|
Zero and Rattle have gone missing, RP hasn't been round much lately. Anyone else disappeared from the forum?
|
Uncle Albert and Number Cruncher both AWOL as well.
I'd suggested previously that Stephen might 're-launch' with a bit of redesign and an e-mail to lapsed users to see who could be tempted back.
With help of moddies and other volunteers if needed.
|
I think the recent "Phone Updates" thread says a lot.....
I read a lot but don't say much, I don't have the time to keep contributing to threads as often as many people who seem to live here :-)
Last edited by: Mike H on Tue 10 Jun 14 at 20:56
|
Missed Edit:
PS - I see RR you've re-merged, blinking, into the daylight that is Society, Culture and Politics.
|
>> Missed Edit:
>>
>> PS - I see RR you've re-merged, blinking, into the daylight that is Society, Culture
>> and Politics.
>>
Only briefly and in non-controversial threads. Cycle Chat is as useful and lively as ever, but that section is full of mostly the same few people taking up predictable battle stations on any given issue.
|
>> Only briefly and in non-controversial threads. Cycle Chat is as useful and lively as ever,
>> but that section is full of mostly the same few people taking up predictable battle
>> stations on any given issue.
I agree. But seeing Regulator's put downs and Yellow Tim bouncing back like a weeble is mildly amusing.
|
Quite a few of the regulars gone for a while........ Steelspark, GlackitWee, Londoner, Cheddar, MJW, Bigtee. Some for a couple of years...time flies !
Ratts has been on holiday. He's on Faecesbook...so he's ok.
|
Doggie (Arjades) also's taken the hump, and I assume the snail's bit the slug pellets?
Perhaps we should start a tontine?
|
Bit late - I doubt it will raise double figures.
Last man out please switch off the lights.
|
|
It's been an entertaining 4 years.... Maybe there's too few of us now. I don't suppose Khoosys care much as we don't generate much/any income.
|
I second the Phone Updates Thread comment. I dip in and out, usually to find someone else's argument these days.
Things have moved on; my PC takes half an hour to crank into life now so I mostly post from my phone - which is damned awkward. Wouldn't have dreamed of posting whilst mobile 4 years ago. Tablets etc aren't really made for wordy forum contributions either.
It's a shame, because I for one have made some good friends on here (Pat, Ted, Tim, etc), rearranged my finances after a landmark conversation on here and learned many interesting facts into the bargain. But maybe this format is no longer the forum (sic) for discussion it once was?
EDIT: This forum's growth, heyday and decline would be a textbook example for a thesis student studying such things. Let's hope it makes it into someone's Google results one day.
EDIT EDIT: Should we swap details with those with whom we wish to converse in the future? Just in case?
Last edited by: Dave_C220CDI on Wed 11 Jun 14 at 00:39
|
>> I second the Phone Updates Thread comment. I dip in and out, usually to find someone else's
>> argument these days.
I've not bothered reading loads of threads of late. Actually longer than that. And I sometimes go to type a reply and think: "I can't be bothered". And then I don't.
I think the time is nearing when we might be seeing too few to support this at all.
|
>> I sometimes go to type a reply and think: "I can't be bothered". And then I don't.
>>
>> I think the time is nearing when we might be seeing too few to support
>> this at all.
>>
Much my own sentiments.
I still enjoy reading the forum. It is the first forum I look at if i have been away. However the posts by some contributors are so determined and persistent, verging on the bullying, that I am not surprised that some people give up.
|
|
There'll be more folk around come winter...
|
>> There'll be more folk around come winter...
>>
Ah yes. Winter tyres.
|
>> Ah yes. Winter tyres.
>>
Always an interesting tread
|
"There'll be more folk around come winter"
Fewer surely, especially when it drops below zero.
|
|
Funnily enough I think it's busier in here than it's been for ages. More 'new' messages when I log on in the mornings than previously.
|
I'd go along with the sentiments outlined above. I feel that way about most of the (few) forums I visit these days. I thought it was just me 'growing out' of the culture and social media in general. I've been dieting successfully quite recently and, in a flush of self-confidence, am planning next to wean myself off the little use I make of Facebook.
The problem is, indeed, keeping in touch...
|
|
What upset Rattle? I must have missed that one.
|
There is always of course the outside possibility that even if we are enduring a 'quiet' period that if those who do remain keep their posts friendly, fun, informative etc without entering into needless and pointless battles of will, that eventually some new contributors might choose to join in and stay and some lapsed ones might decide to come back.
I wouldn't continue to drink in a busy pub where there was always a fight at closing time. I'd far rather go to the quieter one down the road for a bit of friendly banter and interesting conversation with people who didn't feel the need to sort everything out in the car park every other night.
;-)
|
|
Oi Runfer, are you looking at my Volvo ? ;-)
Last edited by: gmac on Wed 11 Jun 14 at 11:07
|
Nah, I wouldn't waste time looking at something that ugly...
;-)
|
Volvo isn't a word I wanted to see today. Been looking around for a replacement car for some time, a nice Volvo popped up yesterday, ticks every box for me, - but I just can't quite get over the head/heart line and stump up the cash for it. Sigh. I just have to prioritise the old mortgage.
I'm going to have to let it go. Sigh again.
|
Ooh go on though, tell us a bit more about it anyway !
If only so someone can turn it round to being far more sensible for you to buy a Mondeo with winter tyres, privacy glass and leather seats.
;-)
Oh and a private plate of course !
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Wed 11 Jun 14 at 11:17
|
>> Ooh go on though, tell us a bit more about it anyway !
>
Wrong place for this; should be in motoring but probably not interesting enough for a thread to anyone else, so it was this:
www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201405114108834
I can feel happier about not going for it if someone can tell me why I shouldn't do so anyway ("ooh, you don't want one of those, after a thousand miles your head will fall off", that kind of thing.)
|
Ok then, there are you will be relieved to know, three things wrong with it, it's a geartronic which will break allegedly, it's a saloon and they are just so Terry and June and it's a Volvo.
You made the right decision.
Unless you're really into cardigans of course, then it might be alright.
:-)
|
|
But that light leather interior... worth it if you never moved off the drive.
|
>> Oh buttons.
>>
>> Thanks mate!
>>
And its got no fuel in it
|
"it's a saloon and they are just so Terry and June and it's a Volvo"
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Terry and June drove a Leyland Princess Wedge. Jeremy and Margot drove a Volvo estate.
Now, who would you want living next door?
|
|
Jerry and Terry of course. It's a match made in heaven.
|
>> www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201405114108834
>>
>> I can feel happier about not going for it if someone can tell me why
>> I shouldn't do so anyway ("ooh, you don't want one of those, after a thousand
>> miles your head will fall off", that kind of thing.)
>>
Keep your money in your pocket/bank, it's not a proper Volvo.
Doors rattle and the power point in the front drink holder slot will drive you nuts the few times you reach for the gearlever and whatever is on charge, the charger spikes you in the forearm.
Then there's the electronic park brake, I have no issue with it being on a switch, I have an issue with it being down next to the boot and petrol flap release. Those first few applications of the park brake will have you jumping out and closing the boot lid/fuel flap or both.
Then there's the reflection of the instrument panel in the top of the windscreen due to the top of the dash being a few mm too short to stop the light reflecting up.
The bonnet release on these cars has not been transferred over to the drivers footwell as with previous Volvos so you can get your passenger to pop it on the motorway as there is no inhibitor on the switch. Still, the catch under the bonnet will keep everything in order if a passenger were ever to catch the release with their foot.
The stupid maintenance position required if you want to clean the windscreen with the wipers off the glass. You now have to get into the car switch the ignition on and move the wipers to the park position (top of the sweep) otherwise you can't pull the arms off the screen, they foul on the bonnet.
Cracking engine though. It'll still be going when the technical college welding for beginners front cross member has rusted through.
Not one of Volvo's best efforts.
|
That's brilliant. Thank you for the required off put.
Of course, I don't want to extend the discussion, but if hypothetically...hmm. I'll start a motoring thread.
|
You now have to get into the car switch the ignition on and move the wipers to the park position (top of the sweep) otherwise you can't pull the arms off the screen, they foul on the bonnet.
The LEC's wipers are also hidden behind the bonnet edge but can be gently nudged upward by hand into a position from which they can be hinged out for cleaning. Does the S60 not allow this?
Agree on the electric parking brake. I don't share the general objection to such things but Volvo has done it notably worse than most, especially for a manual.
|
>> The LEC's wipers are also hidden behind the bonnet edge but can be gently nudged
>> upward by hand into a position from which they can be hinged out for cleaning.
>> Does the S60 not allow this?
>>
No, they have a section in the manual describing the process.
The latest thing is an update to my phone has broken the connection to the car making me realise I am well and truly locked in to dealer servicing if I want to keep the car and tech in alignment.
I'm buying a Subaru next time.
|
"I wouldn't continue to drink in a busy pub where there was always a fight at closing time……"
Every so often, in the course of your work or your social life, you meet a really positive, friendly, laid-back sort of person - a character who smiles and isn't constantly on their guard for the negative - a person who is content with their life, imperfect as it may be - and who actually makes you feel good to be in their very presence; when you leave, you are smiling, and you have a spring in your step.
I met such a bloke, a farmer, on Monday afternoon in the course of a consultancy project that I'm doing. These guys have to put up with bureaucratic rubbish on a daily basis, and nowadays have to employ advisors to sort out the mess for them while they get on with the job of feeding us; I was prepared for a moan, but was met with utter friendliness, a cup of coffee, interest and a genuine willingness to help with my project.
The chap made me feel good, hence I've largely avoided C4P for a few days as I don't really want to be reminded of the elephant. Anyway, I think that Cameron may now have had his attention drawn to it, so we'll be alright …………………..!
…… and now, I'd better go and mow the lawn. I'll be back, though!
|
"I wouldn't continue to drink in a busy pub where there was always a fight at closing time."
I agree, although I should add, I like to drink where there are 'do-able, hot mature birds' too.
Like Pat.
|
BBD, you are full of b*******:)
Pat
|
I wasn't going to comment on this thread as my feelings are pretty much clear, but I think Rattle has been extremely patient and level headed over the years considering the stick he's taken on here.
The point is, no matter how easy going and patient anyone is, there comes a point where if it happens every single time you post, then sooner or later the time comes to say 'why do I bother?'
I'm just surprised Rattle didn't reach that point ages ago and well done to him for lasting so long.
Humph has it right on the nose.
Pat
|
|
I did look across at HJ yesterday and saw someone called 'Rats' had posted. I wonder?
|
I sometimes look HJ, open a thread and think, "Blimey he's back, he hasn't been here for years, then I look at the dates and someone has revived a thread from 2003 with a few new comments.
With a few exceptions, I do think forums in general have quietened down considerably in the past few years.
|
|
You know I actually tell myself off for spending too much time peering at screens. Maybe others do too and have more successfully broken the habit.
|
>> I think Rattle has been extremely patient and level headed over the years considering
>> the stick he's taken on here.
He does make a rod for his own back sometimes though.
|
it's almost impossible not to descend into poking gentle fun at Rattle, he's just so amusing.
But I think it was always meant with affection, and behind the joking he was always given good sensible advice for his various problems.
I think probably he was just a bit embarassed by his revelations of his own somewhat inebriated night out, so decided to spend more time with his family, as they say.
He'd always be very welcome back.
|
Zero is aware of this thread and I've tried to tempt him to come back and say in here what he told me was wrong with car4play:);) who was to blame:):) and what his thoughts were!
I don't think he's got the nerve though, so my lips will remain sealed!
Pat
|
>> I don't think he's got the nerve though
Zero doesn't lack nerve. He's in an intellectual bind: brought up somehow to be unable to admit to being wrong about anything, but intelligent enough to know that everyone is wrong sometimes.
I miss him too, the evil little brute.
|
>>>Zero is aware of this thread and I've tried to tempt him to come back and say in here what he told me was wrong with car4play:);) who was to blame:):)
As AC says... he would never admit that he was largely to blame himself... so little point.
I almost never post in these type of navel gazing threads but on this occasion it's worth saying.
Some days ago NoFM said... and I think this is close enough... the main issue with the forum was a new visitior stream/feed... and that negative behaviour from the existing inmates wasn't an issue.
Well I agree the visitor stream is crucial to a good forum and an area where there seems no way forward for C4P.... but as Runfer mentions above while a few still hold on here there is no harm in keeping it lively but polite as a worthwhile placeholder for the long shot something expansive might happen.
Pat for your part you have said quite a lot recently your dislike of confrontation and criticism every time you post something. Well that is exactly how Zero's posting style comes across and it has permeated many of the threads here and affected most of the other posters who have varying degrees of resilience to him. Yet you say it's boring without Zero... you can't have it both ways.
As far as those shadowy figures behind the forum go I think they have to give at least some direction.
For example it is totally asking fort trouble to allow politics... and particularly of one party... to dominate threads... similarly the associated racial views and rants are not conducive to a stable forum where it's stated aim is to broadly centre around motoring.
|
Perhaps we need an incentive scheme. "Introduce a new member and receive a free ..."
I can't think what that could be though. A free smiley perhaps.
|
>> asking fort trouble to allow politics... and particularly of one party... to dominate threads... similarly the associated racial views and rants are not conducive to a stable forum where it's stated aim is to broadly centre around motoring.
The forum would be less interesting without the non-motoring section. I can't really agree Fenlander. The recent UKIP thread is a case in point, with several posters stating apparently fixed positions which then shifted a little in some cases. When argument shifts someone's view, even very slightly, progress of a sort has been made.
|
>>>The forum would be less interesting without the non-motoring section.
Oh it has to keep the non-motoring and I'm very grateful for advice, hints and tips picked up from queries I've raised over the years.
But the firm declaration of political position from Roger and Stu plus allowing them a platform here didn't sit well with me as it encouraged confrontation between members where... politics aside... there was none.
The more general take on politics you often raise is a different matter and always interesting... particularly with the historical stuff from around the world which has a place in this household.. but not a connection that can ever be discussed or... well you know the score... I'd have to call Uncle Albert back with his service revolver.
|
"For example it is totally asking fort trouble to allow politics... and particularly of one party... to dominate threads... similarly the associated racial views and rants are not conducive to a stable forum"
Totally agree. Some of the postings in that area have had a distinctly murky and unpleasant feel about them. Difficult to ban political discussion of course but endless posts promulgating the views of a few do become tedious.
|
Don't be too harsh on the thread contents though. I mean, today alone we have learned that Fenlander has secret compartments in his underpants for example.
Not many places you'd get access to that sort of information are there?
|
>>> we have learned that Fenlander has secret compartments in his underpants for example.
That much you might have deduced... but just which of my prized possessions does that pocket offer security to... it can never be told.
|
"... NoFM said... and I think this is close enough... the main issue with the forum was a new visitior stream/feed... and that negative behaviour from the existing inmates wasn't an issue."
The two are connected, in my view. And of course NoFM might have his own agenda.
The smaller the existing clientèle, the more prominent and noticeable is the presence of those who upset others, for whatever reason. And if there were more newcomers that in itself would mean that some sort of courtesy would be extended to them. One of our troubles is that familiarity breeds contempt.
I still enjoy popping in for a quick read and occasional post, and I am very grateful for the advice I have received here on various topics.
I like an argument, but not when it becomes a piece of self-assertiveness and ego.
As regards the future, as one of those who signed up in 2011 to help, I am disappointed that promised developments haven't taken place and don't look likely to. But I'm pretty busy these days, my life is fuller than ever, I am mostly contented and I don't really care what happens.
|
>>Pat for your part you have said quite a lot recently your dislike of confrontation and criticism every time you post something. Well that is exactly how Zero's posting style comes across and it has permeated many of the threads here and affected most of the other posters who have varying degrees of resilience to him. <<
In that case they need to look at the bigger picture as I try and do. Could that be why I'm still here and haven't flounced?
Everyone here is a real person and most of our friends will have traits we don't like but others we admire and value, surely we all look at each other like that?
My spats with NoFM are legendary but I'd be the first to point out his good points if need be, likewise with Zero.
>>Yet you say it's boring without Zero... you can't have it both ways.<<
Oh yes I can, simple politeness would be the answer to most of the problems.
As for banning politics, religion etc then any forum will die a death. All it needs is a bit of self control, surely that isn't too hard for a bunch of well educated adults, is it?
It says more about the contributors to a discussion than it does about the subject if it has to be banned.
Pat
|
>>>>>Yet you say it's boring without Zero... you can't have it both ways.<<
>>>Oh yes I can, simple politeness would be the answer to most of the problems.
Well why do you frequently post you like visiting here less and less due to a lack of politeness (give or take) when you are a chief supporter for the most over assertive posters who lack politeness in the eyes of others?
>>>As for banning politics, religion etc then any forum will die a death.
No it wouldn't... I post daily to two shining examples of managed forums where politics and arguments of race are instantly moderated. The forums are informative in their fields and pleasant places to be but without that crushing feeling of moderation in the latter HJ years.
>>>All it needs is a bit of self control, surely that isn't too hard for a bunch of well educated adults, is it?
Well not for me but....
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 11 Jun 14 at 14:52
|
>>Well why do you frequently post you like visiting here less and less due to a lack of politeness (give or take) when you are a chief supporter for the most over assertive posters who lack politeness in the eyes of others?<<
The last five words of that quote are the clue Fenlander.
They define what I was trying to explain the other day on another thread where I was misunderstood/didn't explain myself well.
My idea of the most over assertive may well be very different to yours and others down to the kind of thing I'm used to in my daily work life.
Likewise to FMR, I honestly didn't see anything racist in that thread and indeed never have done on here. I thought we were having a discussion on what different people consider racist and as such surely descriptions are allowed?
On the other hand, and I'm now going to be totally honest, I realise you've all been better educated than I have. Most of you have been have been brought up in different circles to me.
The majority of you mix with people effortlessly, where I can do it properly, it will always be something I dread and have to work at.
Because of this I expect you ALL to be far more polite, sensitive to others, and know what's right or wrong, I'm afraid.
(When I say sensitive to others, I am not talking of myself but of Rattle, I'm really surprised no-one recognised he felt humiliated even if it was of his own making.)
It's a cross you have to bear and it come with the job, just as I have to be classed as a chav because I once lived I a council house and picked tates for a living, when it suits others:)
Now, how about concentrating on staying on that pedestal I have you all on!
Pat
|
>>> I have to be classed as a chav because I once lived I a council house and picked tates for a living,
Actually that's not what a chav is... a hard working Volvo driving person often supporting those in difficulty would never be a chav!
|
@Pat: Judging by your writing you are better educated than many, many, people and I'm always very happy to read your posts here.
(Said with absolutely no intention to be patronising: just a genuine opinion)
|
Thanks Roger, taken as meant!
Pat
|
|
And Pat you have been educated at the University of Life. That is the most beneficial qualification a person can ever attain.
|
>> My spats with NoFM are legendary but I'd be ................
Here's something I don't understand. This is a discussion forum, its for discussion. Many different subjects will be discussed. Why complain about the discussion?
Some of them will interest you, and some will not. When there is one you don't wish to read, then don't read it.
There are some, Pat, Simon, certainly me, AC and others who can argue, even too strongly, and then allow the world to keep spinning on its axis.
Pat and I don't agree. But however much she may annoy me, or indeed I her, I cannot imagine ever being offended by her. Its only an argument, and not only am I not a person to simply say yes, I don't enjoy the company of people that are.
I would never want her to leave, nor do I think the place would be better without her. For a start, who wants to argue with a wuss!?
I know the reasons that various peoples state for not being here. But the truth is those reasons are reasons for them alone and aren't really valid for anyone else nor worth worrying about unduly. It simply comes down to someone not finding the place as much fun as they found it yesterday which is inevitable over time.
HJ's backroom used to have about a 24 month turnover. i.e. if one read a batch of lively threads 2 years apart, the participants would be substantially, although not totally, different. There's no reason to suppose that this place, or any other forum for that matter, would be much different.
Politics and religion are dangerous subjects of which to allow free discussion. They just become angry. Still, that is a matter for moderators, since its directly related to the amount of time they need to put in and they can be controlled.
Racism is a whole 'nother subject - its one of the few points of view that I would simply ban. That, like anything else offensive, should just not be permitted and it attracts the wrong types and generates the wrong environment. I still remain surprised that it was accepted.
I am also quite genuinely shocked about some of the views. Quite an awakening.
>> >>Yet you say it's boring without Zero... you can't have it both ways.<<
>> Oh yes I can, simple politeness would be the answer to most of the problems.
Didn't I hear you saying a month or so ago about how you missed Zero's insults and stand up rows you felt free to have with him? Or something like that, I may well have misunderstood.
>> It says more about the contributors to a discussion than it does about the subject
>> if it has to be banned.
Agreed. Although sometimes it just says something about how much time the moderators can be bothered to spend on the place.
Equally owners typically want a place to have a "style". Usually a lot of moderating decisions come down to a combination of both promoting, encouraging and protecting that style.
There seems to be no stated direction, style or goal for this place. Part of the issue, I think.
Overall, strong people who have lead interesting lives and know interesting stuff *will* be annoying sometimes. I don't believe it can be otherwise. Nobody can only be strong on stuff you agree with and then all tolerant sweetness and light on stuff you don't like.
Big picture, real world, rough with the smooth, life is too short.
|
"Why complain about the discussion?
Some of them will interest you, and some will not. When there is one you don't wish to read, then don't read it."
Just to be clear, the above is phrased as if I was directing my comments directly to Pat, I was not.
|
>> I am also quite genuinely shocked about some of the views. Quite an awakening.
I'm not. Some of the more racist elements here were just as obvious on HJ. Not everyone is kulturny and the Man on the Clapham omnibus always had a coarse side.
Even further down the market, I remember with great pleasure an Edwardian-era Punch cartoon showing a foppishly-dressed, gesticulating Italian tourist trying to speak to two navvies leaninng on their picks and shovels. the caption reads:
'What's 'e saying, Bill?'
'I dunno. 'It 'im in the ear'ole.'
A typically charming example of British xenophobia. Nothing new under the sun. These days it's sometimes malevolent confusion of Islam with Islamist ideology and practice.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 11 Jun 14 at 15:52
|
"Here's something I don't understand. This is a discussion forum, its for discussion. Many different subjects will be discussed. Why complain about the discussion?"
This statement is either naive or disingenuous. It certainly misses an important point.
No-one, I believe, is saying there shouldn't be discussion; no-one is saying there shouldn't be disagreement. As I have said before (but perhaps nobody agrees), the problem is the manner in which arguments and disagreements are sometimes conducted.
There have been occasions when the display of unbending ego becomes pretty obnoxious.
|
>>There have been occasions when the display of unbending ego becomes pretty obnoxious.
Not to me, if it bothers you then ignore it.
|
|
Of course there is another way to look at it... those with the ego thing could lay off folks who so obviously don't do ego???
|
>>Not to me, if it bothers you then ignore it.<<
Ignore it or go away?
What's the difference and which is the easiest to do?
Most who have gone from here recently are still posting in other places....
Pat
|
I am both shocked and appalled by what I perceive to be racism in here; AC is not surprised to see it as he has recognised it before; It seems that everybody else either doesn't think its here or is more worried about people being stroppy, waving their egos or supposed bullying.
All a question of priorities and perceptions, I guess.
|
>> I am both shocked and appalled by what I perceive to be racism in here
I'm not. If it bothers you, just ignore it.
|
>>Not to me, if it bothers you then ignore it."
As I'm sure you appreciate, Westpig, this forum is not just about you and what you think.
|
>> >>Not to me, if it bothers you then ignore it."
>>
>> As I'm sure you appreciate, Westpig, this forum is not just about you and what
>> you think.
>>
See, there's a difference. I didn't need to be reminded.
|
>> >> I am both shocked and appalled by what I perceive to be racism in
>> here
>>
>> I'm not. If it bothers you, just ignore it.
There's a difference between that which offends manners and that which offends morals.
|
|
Well said Bromp, spot on. Wish I'd said it.
|
"Wish I'd said it."
Wish I knew what he was on about!
|
>> Well said Bromp, spot on. Wish I'd said it.
>>
You will, Mark, you will!
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 12 Jun 14 at 07:29
|
>> There's a difference between that which offends manners and that which offends morals.
Yes, philosophically, but racism offends against both, even closet racism which purports to offend only against morals.
One just has to remember that there are people who want to be well-meaning and are humane, but whose upbringing and social sphere project overtly unpleasant attitudes - racist, sexist and so on - as normal, not worthy of comment or real thought. We are a philistine nation like all the others.
|
"unpleasant attitudes - racist, sexist and so on"
Yes indeedy, the trendy, middle-class lefties and champagne socialists are having a tough time at the moment as they try to get their morals in order. On the one hand, if you support the segregation of girls in the classroom, then you are a sexist; if you don't think it's a good idea, then you are a racist.
Here's another racist piece? www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10892606/Trojan-Horse-debate-We-were-wrong-all-cultures-are-not-equal.html
|
Allison doing a 'Melanie' again. It's quite unreasonable to conflate what happens in thoroughly unstable countries where one or more factions have hi-jacked Islam to their cause with the UK.
Here's an alternative perspective:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/michael-gove-assault-on-schools-naked-discrimination
Even if you accept them as evidence Monday's batch baked set of OSTED reports have back pedalled from extremism. Certainly, governors from a relatively conservative streak of UK Islam have used their traditions to mould what were previously failing schools, serving an overwhelmingly Muslim population, into establishments that produce exemplary exam results (5 or more passes A* - C). The parents seem to want that and the move to Academies which both parties have advocated for a decade or more was supposed to allow exactly that.
The segregation of girls, where it happens in mainstream subjects, is worrying and should be managed out. OTOH if it's for PE and 'PSE' (personal, social health - the sort of area where sex/reproduction and wider health is discussed) then separation of the sexes is routine even in bog standard 95% White Anglo Comps.
|
>> Even if you accept them as evidence Monday's batch baked set of OSTED reports have
>> back pedalled from extremism. Certainly, governors from a relatively conservative streak of UK Islam have
>> used their traditions to mould what were previously failing schools, serving an overwhelmingly Muslim population,
>> into establishments that produce exemplary exam results (5 or more passes A* - C). The
>> parents seem to want that and the move to Academies which both parties have advocated
>> for a decade or more was supposed to allow exactly that.
>>
>> The segregation of girls, where it happens in mainstream subjects, is worrying and should be
>> managed out.
>>
Why does a group of people stepping away from the norm and implementing their own standards not worry you? Is this not a form of self-imposed segregation?
Is the issue then a question of failed integration?
The point of my post is how segregation of girls is worrying but not the segregation of a school representing a community and failed integration. Why one completely misses the radar?
|
>> Why does a group of people stepping away from the norm and implementing their own
>> standards not worry you? Is this not a form of self-imposed segregation?
>>
>> Is the issue then a question of failed integration?
What is the 'norm' from which they've stepped away? A 'bog standard comprehensive?
The current set up allows free schools and academies a deal of flexibility. Amongst those are removal of requirement to follow the National Curriculum and greater freedom over who to employ and on what terms. People have used that to develop schools that meet the needs of their locality.
>> The point of my post is how segregation of girls is worrying but not the
>> segregation of a school representing a community and failed integration. Why one completely misses the
>> radar?
But we've always done that. Catholic, CofE and Jewish 'faith' schools have been allowed and encouraged since before 1944 Education Act. Segregation, by means of not even allowing boys or girls over the threshold, is part of the paradigm.
From a Muslim perspective the sudden sounding of alarms when they act in same way as other religions might feel like discrimination.
|
>> What is the 'norm' from which they've stepped away? A 'bog standard comprehensive?
>>
The 'norm' I was referring to was the National Curriculum.
>> The current set up allows free schools and academies a deal of flexibility. Amongst those
>> are removal of requirement to follow the National Curriculum and greater freedom over who to
>> employ and on what terms. People have used that to develop schools that meet the
>> needs of their locality.
>>
Now that is worrying to me. How Universities and Employers are supposed to work with the end product of a system of which which can be opted out of. Kind of here's the plan but feel free to go and do your own thing.
|
"Kind of here's the plan but feel free to go and do your own thing."
This is the basis of the Guardianista's dilemma. "I disagree with FGM from a moral point of view, but I defend your right to do it because it's part of your culture". It doesn't bode well for multiculturalism, does it?
|
Re " I defend your right to do it because it's part of your culture". Not so. www.theguardian.com/end-fgm And www.theguardian.com/society/video/2014/feb/26/guardian-fgm-petition-campaign-video
Whatever a Guardianista is supposed to be.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Thu 12 Jun 14 at 10:53
|
"Not so."
Hence the dilemma.
|
>> Hence the dilemma.
Seems more like 'what aboutery' than a dilemma. Can you point to an example of an article that seeks to justify FGM?
|
I've seen no evidence whatever of liberal/left/'guardianista' (whatever those labels mean) suggesting FGM should be tolerated.
It should also be pointed out that FGM is not an Islamic practice but rather a cultural tradition in parts of sub Saharan Africa.
Islam does though, like Judaism and the American middle class, practice male circumcision.
|
>> Now that is worrying to me. How Universities and Employers are supposed to work with
>> the end product of a system of which which can be opted out of. Kind
>> of here's the plan but feel free to go and do your own thing.
>>
They still do the same exams but have more freedom as to how stuff is taught etc. Not necessarily a bad thing; there are plenty of experts who will tell you the NC is too prescriptive.
|
Being trained to pass a few exams at grades A*-C is not doing much for society as a whole or the groups integration.
Why allow these groups to opt out ?
Nothing wrong with traditions, as long as they do not break the law(s) of the host country. Does it not make sense to integrate ?
If integration is not wanted or possible don't you think it's simply a case of kicking the can down the road for the next generation to sort out?
Government's of all colours are good at that sort of thing.
|
>> Being trained to pass a few exams at grades A*-C is not doing much for
>> society as a whole or the groups integration.
Do you think the National Curriculum and the over emphasis on SATS and league tables do much for national cohesion or preparedness for work either? The reason those Koreans could walk in and do a GCSE Science paper was because they'd been taught the subject, not just how to pass a test in it.
>> Why allow these groups to opt out ?
>> Nothing wrong with traditions, as long as they do not break the law(s) of the
>> host country. Does it not make sense to integrate ?
But if we stop 'these' groups from opting out (if that in fact is what they've done) then we've got to extend the same principle across the piece and stop Catholics, Jews et from opting out as well.
|
... stop Catholics, Jews et from opting out as well.
Precisely what we should do. Anything else leads to 'us and them' fragmentation. Look at Northern Ireland.
|
>> Precisely what we should do.
Yep. No faith schools. No "free" schools. Job done.
|
>> ... stop Catholics, Jews et from opting out as well.
>>
>> Precisely what we should do. Anything else leads to 'us and them' fragmentation. Look at
>> Northern Ireland.
In principle I agree 100% but practical politics says it won't happen. Not even in 1997-05 when Labour was in power and certainly not now or in an foreseeable post 2015 Commons.
And that's without even contemplating the Lords.
|
>> In principle I agree 100% but practical politics says it won't happen. Not even in
>> 1997-05 when Labour was in power and certainly not now or in an foreseeable post
>> 2015 Commons.
Maybe, just maybe, the wind is changing. Report running in Guardian suggests a majority of voters oppose taxpayer funding of faith schools.
www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/14/taxpayers-should-not-fund-faith-schools
Still think the clamour that would follow realisation 'faith' includes CofE and Catholic establishments would scupper any such proposal though.
|
>> Maybe, just maybe, the wind is changing. Report running in Guardian suggests a majority of
>> voters oppose taxpayer funding of faith schools.
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/14/taxpayers-should-not-fund-faith-schools
>>
>> Still think the clamour that would follow realisation 'faith' includes CofE and Catholic establishments would
>> scupper any such proposal though.
>>
Faith schools and private schools are here to stay. The Tories believe in giving people a choice and the socialists need somewhere to send their kids that ensures they don't have to mix with ordinary people.
Ditto private health care.
|
Your correct to pick me up for the use of 'these', I should have said ANY.
Interesting there is no comment with regard to integration. I believe the Dutch have it right. You have to learn the language, the history and the culture otherwise it's thanks but no thanks.
|
|
Missed the edit: You are not your.
|
On the one hand, if you support the segregation of girls in the classroom, then you are a sexist; if you don't think it's a good idea, then you are a racist.
HW, you seem to be in Utter Rubbish mode today. There is nothing racist about disagreeing with mistreatment of girls and women on cultural grounds. By definition, a culture is something that people choose to do, not a feature of their genetic, biological inheritance.
All religions - not just Islam - are wrong because they seek to derive authority on worldly matters from an imaginary and so unaccountable supernatural power. Some choose to compound the error by grossly misusing that spurious authority, and that applies as much to bible-thumping Americans as to the Taliban. And all religions are human creations, a matter of choice - for the oppressors if not for their victims.
So girls segregated in schools - or denied education altogether in other countries - or forced to wear concealing clothing, or to undergo FGM, are not the victims of their race but of people who could choose not to oppress them. And you don't have to be a 'Guardianista' to understand that.
|
On the one hand, if you support the segregation of girls in the classroom, then you are a sexist; if you don't think it's a good idea, then you are a racist.
Today's National Curriculum subject is 'False Dichotomy' - discuss.
On a secular note there is good peer reviewed evidence that girls do better, particularly in science and maths, if separated from boys.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 12 Jun 14 at 13:38
|
>> On a secular note there is good peer reviewed evidence that girls do better, particularly
>> in science and maths, if separated from boys.
>>
If they are not then ignored while the teacher concentrates on teaching the boys.
|
>> On a secular note there is good peer reviewed evidence that girls do better, particularly
>> in science and maths, if separated from boys.
>>
Yes, valid point.
However, it's a completely different angle if girl's were to be segregated for purely educational reasons .. or.. they were being treated differently just to appease or kowtow to someone else's religion.
By 'someone else's religion' I mean one not relevant to the history/ traditions of this country or the vast majority of the people's born and bred here.
I have no problem with people's of any faith practising them, but do have a problem with a someone else's religion gradually creeping its way in here and trying to be top dog, as this one is.
All the Neville Chamberlain platitudes in the world will not stop it either.
|
|
I've given up - it's as futile as discussing sky-fairies with a believer. I don't have any grandchildren yet so why should I bother?
|
Are you suggesting that it's OK for some religions to have influence over public policy, WP? That makes as much sense as letting homeopaths into the NHS!
|
>> I have no problem with people's of any faith practising them, but do have a
>> problem with a someone else's religion gradually creeping its way in here and trying to
>> be top dog, as this one is.
As before I simply don't see UK Islam in those terms. Something like 4% of the population of the UK identified as Muslim at last census. The idea that we're going to be anIslamic Republic in any time-scale seems to me to be risible.
That 4% is totally unevenly distributes and mainly concentrated in a few inner city areas where they're in majority. The Birmingham schools are exemplars with vast majority of pupils Muslim. No less reason why they should be brought up and educated as their parents want than for other religions.
>> All the Neville Chamberlain platitudes in the world will not stop it either.
Do you think a Churchillian alternative involving conflict would acheive anything.
|
>> No less reason why they should be brought up and educated as their parents want than for other religions.
Quite. Jewish, Catholic, Methodist and so on are tolerated, and so are Muslim schools. The recent fuss seems to be about allegations that school governors were overruling the teaching staff and imposing sexual segregation, chadors, no swimming or PT for girls, and similar Islamist (not Muslim) rubbish and garbage. How true this is one can't really tell but it seems unlikely to be something wholly imagined by paranoid teachers. There is a problem because a lot of parents are themselves ignorant and timid and liable to be bullied by people with agendas.
No doubt fanatics of these other religions have tried to make mischief in their day. That was dealt with or died down. So will this when people shut up about it. We are a grown-up nation and should be proud of civilized tolerance of assorted views, but not of those made up of malevolent bull excrement.
|
There is a problem because a
>> lot of parents are themselves ignorant and timid and liable to be bullied by people
>> with agendas.
Make that a large chunk of society, especially those in councils and parliament ...and I'd 100% agree with you.
...and to slightly further the angle, if those with agendas are quick to defend with a common put down that a lot of people are uncomfortable with challenging, because they are unsure of how to, without being labelled racist (let's call it the Sepp Blatter defence), then on the merry- go -round continues.
IMO it needs a robust attack, right for the throat...... let the 'agenda people' realise you can't be had over, then let everyone believe in whatever religion they see fit, who cares?
|
|
Sorry WP, I have literally no idea what that lot meant.
|
>> Sorry WP, I have literally no idea what that lot meant.
>>
What I'm saying is, in agreement with AC and adding my bit, is:
If people with an Islamist agenda (as opposed to a general Muslim people, as AC has put it) meet people who are unworldly, unsure of themselves, or unnecessarily fear offending people, then they can be bullied (or in my speak 'had over') by those that shout the loudest or are extremists ....for fear of being labelled racist, etc.
...and I think local authorities and politicians particularly, are full of such weak willed people.
|
Clear enough to me WP, though I'm not keen on the 'attack' language.
I argued in a recent UKIP thread I think, before I was tacitly labelled racist, that we have an opportunity properly to secularise the state now. Tolerate all religious belief and behaviours within the laws of the country.
The 'old' religions are on the wane. I think it is debatable on the current showing whether the "Trojan horse" schools can fairly be compared now with CofE, Catholic and other faith schools.
Islam is waxing here, not waning, and is arguably discriminatory by definition - towards women in particular, and to non-Muslims. Is that compatible with a liberal, equal opportunity state?
Bromp, to juxtapose a supine acceptance or appeasement with Churchillian aggression as if they are the only options neglects in my opinion the best approach which broadly is integration - not hostility to people who have a legitimate right to be here as citizens, nor the setting up of an Islamic state within a state which remains a possibility.
That is what we should be able to discuss without being labelled discriminatory or racist.
I'm sure you've been following the debate around the Law Society's guidance on Sharia will drafting. Do you think that is acceptable, or should even be considered legal?
|
">>There have been occasions when the display of unbending ego becomes pretty obnoxious.
Not to me, if it bothers you then ignore it."
As I'm sure you appreciate, Mark, this forum is not just about you and what you think.
|
>>As I'm sure you appreciate, Mark, this forum is not just about you and what you think.
What a very silly little comment.
It is a forum. A place for opinions. All opinions. Mine, yours and others. My opinions are ALL about me and what I think. As I should think yours are for you.
|
>> >>As I'm sure you appreciate, Mark, this forum is not just about you and what
>> you think.
>>
>> What a very silly little comment.
So you disagree - but why the put down? Isn't that exactly the problem with this forum?
>>
>> It is a forum. A place for opinions. All opinions. Mine, yours and others. My
>> opinions are ALL about me and what I think. As I should think yours are
>> for you.
FP didn't say that "this forum is not about you and what you think", he said
"this forum is not just about you and what you think".
How can you disagree with that?
|
>>How can you disagree with that?
Find where I did.
|
">>As I'm sure you appreciate, Mark, this forum is not just about you and what you think.
What a very silly little comment."
You are entitled to your opinion about that, but I feel there is considerable scorn and condescension in your response and I think that that is uncalled for. And that is the sort of thing that I was regretting about some of these discussions.
It was a "little" comment because I chose to make it short and snappy. What it implies is that other people's opinions count, not just yours. Whatever you may say, the impression created is that you are often determined to establish your opinions and to destroy others', if they do not agree with you. Whether that is a "silly" point I leave others to judge.
I notice later on in the thread there is an exchange of sarcasm. Oh dear. Is that really the level of debate here?
I feel I've made my point enough times now, though I am sure it will have little effect.
Maybe it's time to shut up.
|
>> ">>There have been occasions when the display of unbending ego becomes pretty obnoxious.
I sort of agree with FP, watching some discussions on here is like seeing a car crash in slo-mo.
The examples I have particularly in mind are those that led to enflouncements of GB and ON/UA. In both cases the unbending ego bit went way beyond the issues and into the personal.
It feels as if, like some of my kid's hall mates, there are folks who don't know when banter flips to offensive. Amongst the under 21s exploring life away from home such misunderstandings are inevitable.
But none of us are U21 and this is not a hall of residence.
|
How did you get from reading....
"Why complain about the discussion?"
to writing....
"No-one, I believe, is saying there shouldn't be discussion;" ?
And as for "This statement is either naive or disingenuous", then I assume it is obvious that I am not naive. Should I take it you are calling me intentionally dishonest?
|
Perhaps we should all try to take on board Robert Burns' sound advice:
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
|
>>>>As I'm sure you appreciate, Mark, this forum is not just about you and what you think.
What a very silly little comment.
<<
Here we go again
It's a very valid comment.
No-one knows the content of a post/thread/ forum unless they read it to find out.
Those people have opinions too, and probably want to see a wide cross section of everyone's opinions, not only yours Mark.
By belittling anyone who differs can you not see you suppress others opinions who haven't got the inclination or time to post often?
It make it appear that anyone who dares to question or differ get's pounced on from a great height.
Myself and AC have always been used to that happening so it may well annoy us, but at the end of the day, we don't really get fazed by it.
A lot of others do...stop and think just what may be going on in others lives when they come on here for a small respite from the norm, it may not always be good. They may be ill, they may not want a fight, they may well just need someone to talk to, to get through the bad times, so many reasons but all of them are very valid.
Pat
|
>>Here we go again
Yes Pat, here we go again. Someone says that I am either disingenuous or naive, that same person than makes a spurious comment about me realising that the forum is not just about me.
I chose to respond to those comments and here you go again.
|
"I still remain surprised that it was accepted."
Guess who kicked off the UKIP thread in the first place ;-)
I had to smile when that old rogue, Sepp Blatter, pulled out the racist card to deflect the latest round of accusations of FIFA fiddling. It soon puts an end to reasoned discussion, doesn't it?
|
23 Sep 13 19:35 , Haywain?:):)
That bloke is always trouble!
Pat
|
"That bloke is always trouble!"
To whom are you referring, Pat, No FM or Sepp? BTW, did you know that "In the early 1970s, he was elected president of the World Society of Friends of Suspenders, an organisation which tried to stop women replacing suspender belts with pantyhose."
|
|
Now that was a worthy cause! :)))
|
Maybe there's a tad too much emphasis on talk of racism, politics and flouncing.
I like this place, but to be honest it's not those points that bother me but it's become a bit boring, a bit repetitive and there aren't too many helpful replies to some queries - probably because their aren't enough of us around any more.
I look in less often but I'll keep reading, posting and responding to queries when I can - but I'm not over hopeful that the whole thing can hang together for a lot longer.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&feature=kp
Aimed at no-one...
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 11 Jun 14 at 18:38
|
>> Yes it is...
>>
No it isn't....
|
This section of the Forum is entitled "Non Motoring"
|
I've often teased Rattle, never unkindly though, and he's always been pretty relaxed about it. He seems to me a sweet young guy and quite cool.
I post here to show off and because sometimes I agree or disagree with what someone has said. Since my work, when I have any, is done on the computer it's always on, I'm always sitting in front of it and flicking back and forth to C4P is the work of a second. A change of mode to waste some time and use another area of my brain.
I am well aware that while some seem to get some of my posts, others probably think I have too much to say and some find what I say offensive or too opinionated. I try not to get involved in pointless wrangles, but sometimes the flesh is weak.
I suspect that I have been involved in several flounces. I can honestly say that I have been openly and intentionally rude only once, something that resulted in an immediate flounce which I didn't care about. All other such instances (if they occurred and I am not just being grandiose) were entirely unintentional and I regret them.
|
|
I would miss this place, it's my favourite forum. Apart from the occasional spat it's both informative and amusing and everyone has something interesting to say. The advice across a wide range of subjects can be invaluable, you always feel you can learn something.
|
Yep, I still look in pretty much every day, even though I might not post as frequently as I once did (not through any conscious decision or principle, I hasten to add). I like this place, and would miss it if it weren't here.
|
|
Someone suggested above that RP had disappeared. Surely he's just taking a rest. Moderators don't flounce one would think.
|
I saw a comment from him on Sunday 1st June in the phone update thread that would indicate he wasn't best pleased.
Strangely it isn't there now.......
Pat
|
|
He is a Mod so has the ability to delete stuff.
|
I was trying to be tactful *sigh* :)
Pat
|
|
And I was giving an idea as to why the post might have gone.
|
|
Oh dear, I wasn't being critical Meldrew, maybe it's my sense of humour that's at fault!
|
>> Oh dear, I wasn't being critical Meldrew, maybe it's my sense of humour that's at
>> fault!
RP was off on holiday wasn't he?
|
|
I didn't think you were, I just posted something re Mods
|
Moderators don't
>> flounce one would think.
>>
That's like believing that policemen don't cry :)
|
>> That's like believing that policemen don't cry :)
>>
Oh they do.
One night about 6 years ago, exceptionally busy night duty, so much so I had real problems keeping a management take on what was happening. My sergeants and I were struggling to keep on top of things it was so manic and you don't want anything to slip through the net. It was one of those nights you don't stop for grub or a tea break and suddenly find a pain in your groin and realise you needed a 'p' two hours ago.
At about 4 in the morning when it finally started to slow down and I went to my office to try to catch up with some paperwork one of my sergeants came in and said "Did you hear about Geoff's call". Well no I hadn't.
Geoff was a slightly older chap on the team, well experienced, one of the bloke's you'd send to weary calls to sort things out, dependable. He'd not long had a child, his first, with his newish girlfriend and was chuffed to bits, thinking that fatherhood had passed him by.
I was a new father, my son was about 3 months old, I too was an older father and was pleased because I'd thought fatherhood had passed me by as well.
Geoff and his very young in service colleague went to a domestic violence call ..and whilst there dealing, he had to nip outside of the flat to use his radio discretely to call for a van for the bloke who was to be arrested. Whilst outside a hysterical lady ran up to him from another flat ..and it took a moment or three to establish what was wrong as she had a very strong accent as well as being hysterical.
Turned out she was the mother of triplets who had all been born prematurely and had serious medical issues. Two had died previously. The third one was having a fit, had stopped breathing and had turned blue ...then Geoff went in.
... he went into the flat, opened the child's airway, gave some rescue breaths and all of a sudden the child started crying.
At this point at 4 in the morning, in the back yard where I'd found him and he was telling me this ....Geoff choked up ...and so did I. Neither one of us could speak. We were both thinking about our own kids no doubt and had been having a stressful night anyway.
So there we were, two great big grown men, experienced in what we do, stood in a police station back yard, both trying to pretend we didn't really have tears in out eyes...so we did what most men would do ... a great big harumph, changed the subject and pretended it didn't happen.
I wrote him up for a Royal Humane Society award for saving life, which he got. The last I knew the mother was still sending him e-mails detailing her child's progress.
The strange thing was, when the officers get presented with awards at a ceremony in the lecture theatre at New Scotland Yard in front of the Police Commissioner, it is usually the very senior officers that go and read out the citation.. only on this occasion it was me that went, because all the others were either on holiday or doing other things ..so it was me stood up at the lectern reading out Geoff's citation in front of Sir Paul Stephenson and many other officers and all their families ..and I was glad to do so, he deserved it.
|
>> Someone suggested above that RP had disappeared. Surely he's just taking a rest.
To stop any further gossip, he's away for a few days. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
>> To stop any further gossip, he's away for a few days. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
I'd heard he was on one of those wild hedonistic breaks....;-)
|
I like to have read on different subjects on this forum once in a while.
Enjoyed a banter with Dog and A.C.Some people on here have the big ego.I don't know why and to be honest I don't care.>:) Zero put on a act in my opinion if you met him having a pint he problaby would be interesting to talk to.Looking somebody in the eyes is different than typing in front of these silly machines.Just my humble opinion.
|
|
Hey Dutchie glad to hear from you again. I think we were fearing the worst.
|
What as in popped his clogs?
;-)
|
|
what happened to bellboy? or was he from tuther place?
|
|
Obviously not but I think he had an ill brother some time ago?
|
Hey Clogmeister(Dutchie), where ya bin ?
How's the Citroën going ? SWMBO car is up for renewal next spring, this eHDi has not it the right notes. The previous one HDi no electrickery stop/start stuff, no doubt want another one, love it to bits. The eHDi, hates it and will not entertain another one.
Bet you were well chuffed innit, or extremely please in English, yesterday with the football result...
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 14 Jun 14 at 22:52
|
Dutchie, you made my day seeing you back this morning:)
I love the way you write English and love to imagine the pedants on here all sitting on their fingers with gnashing teeth when they read it!
Please don't go AWOL again, if all else fails tell them dogs danglies but beginning with B :)
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sun 15 Jun 14 at 04:49
|
"tell them dogs danglies but beginning with B"
Bogs Banglies - ??? ;-)
|
>but beginning with B
Or M...
|
|
I don't visit as much as I should, but would sure miss it if it went west.
|
Glad you do still visit, MD. You gave me some really useful advice once or twice, which you won't recall, but it was helpful. Your presence is appreciated by me at least.
|
|
I am not thinking of flouncing, but if I did, I suppose I could become a read only. Surely no one would know as long as you didn't log in?
|
>> I am not thinking of flouncing, but if I did, I suppose I could become
>> a read only. Surely no one would know as long as you didn't log in?
If you want to be in 'stealth' mode I think you'd need to delete the site cookies as well so that you showed as User:Guest. Otherwise your profile will continue to be updated with date of last visit.
|
>> Glad you do still visit, MD. You gave me some really useful advice once or
>> twice, which you won't recall, but it was helpful. Your presence is appreciated by me
>> at least.
>>
Won't recall eh! Now what was I saying?
|
>>Perhaps we should all try to take on board Robert Burns' sound advice:
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
Maybe you are leading with the chin? No offense intended and hopefully none taken, but I see you as a recently retired English teacher of a tough boys' school, firm but fair.
|
Westpig's heart-warming story about his heroic colleague Geoff (who probably just said he was doing his job) is a very good reason why I'm glad that C4P is still going. Without a chat-room like this we probably wouldn't have heard about it. For all the flak that the police get in the Press, I'm certain that the vast majority of police officers are in the same mould as Geoff, and indeed WP himself who I'm sure would have done the same as Geoff.
Forgive a bit of thread drift (and C4P is good at that too!) but I've wondered recently whether the police service benefits from its quasi-military structure, with formal ranks, orders given and superior officers called 'Sir'.
In the profession that I've just retired from after 45 years (accountancy, most of it as a trainer) bosses have been called by their Christian names for about 40 of those years - with no loss of respect. I can see why this structure is still needed in the armed services, but what do people think about whether it's still suitable for the police? In my experience if you treat juniors as colleague rather than underlings you get much more lateral thinking from them. Or is that not what's wanted in the police service?
I'm not expressing a strong opinion - just asking a question.
|
I've never been in any of the armed or emergency services or their like but as a layman in those terms I suppose there might well be a need for unquestioning obedience and belief in the right of others to have absolute authority over one's actions in some of the circumstances they must encounter.
For example, if one were required to kill another human in the line of duty one might, I naively suppose, be psychologically more able to cope with actually doing that and living with the presumed subsequent feelings about it if you have been trained to believe that a 'superior's' orders or instructions are to be followed without question or hesitation.
In order to have a functioning version of that relationship, I guess you have to believe, or at least convince yourself you believe, that they are in fact superior and as such better placed to make that demand.
One of the ways in which that relationship is defined is by the use of titles I'd have thought.
Much easier to do something which may not be your natural inclination if you are in no doubt that you are under unequivocal instruction from a 'higher status' source.
I suppose only. I don't really know of course. Thank goodness.
I wouldn't have survived 5 minutes in any of those organisations. I know for for sure I'd be a bit like Sgt Wilson in Dad's Army, constantly interjecting with something along the lines of 'Is that wise Sir?'
Just as well there must be plenty of such personnel who don't think too hard about whether the 'boss' is right I guess or it wouldn't function.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 15 Jun 14 at 22:15
|
|
I don't like folk I've never met before referring to me by the diminutive of my Christian name, particularly in the health service.
|
>> In order to have a functioning version of that relationship, I guess you have to
>> believe, or at least convince yourself you believe, that they are in fact superior and
>> as such better placed to make that demand.
>>
From my pespective I wouldn't say that was it. It's not really a case of believing that your CoC is superior in anyway (they make plenty of mistakes!) It's more a matter of doing what the role you are in requires you to do. That's not to say your points are wrong it's just more a case of there being other larger elements at play, primarily a believe in what you are doing is right. Although that varies again from force to force and country to country.
|
>> Forgive a bit of thread drift (and C4P is good at that too!) but I've
>> wondered recently whether the police service benefits from its quasi-military structure, with formal ranks, orders
>> given and superior officers called 'Sir'.
>>
>> In the profession that I've just retired from after 45 years (accountancy, most of it
>> as a trainer) bosses have been called by their Christian names for about 40 of
>> those years - with no loss of respect. Or is that not what's wanted
>> in the police service?
>>
>> I'm not expressing a strong opinion - just asking a question.
>>
Difficult one.
We are all human beings first, so whether you are the duchess or the dinner lady, it matters not.
Strangely in the Police, the police officers tend to use the rank structure, but the civilian staff do not ....so in my last posting, where I was in charge of an office, the Sergeant and the PC would call me 'sir'... yet the rest of them, civilian staff admin officers and a couple of executive officers, would call me 'Guy'.
Generally it didn't matter ..but there were times when you need to make a quick decision and have someone get on with it, not have a democracy kick in ..and I think at those times a formal structure is more helpful.
Plus ...although I have a somewhat forceful personality if I need it to be ..there'd be times when other forceful personalities in the office would think they were on an even par at times it ought to have been glaringly obvious it was not, but they'd be so thick skinned they'd carry on anyway ...e.g. I'd be running around trying to manage some crisis and nip back in the office, only for someone to say 'it's your turn to make the tea'... now I can make the tea as well as anyone else can, but not when I've been called to the control room to help assist with a fatal incident/ accident and am in the process of trying to arrange extra resources to help the team dealing with it ..and the person thirsty is a clerk who has all the time in the world to do what they want when they want.
Part of me thinks your accountancy system is absolutely fine in this modern age ..and part of me thinks it is easier with the formality.
Sorry to be sat on the fence.
|
Sitting dear chap, sitting. Tsk.
If you had previously sat on the fence then indeed you sat there but if you are currently doing so then I'm afraid you are, without question, sitting. If you cease to sit and recall the act of sitting then of course you could describe your erstwhile activity as having sat.
There, I do hope that is now clear? However, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.
;-)
|
The only time I've had a problem with plod, was when they stopped my car one evening. I assume I matched the description of someone they were 'interested in'. I wasn't bothered when they checked the car very carefully and we produced our driving licences to prove our identity.
What did rile me, was when they referred to SWMBO by her Christian name. She was nine months pregnant, we had our 2-year-old and the dog in the car.
What the hell did they think we were up to?
I think that's the only time I've ever made a complaint against the police.
|
When credit cards first came into popular use, the application consisted usually of just filling in a paper form and sending it off.
The form always contained a 'title' option and I know several people who randomly entered 'Lord' or 'Baron' or whatever for the sheer devilment of it. Presumably no one ever checked because they usually got their credit card with the title of their choice on it.
Quite good fun paying for a two for one in the Berni Inn with 'Prince' on your Access card. I believe...
|
"Presumably no one ever checked"
I suspect that's largely true. Several years ago, my (then) student son had been plagued by direct mails from Barclaycard to take a credit card. He finally gave way and replied to the application form, saying that he had debts and NO income - he didn't even sign the application. They sent him a credit card which, I suspect, is indicative of why the country ended up in the financial mess that it found itself mired in.
|
Meeting a cross section of the community under a variety of different circumstances it is sometimes difficult to pitch it right in an attempt not to appear officious and overbearing. Anything from 'My Lud' and 'Sir/Madam/Miss or Ms. through 'Mate' and one that grips me - 'Fella' down to 'S*** for brains!' :)
As for the hierarchical structure. You create mutual respect before getting chummy with supervisors. There is a time and place. It is a uniformed and disciplined organisation which unfortunately discipline wise is going to the dogs. Its become more about 'me' than actually getting on with the job.
|
>> Strangely in the Police, the police officers tend to use the rank structure, but the
>> civilian staff do not ...
You are still doing it.
It is incorrect to refer to people who are not police officers as 'civilians'.
It is a police service, not a police force.
You are all civilians.
|
No they are Police Staff
Force? Service? What does it matter. Its a name not a job description. The job is still to deal with anything and everything that no one else wants to deal with. And sometimes to use appropriate force.
|
>> You are still doing it.
Yes, because that's the way it is.
>>
>> It is incorrect to refer to people who are not police officers as 'civilians'.
No it is not, who says so?
There is a difference between a police officer and police staff. The former acts in the 'office of constable', possesses a 'warrant' card and swears an allegiance to the Queen.
The latter are civilian staff, because they do not.
>>
>> It is a police service, not a police force.
That is just words. When I joined it was called 'Force'. It then became 'Service' because it apparently looks better. Nothing changed, there was no legislation to change it.
>>
>> You are all civilians.
Yes, in a military thinking way. The British police force/service are a civilian police ... however, when you are in it, to differentiate between warranted officers and anyone else in that organisation, the term 'civilian' is perfectly acceptable, albeit becoming used less, due to the preference of using 'staff' instead.
>>
|
>> >> You are all civilians.
>>
>> Yes, in a military thinking way. The British police force/service are a civilian police ...
>> however, when you are in it, to differentiate between warranted officers and anyone else
That term is more used to aid in differentiating between the police within each armed force and those who police civilians, otherwise it gets a bit confusing in normal day to day conversion.
|
Duncan: "You are all civilians"
I don't believe so , though I stand to be corrected (I'm not a member of any of the emergency services).
Police are citizens of their country like the rest of us, of course, but police officers have legal powers that clerical staff (yes, 'civilians') working for the police service do not.
The flipside is they are also bound by obligations to the service and the state even when they are off duty that the rest of us do not. Not unlike the armed forces, whose ways policing inherited, so I guess its natural that policemen and soliders alike think of those outside the forces/services as civilians.
Besides, what else should they, or could they, call us, that's more accurate or less likely to offend those who take exception to the term?
|
"Police are citizens of their country like the rest of us,"
Well actually since we owe allegiance to the crown we are British subjects. Citizens owe loyalty to the state as in the French Republic.
Pedantically yours
CGN
|
In a way I'd prefer to be a subject than a citizen, simply because the terminology appeals to me more; however, I think we're all citizens now and have been since the early eighties, like it or not.
Wikipedia quote:
On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies became either a British citizen, British Dependent Territories citizen or British Overseas citizen.
Use of the term British subject was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other Commonwealth country.
|
>>
>> every citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies became .... a British citizen
I'm glad you cleared that up.
|
I thought that was poor too, but as a direct quote I didn't want to fix it.
I suppose I could alter the Wikipedia entry though, assuming you can still do things like that. I remember once repeatedly changing an entry in an article about pykrete that was wrong, as it kept getting changed back.
|
"...we are British subjects"
(With best Monty Phyton Life of Brian accent) I'm not! :-)
|
Thank you, Runfer and Westpig in particular, for reasoned answers to what I hope was a reasonable question. It seems that there are enough occasions (as there of course are in the armed services) when orders need to be given and obeyed without question, for the structure to be justified.
That of course is just what is so valuable about C4P - long may it continue. The HJ Backroom is successful in fulfilling a quite different function, as I envisaged it would when I started as moderator after the hiccup in 2010.
|
Well said Avant, ever fancied a change of career as a mediator?
Pat
|
|
I've not totally followed this thread, but Dog hasn't been around for some time.
|
|
He changed his forum name to Arjades sometime ago. He lasted posted in a UKIP thread on 28th May.
|
I suspect he appeared the other day under a new different name. Only two posts though.
Tsk! Playing hard to get, even with Dutchie.
|
|
Nice to have the old hound back, whatever he chooses to call himself.
|
He's still Arjades on the introduce yerself page. That changes when you do a name change.
|
Quiet here, innit? - Bromptonaut
