Whinge, Moan, Rant And Anything Else Put It Here ...

[Gullscorer]

Some of you blame the feminists.
f*** me right off.

You're all f***ing feminists. Where's Maggie Thatcher when you need her...??

[Gullscorer]

do one plank.

What? You mean you want him to have sex with a supermodel?

Tongue and groove...??

[chunkygull]

'kin b@st@rd, ignorant, inconsiderate, thick as $h1t, 'kin b@stard drivers - dillying, dallying, dithering, swerving all over the road, driving 15 mph, then just turning off without indicating, then suddenly pulling off into a space on the opposite side of the road, again without indicating!

Then they get a bit annoyed when you call them a dozy, dangerous c*nt!

[Gullscorer]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/culturehou ... -disgrace/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/steerpike/ ... ed-lady-2/

[Gullscorer]

Words have contexts. Why does society take offence at certain words without reference to the context in which they were used?

What the hell is wrong with offending people anyway? Bloody political correctness being forced down our throats..

[Gullscorer]

Despite what two of the UK's leading prosecutors think, in rape trials defendants have rights, too: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... nvictions/

As the writer of the article says, it doesn’t exactly bode well for defendants when two of the most influential individuals in England and Wales’ Criminal Justice System equate ‘success’ in rape trials with a guilty verdict. Two of our leading prosecutors appear to have forgotten that a criminal trial can only truly be judged a success when not only are the guilty convicted, but the innocent are acquitted.

[AustrianAndyGull]

Rolf Harris

If there was one bloke you thought was a totally lovely guy then he was it. Shocking. Can nobody be trusted anymore?

[ferrarilover]

Not guilty... yet.

Matt.

Ref the Clarkson/Scudamore thing, I agree entirely. If someone were to read or expose a great many things I write or say in semi-public and private, they'd be appalled. The same is true of everyone. The women complaining about Scudamore's comments have, without any doubt whatsoever, been equally guilty of making "sexist" remarks in private. While on a night out with their girlfriends, they have undoubtedly objectified men and seen them as nothing but pieces of meat. Equally, they have been derogatory about both men and women, based on nothing but physical appearance. We all have, it's no necessary indication of misogyny or, in Clarkson's context, racism.

People have no right to avoid offence. Taking offence to something is a personal choice. I cannot possibly be held responsible for not knowing that a comment I make will offend. If someone somewhere makes a throwaway comment about Hartlepool being better off playing Man Utd 'B' than Torquay, I might well find that offensive. I have no right to complain, on that score at least. because it's my choice to be offended. It's not like getting kicked in the nads, where I have little option but to double up in agony. I can either call the speaker a **** and move on, or I can get all het up and start calling for people to be sacked. Either way, I make that choice and, for me, making a conscious choice to attempt to have someone lose their job, their means of feeding their family and providing for themselves, is just about the most despicable thing of which I can conceive.

[SuperNickyWroe]

Rolf Harris

If there was one bloke you thought was a totally lovely guy then he was it. Shocking. Can nobody be trusted anymore?

always wondered why he used to say "can you tell what it is yet?"

now I think I know..................

[PhilGull]

Not guilty... yet.

Matt.

Ref the Clarkson/Scudamore thing, I agree entirely. If someone were to read or expose a great many things I write or say in semi-public and private, they'd be appalled. The same is true of everyone. The women complaining about Scudamore's comments have, without any doubt whatsoever, been equally guilty of making "sexist" remarks in private. While on a night out with their girlfriends, they have undoubtedly objectified men and seen them as nothing but pieces of meat. Equally, they have been derogatory about both men and women, based on nothing but physical appearance. We all have, it's no necessary indication of misogyny or, in Clarkson's context, racism.

People have no right to avoid offence. Taking offence to something is a personal choice. I cannot possibly be held responsible for not knowing that a comment I make will offend. If someone somewhere makes a throwaway comment about Hartlepool being better off playing Man Utd 'B' than Torquay, I might well find that offensive. I have no right to complain, on that score at least. because it's my choice to be offended. It's not like getting kicked in the nads, where I have little option but to double up in agony. I can either call the speaker a tw*t and move on, or I can get all het up and start calling for people to be sacked. Either way, I make that choice and, for me, making a conscious choice to attempt to have someone lose their job, their means of feeding their family and providing for themselves, is just about the most despicable thing of which I can conceive.

I agree with this to a point, BUT... Surely there comes a point when that many people are offended that it becomes something else beyond a thing which may offend someone to something which is offending everyone (or such a large group as to be seen as everyone).





*And apologies for calling your Shirley

[ferrarilover]

If someone says something genuinely offensive, then yes, there should be questions asked, but where people are offended for the sake of it, or for effect, that's not right.

Call a copper a "child raping ****" and he'll laugh it off. Call him a pleb and apparently he's so shocked he needs a month off to recuperate from the horror. It's bollocks. No one could possibly be of such weak constitution that mere words could offend them to a meaningful or lasting degree, save in the most significant cases.

If Clarkson mumbled the word ****, once, two years ago, then he should be given that special 'daddy's not happy' look by the present DG and told to be uber cautious in future. There's no good reason for him to be sacked. If Scudamore said some mean things about his ex-wife and women in general, then he too should be advised that his personal E-Mail is not as secure as he thinks and that he should confine those comments to his closest circle of friends over dinner and drinks.

Neither of these incidents warrants so much as a murmur from anyone, unless the people involved are "high profile", in which case we all need to make a fuss in order to sell newspapers and to hell with the consequences for the people involved.

Matt.

[PhilGull]

If someone says something genuinely offensive, then yes, there should be questions asked, but where people are offended for the sake of it, or for effect, that's not right.

Call a copper a "child raping ****" and he'll laugh it off. Call him a pleb and apparently he's so shocked he needs a month off to recuperate from the horror. It's bollocks. No one could possibly be of such weak constitution that mere words could offend them to a meaningful or lasting degree, save in the most significant cases.

If Clarkson mumbled the word ******, once, two years ago, then he should be given that special 'daddy's not happy' look by the present DG and told to be uber cautious in future. There's no good reason for him to be sacked. If Scudamore said some mean things about his ex-wife and women in general, then he too should be advised that his personal E-Mail is not as secure as he thinks and that he should confine those comments to his closest circle of friends over dinner and drinks.

Neither of these incidents warrants so much as a murmur from anyone, unless the people involved are "high profile", in which case we all need to make a fuss in order to sell newspapers and to hell with the consequences for the people involved.

Matt.

My problem here is that it sounds like you are saying that use of the N word is okay in private, just so long as no one hear's it. If I thought that someone I worked with was racist then no matter ho that would or wouldn't effect how they do their job I wouldn't want to work with them.

[ferrarilover]

No, I'm saying that it's use must be scrutinised in context. I tweeted the word just to days ago and it was tweeted by another of our members in reply. Am I liable to lose my job? Be Hounded by the press? Have my Convention rights been infringed? No, of course not. Should they have been? Again, no. Would they have been if I were Jeremy Clarkson? You can bet your bottom dollar they would have.
Clarkson's intention and use of the word (if indeed he did use it) was no more racist than mine. He mumbled something which may have been the word **** in relation to the archaic words of a children's song. I tweeted it in relation to a quote from the movie Pulp Fiction. The intent was equally innocuous on both counts.
Chucking a banana at Mario Ballotelli and making monkey gestures at him is racist. Using language generally which has, admittedly very strong, racial connotations is not.
Just the same as Scudamore. Being mean about women in the context, as I understand it, of a private conversation between friends relating to an ex-wife doesn't mean a fig if he is fighting tooth and nail to promote the women's game etc.
We all do it. I've seen pictures of famous women and said, in the context of a conversation with friends, "**** me, lads, the things I'd do to that if I got within half a mile of it would see me locked up for life and no mistake". Does that make me some sort of heathen? A rapist? No, of course it doesn't, it makes me a perfectly normal person. The fact that I wouldn't actually do any such thing and, indeed, I haven't on the occasions on which I've met such people is much more a refection of my true character and that is true of all of us.
The real animals, those who murdered Stephen Lawrence, those who lob 'nanas at black players in Spain, whose who plotted to attack Joss Stone (topical as ever), they're the ones who are genuinely unsuitable for positions of responsibility.

Racism goes beyond the plain use of the language, as does sexism. It's a physical manifestation of the attitude which matters. We all have within us the propensity for violence, for discrimination, for hatred. A mere expression of some language with racial or sexist connotations in innocent context doesn't alter this. All the rappers (did I say that right?) and footballers and other people (not all of them black) who use racially and sexually charged language endlessly in their "art" are equally as innocent. Sing "Smacking my **** bitch to teach her a lesson" and the use of the word is ignored entirely and quite rightly so. Find your nearest black, female workmate and call her a '**** bitch' and see how fast your P45 arrives. Context, audience, situation, malice, it's all relevant. There's no 'one-size-fits-all' answer to the question of provocative language. It's not an absolute.

You say that if you thought someone you worked with was racist (leaving aside the "who are you to judge" argument which is clearly borne of semantics rather than any intent on your part), you'd refuse to work with them and that's a perfectly understandable attitude. My real question is, how are you deciding who is a racist? If they come into the office with their music turned up in their headphones and it's a song with racially charged language? If they admit to singing the original words to eenie meenie minie mo? If they tell a "three Asians in a boat" joke? What if, when discussing Roy's World Cup squad, they say, "I'm surprised how few white players there are going"? What if they actively moan about how few white players are going, suggesting that the mix of the squad should more closely reflect the ethnic make up of society in general? What if, when discussing a black colleague who had been knocked off his bicycle at night by a car, he said "wouldn't have happened if he'd been smiling", but in a manner which strongly suggested that he was joking? What if he made the same joke in the presence of the colleague and the colleague laughed along?

See, for me, none of those examples come anywhere near being racist, but I'll bet if we attracted, say, 1000 readers to this thread, at least 50 would say that at least 7 of the examples are genuinely racist. The same sort of thing could be said of sexism. I'll happily state that the quality of women's football, pound for pound, is nowhere near as good as that of men's. Am I a sexist? A misogynist? An escaped lunatic? Bearing in mind I type that, and mean it, all the while counting among my acquaintances the entire TULFC squad. I'd happily repeat those sentiments to them in person. Would I refuse to hire a woman PA on the basis solely of her gender or any particular feature of her sex? No, that would be sexist. Quite where the line is, precisely, between those two examples is impossible to say, because, like everything, it depends on the exact circumstances of the case.

In the specific examples of Clarkson and Scudamore, neither deserves the flak they are getting and it is inconceivable that anyone should want them sacked for their respective faux pas. The Devonshire based DJ who has been asked to resign (erroneously, by the admission of the BBC themselves) for playing the original 1930s version of "The Sun Has Got His Hat On" which contains the line "He's been tanning ****, down in Timbuktu..." is guilty of not having properly screened the song before playing it (it's very obvious. I'd never heard it before and picked up on it instantly, without prompting), but he's no racist.

Anyway, I've got lots to do, England v Sri Lanka this evening!

Matt.

[Gullscorer]

I agree with Matt, if I understand him correctly. Words are just words, a means of expression, and the context in which they are used is everything, and should indicate the degree to which they are to be found offensive. Where society at large must rightly take notice and take action are in situations where those words are used to promote or incite discrimination, hatred or violence. And there are indeed laws against that.

But those same words used in other contexts need not and should not be banned. And here, if someone finds them offensive, then that's their problem and they should deal with it. Because to ban such words where discrimination, hatred and violence are not involved or intended is really going a step too far.

As usual, of course, the influence of the over-zealous politically correct brigade has been way over the top and has swung the pendulum (or should that be scales?) too far the other way. If they had their way, freedom of expression would exist only in an extremely limited form, and anybody who disagreed with their own extreme views would be censored and banned, or worse.

[PhilGull]

Some words have varied meanings that it in different contexts can be interpreted in different ways. Gay, for example can mean many different things and can be used in many different ways.
However, I am unable to see a context in which the N word can be used in any type of friendly manner. It is a word that since it's inception has been a derogatory term. Could some please give an example of the context where it is acceptable to use.

Not that never saying the word immediately makes everything ok. It seems to me that the worst forms of racism are no blatant and 'in your face' but are the subtle things people do simply based on the genetics of another person.