Should Lord Sugar Be Fired?

[DeeLicious]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5872621/Fire-Senegalese-football-team-refuses-accept-Lord-Sugars-apology-racist-tweet.html I don't think he should. I think it's a totally TT overreaction typical of today's PC world

[ludwig]

No. What he did was a bit ill advised, but that'd be daft.

[aelmpvw]

fired? he's the boss, who's going to fire him?

[Old_Geezer]

If they wish to refuse the apology then fine; they can play on hampered by their seething attitude. No, the request /demand that he be sacked is foolish beyond words. Maybe sent them a modern definition of the word "snowflake" ?

[dannyk13]

No, his apology should have been accepted and the matter closed.

[jackthehat]

No.
He's been a bit of a chump but it's not a firing/resigning matter.

[-Talbot-]

I think Piers Morgan's tweet just about covers it.

I actually couldn't care less if the plug was pulled or not re the Apprentice.

[aelmpvw]

^ that plug should have been pulled years ago

[ummmm]

No, he shouldn't be fired.

[youngmafbog]

Yes, but not because of the tweet.

[ichkeria]

Lol ymb

[kvalidir]

No, not over the tweet.

[andy-hughes]

I don't think the BBC should fire Lord Sugar, his 'humour' was posted as a private individual and nothing to do with the BBC.


It does prove that, as Lord Sugar has found out to his cost, the individual does not get to decide what is or is not funny - the choice lies with the wider world, if you choose to share your humour with the wider world via social media.

The joke was ill-judged and in poor taste, and to his credit, Lord Sugar has dropped the standard defence of those unable to judge humour appropriately, which is that because he thought it was funny, everyone else should do so as well.

He has withdrawn the image, apologised to the football team he offended, and that should be the end of the matter.

[Spicerack]

andy-hughes
// the individual does not get to decide what is or is not funny//

Welcome to 1984

// the choice lies with the wider world,//

Or as it used to be known, a handful of PC busybodies who ought to get a life.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // andy-hughes
// the individual does not get to decide what is or is not funny//

Welcome to 1984 //

It has nothing to do with 1984.


If you tell me a joke, you cannot compel me to find it funny. You can hope that I will, but you have absolutely no say in the matter, because my sense of humour is mine, and not under your, or anyone else's control.

If you did, then you could instantly topple Michael McIntyre as the country's most popular comedian, because everything you say must be funny.

It doesn't work like that, and it has nothing to do with 'political correctness', or 'snow flakes' or any other hip buzz phrase.

It's a simple set of facts.

Lord Sugar thought his post was funny, probably a large number of people agreed with him. But a large number of people did not, sufficient for him to reconsider his humour, and apologise.

Do you think he should not have apologised for offending people, simply because other people were not offended?

That was his decision, no-one made him do it, and I for one appreciate his integrity in admitting that he made a mistake.

[Spicerack]

andy-hughes Spicerack - // andy-hughes
// the individual does not get to decide what is or is not funny//

Welcome to 1984 //

It has nothing to do with 1984.


///If you tell me a joke, you cannot compel me to find it funny. You can hope that I will, but you have absolutely no say in the matter, because my sense of humour is mine, and not under your, or anyone else's control. ///

You're contradicting yourself.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // You're contradicting yourself. //

I fail to see in what way.

My position is this - if someone posts something on social media, a proportion of people may take offence.

If the poster is perceived as someone who's public profile indicates that they ought to know better, then the offence levels are going to be increased.

That is one aspect of using social media - people will not always receive your message in the spirit in which you sent it.

This applies particularly to humour, which is more subjective than just about anything else - as the constant arguments on social media prove.

There are two simple, polarised positions -

One is that what I said is funny, so if you are offended, you lack a sense of humour.

The other is that your humour is misplaced and inappropriate, and I take exception to it, and to your added insult that the fault lies with me for having no sense of humour, a charge which I utterly reject.

I think that someone in Lord Sugar's position, who acted without thought, and in my view without humour, but that is just my view - has done the right thing in acknowledging that even though it was unintended, he has caused offence, and he has apologised, and that should be the end of the matter.

[Spicerack]

Let me simplify it for you....
// but you have absolutely no say in the matter, because my sense of humour is mine, and not under your, or anyone else's control.//

// the individual does not get to decide what is or is not funny//

/

[Theland]

Give them compensation. They love compensation.

[Spicerack]

I do understand that people like you do actually believe you can decide what's funny and what isn't.
I'd suggest
a) you're in a minority
b) whether you are or not, you can't.

[andy-hughes]

Spicerack - // Let me simplify it for you....
// but you have absolutely no say in the matter, because my sense of humour is mine, and not under your, or anyone else's control.//

// the individual does not get to decide what is or is not funny//

Thanks - I see what you mean.

By ' the individual' - I meant the originator of the post- in this case, Lord Sugar.

So, in keeping with my stated position, Lord Sugar can put his humour out there, but he can't say that people should find it funny as he does.


Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

Ironically, it does rather underline my point, what I put out was not what you received!