...But the Mail is principled. So obviously it didn't matter that the remarks were made off-air and never intended for broadcast, or that the person being described would never have been concerned by the description since he wasn't present. The paper still rightly hauled Thatcher over the coals, in keeping with the principles it had set up with the previous four incidents (one of which occupied the paper's front pages for days).
Oh, just a minute. It seems the paper didn't do that at all. What was I thinking?
Also, do you think it would be possible for one of these rent-a-reactionaries to pen a piece about the BBC, without using the lazy terms “Stalinist” or “totalitarian”. If they do, I promise to write a reply without refering to them as a “twat-faced nazi”. Deal?
Those who enjoy bashing the BBC about everything it does ever may be enjoying this whole nonsense, but I find it amazing that there's any debate about this at all. The woman was patently stupid. She's so stupid she doesn't realise she was stupid to call a mixed-race person a 'golliwog', and doesn't see what all the fuss is about. Stupidly, she imagines she can just offer a crappy apology and everything will be all right again. Instead of wondering whether she's stupid or not, she invents a leftie BBC conspiracy against her mother, rather than having to face up to the fact she's stupid. But the top and bottom of it is that she was stupid.