However I would suggest that the poll isn't quite what it seems:
Sam Mason BBC Bristol sacked presenter over racism row | Bristol News | This is Bristol
More than 2,000 people have taken part in a Bristol Evening Post online poll and text message vote on the Sam Mason racism row. We asked: Was BBC Radio Bristol presenter Sam Mason racist in the comments she made to a local taxi firm? Almost 1,500 people voted online on this website, and a further 800 people voted using text messages. Overall, nearly three quarters of readers who voted on This is Bristol said Sam Mason's comments were not racist - with 73 per cent voting no, and 27 per cent yes. And of those who voted by text, 82 per cent said the comments were not racist, with 18 per cent claiming they were.
More than 2,000 people have taken part in a Bristol Evening Post online poll and text message vote on the Sam Mason racism row.
We asked: Was BBC Radio Bristol presenter Sam Mason racist in the comments she made to a local taxi firm?
Almost 1,500 people voted online on this website, and a further 800 people voted using text messages.
Overall, nearly three quarters of readers who voted on This is Bristol said Sam Mason's comments were not racist - with 73 per cent voting no, and 27 per cent yes.
And of those who voted by text, 82 per cent said the comments were not racist, with 18 per cent claiming they were.
This kind of "response poll" is notorious for generating skewed results.
I have some more thoughts, but I'll put them up in other comments as I sort them out in my mind.
Issues:
Thus, I'm inclined not to get too invested in the poll outcome.
I'll even note that on a personal level I'm not sure this was a sacking offence. I'm half-Indian, so I abhor her attitude, but it seems to have been a single incident. Surely there has to be room for people to learn from their mistakes?
I'll even note that on a personal level I'm not sure this was a sacking offence.
It is because she used a BBC phone, thus making the Corporation liable for the conversation. They wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if she'd used her mobile. keep to the Fen Causeway
I'm conflicted... on the one hand, if racism is to wither then it has to become truly unacceptable behaviour.
On the other... (granting that I know nothing of her previous work history) being sacked for a single instance, doesn't seem inherently enlightened.
I once lazily registered at a political website with my BBC email address and made a comment. Even tho' it wasn't directly visible, my email address came to the attention of some of the BBC's enemies (right wing blowhards) and they debated getting me sacked. They knew they could and I knew it too. I'd made one mistake and yet, if they'd felt like it, they could have destroyed my employment. Not because I was prominent, but because they wanted to instill fear among the general workforce to remind them they were being monitored. (they actually let me off cos they googled me and found out I was transgendered, they felt sorry for me !!)
And that's the way it works. The BBC couldn't keep her on cos it has to be seen to do the right thing at all times. She used a BBC phone, she made the BBC complicit in her act as that made it an official BBC call. So to absolve their blame, she had to go.
Is it just ? I doubt there's many large companies that could afford the bad publicity of having someone do that. Litigation is expensive and failure to act makes them liable. by using company resources to commit even a low level "crime", she gave them nowhere to go.
As I said, if she'd used her own mobile, she'd still be there. keep to the Fen Causeway
But, of course, there's two innings ... so even in a game where it can be one strike, you're out, you get a second chance. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
