Aibu to want this presenter fired...

[Princess28]

I'm all for freedom of speech but I think as a radio presenter on BBC you do need to have some standards. He describes (from minutes 9-12) how breastfeeding is 'unnatural' and 'guys' don't want to see it in public. He describes a situation on a bus with a larger lady breastfeeding. He's not a rent a gob guest- he's the presenter. So aibu to want him off the airwaves?

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02y4dz4

Oh bless him. He wants to be Katie Hopkins.

Clarkson apparently...
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11800793/BBC-under-fire-over-moustached-women-breastfeeding-jibes.html

ALmond - he also told a female caller that her husband secretly agreed with him and is only going along with her because he is scared of her.

He's basically told women that they should stay indoors, because they offend the men. I actually thought it was illegal to say that women should not breastfeed in public.

Saying something that is against the law doesn't mean you'll get censured by Ofcom or that the BBC will act. You only have to look at the history of Top Gear. They insulted lots of different groups and used language that breached equalities legislation (eg pikey). Ofcom didn't even uphold the complaint despite it clearly breaking the law. I'm not saying that is right. I'm just saying the bar for acceptable behaviour on the media is pretty low.

Ofcom didn't even uphold the complaint despite it clearly breaking the law

Things "clearly break the law" once there has been a conviction. Until then, it's just a negotiating position.

Aplaceonthecouch, yes, I think the BBC should act. I'm aware it often doesn't, although maybe it has a system of formal warnings etc and we just don't hear about the stages.

I think there is a difference between using a slur/inappropriate language and saying that the defining characteristic of a protected group is disgusting and shouldn't be allowed in public.

The latter is more serious surely?

I haven't listened to it but is he saying its unnatural to breastfeed in public? I suppose a lot of people would agree? I mean sex is natural but you're not allowed to do it on a bus are you. It's a bit of a grey area for me because whilst I fully encourage breastfeeding, I would find it slightly disconcerting to have men staring at me (on the train for example) & if they started smiling approvingly I'd be even more freaked out. & I speak as a mother who has ( very, very, discreetly ) b/f on public transport.

It is against the law to have sex on a bus.

It is against the law to discriminate against someone breastfeeding on a bus.

He is saying it is unnatural to breastfeed, in public or otherwise.

I suppose a lot of people would agree? - you suppose wrong. Most educated and informed people would suppose that breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world.

That is, in fact, LikeICan, what they are for. Not for lechers to leer over, or comment on.

The comments like 'sex is natural' or 'defaecating is natural' infuriate me! Breastfeeding is NOT like having sex or shitting in public - it is equivalent to eating in public. That is what the baby is doing, and no-one bats an eyelid if it is bottle-fed.

To belittle or shame a breastfeeding woman doing the very best for her LO is so so wrong.

But where do you draw the line? would you say it's acceptable for a woman to sit topless on a bus whilst feeding because she finds that more comfortable?
Breastfeeding in public is not a problem if done discreetly, & in over 25 years of travelling on public transport I've only ever seen it done that way ( & that's all of twice )

Pneumometer let me change my wording for you because obviously the most important part of my post was in the detail you chose to focus on so let's try:
'despite their language clearly contravening the Race Relations Act and constituting a breach of said act as proven by previous English case law'.

almond I can see why you're drawing that distinction but, on reflection, I think a zero tolerance approach is best. I'm not sure you can be a little bit discriminatory iyswim. It's a bit like being a little bit pregnant. A public body that publishes or produces anything that is discriminatory will have an impact on people's attitudes and their lives.

like i DARE you to go on his facebook page and post your comment there, I suspect you'll be torn apart just as he was.

Its not acceptable, and most people don't agree. They'd actually be breaking the law to voice those opinions to the woman if for example they were the buisness owner.

I don't give two fucks if a woman wants to be discreet or not. I actually fail to see how its possible to feed a baby without being discreet since the head covers most of it anyway, but until women in magazines and newspapers are forced to be "discreet" I don't see why the hell breastfeeding mothers should be so its ok to normalise breasts as long as its by sexualising them? I'd rather we normalise them for what they are, just another part of our bodies that serve a purpose.

Likening breastfeeding to sexual acts is ridiculous. Its pretty easy to not have sex in public and i'm pretty sure most of us can go longer than a few hours without needing to have sex? Should a baby go longer than a few hours without food because society has sexualised its main source of nourishment? Sex is natural and so is eating, should we no longer get to eat in front of others because we can't have sex in front of others? Are you beginning to see just how ludicrous your comments sound?

Also, if the woman did choose to sit topless on the bus (which no woman would do, ever) what would actually be the problem? That others would feel uncomfortable? Other women see breasts all the time, men see breasts all the time, if a child hasn't seen breasts then you simply say "thats a breast my precious little snowflake and she is feeding her baby with it, its what they're for".

Unless there is some other major thing I'm missing here on why a woman with her breast on show feeding her baby is sooo shock horror?

It appears he has now been suspended www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33904758

And according to Huff Post hes been suspended. Brilliant, he should be made an example of.

despite their language clearly contravening the Race Relations Act

The Race Relations Act? Nah. There's an arguable breach of the Public Order Act 1986, but even then the threshold is much higher. Just using bad words isn't an offence. You'd need either to find individuals who will attest to having been harassed, alarmed or distressed (which are higher thresholds than "offended") or you'd need to show intent to stir up racial or religious hatred, which is again a much higher threshold (because of the "intent" part).

People appear incredibly quick to throw around claims of things being illegal without there being a hint of a prosecution, and use of a racial epithet isn't close to triggering prosecutions.

Amazon are selling the pictured tee-shirt ("Pikey: just nick it") and there's no sign that either they are being prosecuted for distribution or that people who buy it are being prosecuted for wearing them. In fact, I'd say that Nike have more chance of a civil action for trademark issues than anything else. Rather like the endless "call 111!" threads, people seem to have unrealistic views of what is actually illegal. I'd rather people didn't have stand up routines that started "So, a kike, a nigger, a coon and a pikey go into a bar..." and I think that people who engage in or enjoy such "humour" should be shunned by polite society. But it isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal. There isn't a law against being obnoxious and ignorant.

HOw long for though? Probably not long enough to educate him; thatll take forever.

I missed this 'He added: "I blame the Earth mothers, you know the ones I mean, the ones with the moustaches, the ones who work in libraries, the ones who wear hessian, the ones they're always on Radio 4 on Women's Hour, they are always pushing the boundaries and making us feel uncomfortable.''

He really does feel that his right to NOT be made to feel 'uncomfortable' outweighs the huge benefits to a BF child, that women should not have opinions and push boundaries, that basically we should stay in the house, doing 'womens' work' and not trouble his blokey existence at all.

Poor lamb. One day he and his hairstyle will wake up in the 20th century, and still be 100 years out of date.

Just told my mum, aged 70+ who listens to Solent that he has been suspended.
See was very pleased, said she turned off the Radio yesterday in disgust,

He should be fired. The same act that protects people being racially abused protects bf women. The police would be speaking to him now if he said black/white/Asian/so on people are unnatural and should be locked away

Glad he's been suspended.

This was on my facebook news feed. onthewight.com/2015/08/13/alex-dyke-breast-feeding-petition-off-bbc/

He's all offended at being called a cunt

Yes, I particularly enjoyed that particular thread on the FB page, too.

Pneumometer, bf women are protected under the equality act in England. These are civil offences dealt with in tribunals, by regulators or in civil courts.

They're not criminal proceedings where somebody gets prosecuted.

Why on earth should he be sacked? I don't agree with his comments but he has done nothing illegal.

He reminds me of Garth from Wayne's World, but not nearly as nice.

If he were sacked, it would be for breach of contract. People in public sector (and many other jobs) usually have in their contracts that they must abide by the organisation's equality policy.