I'm interested to know what people think... would one have to be racist to equate a picture of a chimpanzee with a mixed-race baby? I mean, is it possible that, had the picture featured a couple leaving a building with, say, a puppy wearing some sort of humanesque clothing, the same furore would have happened as it did today surrounding Danny Baker's Tweet? Would that have been saying that the mother was a dog? In subsequent interviews, he claimed not to know that a new royal baby had arrived (hmmm...) but that seems beside the point I am trying to make. I am not a great fan of the man anyway. I'm not really sure if I am trying to make a point at all - I just wonder what people think; have we gone a bit mad? Why can't we just NOT always relate everything to racism? I wouldn't think TWICE about affectionately referring to a child, say, who was eating messily as a 'piggywig' or something (as pigs eat quite messily), or one who had played a trick on me a 'little monkey' (as monkeys are famed for being mischievous). But I BET every one of us would freeze in horror if we called a black child a little monkey, for fear of repercussions, when EXACTLY the same thing was meant. Is it possible that ALL the white newsreaders I have seen reporting this issue are actually being forced to make us offended by something which isn't offensive unless we interpret it in a racist way? I am more offended by the interpretation made by the people who have a predisposition to be offended by whatever can offend them. A chimpanzee, to me, is a chimpanzee. I won't be crusading for my black friends and acquaintances because neither they nor I believe they are any more chimp than they are cow or mouse. Can't we just see people who equate chimp to black person as a bit stupid and ignore them?