. She can't credibly campaign against *racism* if she's unwilling to listen to people from other races.
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Fiona T » Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:34 am

When anyone takes to social media to express their views, they need to consider that it can impact their career directly or indirectly, and make a judgement accordingly. Even more so for someone in the public eye.

In this case, I think that her judgement was poor.

I don't agree that she *should* be sacked, but she needs to recognise that, if her actions are considered offensive (and as Jen says, they undoubtedly are genuinely offensive to some), and if viewing figures are affected because of them, or the show simply doesn't want to be seen to condone them, then she *could* be sacked.
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:42 pm

If Countdown was on the BBC she would have been sacked as they are notorious for knee jerk reactions.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Gavin Chipper » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:20 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 11:59 pm
When did this mass delusion start, that people who work in TV aren't allowed, or shouldn't be allowed, to make political statements away from TV?
This isn't making a political statement. It's a potentially libellous slur on an individual. It's also incredibly crude and simplistic.
Also: remember that if you're not a target of a particular kind of discriminatory abuse, you're unlikely to be better at identifying such discrimination than someone who is a target of it. I wouldn't presume to be able to lecture a person of colour on what constitutes racism, or a woman on what counts as sexism, or a Jewish person on what is and isn't antisemitic.
I don't think this is necessarily true. These things need to be looked at objectively. You don't get to decide if something is racist/sexist etc. just being you are the subject of it. That way madness lies.

Plus racism isn't just committed by white people on people of colour and sexism isn't just committed by males on females as your post implies.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2781
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by JimBentley » Sat Nov 23, 2019 11:36 pm

Tom S wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:40 pm
I (as a former Corbynite) think she had overstepped the line in this case in regards to the image used, but the fact that she has been branded as a "Katie Hopkins" is total sloblock and plain-out wrong.
I disagree. She's exactly like Katie Hopkins (although obviously coming from a different angle). She posts things that she knows are going to wind people up, in order to get a reaction (which she can then use as "evidence" that anyone disagreeing with her is antisemitic).

It's trolling, quite simply. Katie Hopkins has a more scattershot approach, but they are very much doing the same thing.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:02 pm

Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:59 pm

I wonder if Maven will teach typing ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Adam Gillard
Kiloposter
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:42 pm
Location: About 45 minutes south-east of Thibodaux, Louisiana

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Adam Gillard » Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:55 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:02 pm
Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.
I find this post offensive.
Mike Brown: "Round 12: T N R S A E I G U

C1: SIGNATURE (18) ["9; not written down"]
C2: SEATING (7)
Score: 108–16 (max 113)

Another niner for Adam and yet another century. Well done, that man."

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4016
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Marc Meakin » Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:40 pm

Adam Gillard wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:55 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:02 pm
Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.
I find this post offensive.
That was a knee jerk reaction 😂
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:16 pm

Adam Gillard wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:55 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Wed Dec 18, 2019 2:02 pm
Lucky her baby wasn't a boy or she probably would have chopped his nob off or something.
I find this post offensive.
I thought I might get some comeback from this post at the time actually, but then it seemed I got away with it.

But anyway - my post wasn't meant to be anti-Jewish. I am against the ritual of cicrumcision of babies of Jewish parents, but plenty of Jewish people are against this, and I see this as more of a basic humans rights thing rather than anti religion/race etc. And the people that go ahead with this practice would be people I disagree with vehemently anyway. Which brings me to Rachel.

What I said about Rachel Riley, I wouldn't say it about just any Jewish person. It's the fact that I don't like some of her views anyway, so I just caricatured her as an individual. And I would equally do the same for anyone in any group - regardless of whether it was a race, religion, a political party or just some hobby.

So apologies to you Adam if you were offended by my post - I wasn't entirely clear where my dig was directed.

Unless you mean my spelling of "nob", but there's a whole thread about that.

Paul Worsley
Acolyte
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Paul Worsley » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:32 pm

If you want to start a debate about ritual circumcision, fine, but equating it to deliberately chopping off a baby's penis is both offensive and anti-semetic, and should be called out as such.

Also, implying a mother would casually harm their new born child is a horrible thing to say, and can't be excused because you disagree with her political views.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9921
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Rachel Riley Post

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:55 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 8:32 pm
If you want to start a debate about ritual circumcision, fine, but equating it to deliberately chopping off a baby's penis is both offensive and anti-semetic, and should be called out as such.
It's not anti-semetic, nor is it anti-semitic. It was a comic exaggeration of what I consider to be a grotesque act anyway.
Also, implying a mother would casually harm their new born child is a horrible thing to say, and can't be excused because you disagree with her political views.
It was a throwaway joke really. I think you're reading too much into it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests