Costing him money might not have much impact on him, but costing him his time would. Any sort of action that leads to him having increased awareness of racism, unconscious bias etc... will be much more productive than a points deduction.

Indeed.

Stewart Lee
These days, if you say your English, you'll be thrown in jail.

Not sure if allowed to post a link, but brilliant.

Middle class comedian.....there's a perfectly serviceable night buss between Waterloo and Hackney

What, just for saying you're English?

Best comedian around, he does spoil other comedians for me though

Edited You can't post that on here. AUP is clear. PopTart.

Indeed - that's exactly what I was thinking of as I typed it; he's a genius.

No offense, but that's rubbish.
How can you be sure?

There are so many words, phrases, symbols, actions, etc that someone could deem offensive or racist that we don't know about based on culture, religion, geographical location, etc. It's impossible to know all of them, so very easy to accidentally offend someone. Someone who thinks they've offended no one is either ignorant or stupid. We've all offended someone at some point in ways we probably don't know because not everyone speaks up about it.

Context and intent are very important. The phrase "zero tolerance" is not always helpful because it makes things like this seem (for lack of a better term) "black or white". It's not. Not every comment about race is racist, and because some people cannot understand context and intent, the racist card or offence card gets thrown around too often. Everyone has the right to be offended, but not everyone that is offended is right.

The context of Argyle's comment was about race. That cannot be misconstrued. It was also derogatory (I took it more as a slur on the people of Swinton being less progressive then as a slur on black people). The intent wasn't to offend IMO, but be jocular. The fact it did and the fact that the context was racial and derogatory means he was very ignorant to do it and should certainly have apologised. Good on Kenga for bringing it up at the time. It's a shame wasn't sorted at the time. Maybe he'd had a few too many and couldn't comprehend how his joke was offensive? I don't believe for a second that Argyle is a racist person, just ignorant and certainly being unprofessional in his behaviour, and deserves the publicity it got.

Don’t be coming on here talking sense.

Well that's some intellectual gymnastics; well played.

I'm sure that I have offended people at times - but I'm pretty sure I haven't offended them on the basis of a protected characteristic; which is not actually that difficult to do - if you don't have those thoughts, you don't say them out loud.

As an example - I work with people of many nationalities, including Europeans. I have had many conversations with them recently, about their experience of Brexit Britain - all without saying something as crass, offensive and racially charged as Mr Argyle is alleged to have done.

You're not wrong about context and nuance, but I fail to see how you can be so certain of Argyle's intent?

I have to agree.
Of course you can accidentally offend someone but racism and sexism are pretty clear now. If you comment on someone's colour and draw some conclusion based on it, in any way, especially if you don't know them, you are being stupid at best and deserve to be challenged about it.

There is no way Argyle does not know that questioning whether a black person is allowed to go to a particular place, based on his colour is a bad thing, unless he's been living in a cave since the 1950s.

Just to weigh in with my two ha'porth:

Ha'porth 1: communication isn't necessarily what you say, it's what the recipient understands. Consequently, however much the Toronto owner may have meant what he said as a joke and felt justified in laughing it off and fobbing of the recipient with a beer token, the measure of racism/hate speech/unacceptable behaviour rests with the recipient alone. If he feels aggrieved, then the Toronto owner is at fault and should accept all blame/consequences.
Ha'porth 2: I live in a country where, under law, any dissemination of hate speech (including, most importantly for this country, racist comments) will, if proven, result in sanction for the perpetrator AND any organisation with which the perpetrator is linked publicly. So, if an employee of mine uses racist language in public and his/her FB profile says he works for my organisation, he/she will get 1) a hefty fine and 2) absolutely crucified in the court of public opinion in addition to which my organisation will be fined and may as well shut of shop immediately, such will be the backlash. Not sure of the law in other countries, but I sorta of get it that individuals and their organisations are linked.
Not trying to be contentious, but DA has been really crass, has compounded it by trying to claim he wasn't being any more crass than the value of a beer, and has brought himself and his organisation into disrepute by association.

[sizeDO THEY ALLOW BLACK PEOPLE IN SWINTON[/size

Please......stop claiming that he's Not racist. He may not knowingly be a racist, but he friggin' well is....it may be because his mates are, it may be because his mummy didn't love him.....it may be because he didn't get picked for the first XV at school, but his attitude is exclusive and exclusive based on, in this case, skin colour........he didn't stumble and fall by accident, he made a comment "without thinking" and that is the true definition of character.....saying what you think and not what your expected to say....he is a racist!

To play devil's advocate...

If I say "Do they allow homosexuals in Saudi Arabia?" does that make me homophobic?

I've simply changed the group (which was not a discriminatory phrase) and the place.

Is the phrase used not more a slur on the people of Swinton being less progressive (not a serious one), just like the follow up one?

I think when we take the emotion out of the equation, it's actually a fascinating discussion.

What do you think Argyle's intent was out of interest?