Tory MP Anne Marie Morris has been suspended after using the phrase N****** in the Woodpile at a meeting.
www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/10/tories-urgently-investigating-after-mp-uses-n-word-at-public-event
While I'm generally a stickler for these things letting slip an old colloquialism is very different issue from using the word to describe people. She's apologised, which is probably enough.
What does the panel think.
|
N****** in the Woodpile
Since everybody knows what the missing letters are, surely printing it with asterisks is equally racist. Have the mainstream press (along with the BBC) rendered the word in that format? If so they must be as guilty as the original user?
Is there a difference in using it as part of a well known colloquialism or as a standalone word?
Next on the list will be black cat in a coal hole?
|
>> Since everybody knows what the missing letters are, surely printing it with asterisks is equally
>> racist.
The press will vary in degrees of coyness. The BBC uses the word in full. So does the Guardian who's policy is always to print in full.
Stars in OP are there because the swear filter won't allow the word in full. Otherwise I would have used it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 11 Jul 17 at 10:33
|
I think it's virtue signalling again, plus cynically using it as a stick to beat her with from the opposition.
Mind, she's still daft to say it.
Surprising how many younger and not-so-young people have never heard expressions like this - I suppose they would be shocked if they thought somebody had just coined it.
|
>>Mind, she's still daft to say it.
Absolutely insane.
Gives you an insight into the social circle she floats in if that is still in her phraseology.
It doesn't mean she is being racially discriminatory but equally I don't get milk from the Paki's, or a takeaway from the Chinkie's any more - these terms went out with Alf Garnett.
|
A friend of mine uses the expression ' ethnic in the fuel supply' as an alternative to the original ......does the team think that is acceptable bearing in mind everyone knows what is meant?
|
>> A friend of mine uses the expression ' ethnic in the fuel supply' as an
>> alternative to the original ......does the team think that is acceptable bearing in mind everyone
>> knows what is meant?
'Ethnic minority in the fuel supply' was used jokingly at work 30+ years ago but I'm not sure it would work today.
'Ethnic' (or Ethnics) used a standalone word to describe racial minorities is offensive in it's own right. Usually pronounced as 'effniks' and used by people who'd like to say n***** but have just enough intelligence to avoid it.
|
>> 'Ethnic minority in the fuel supply' was used jokingly at work 30+ years ago but
>> I'm not sure it would work today.
>>
>> 'Ethnic' (or Ethnics) used a standalone word to describe racial minorities is offensive in it's
>> own right.
Using the term "N in the woodpile" is just an old phrase, thoughtless, but probably not said with any racist intent.
Substituting "ethnic" or any other such term is an attempt to link it with racism and place it deep into deliberate racism territory.
|
>>A friend of mine uses the expression ' ethnic in the fuel supply' as an alternative to the original ......does the team think that is acceptable bearing in mind everyone knows what is meant?
What people use in private (or presumed private) conversations is different to what they would utter on a public forum - as demonstrated by this toddler.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPV3E0NG8I
|
>
>> It doesn't mean she is being racially discriminatory but equally I don't get milk from
>> the Paki's, or a takeaway from the Chinkie's any more - these terms went out
>> with Alf Garnett.
>>
Just an observation, but if Paki or Chinky are seen as derogatory terms, why don't we get offended when referred to as Brits? It's often a term sprawled across the front pages of the Sun and Mirror.
Surely these are just shortened versions of existing words and do not refer to anyone's race but more like their perceived country of origin?
|
>> Just an observation, but if Paki or Chinky are seen as derogatory terms, why don't
>> we get offended when referred to as Brits? It's often a term sprawled across the
>> front pages of the Sun and Mirror.
>>
>> Surely these are just shortened versions of existing words
More to do with the way they have been used in the past I think. Although they were also used without malice or disrespect.
|
Well that says a lot for my social circle then.
Going to the Chinkie for a takeaway is common in Fenland and indeed within a 100 miles radius of where I live.
The Paki shop is usually the local paper shop and again as no-one can pronounce his name he's quite happy to be known as that and laugh with us, ....and indeed trade 'supposed' insults back.
Our local Indie (isn't that racist??) garage advertises in the local paper as 'You've tried the Cowboys, nor try the Indians'.
Whatever is the matter with people?
I'm as happy as a sandboy, and proud to use an expression I was brought up with and will continue to be.
If it offends anyone then tough, it's time they lightened up a bit.
Pat
|
>> what Pat says
I think most of out Brexiteers share your view.
Funny that.
|
You're just old fashioned Pat:) So am I, but why court controversy?
My mother, an educated woman at that (d.1999) used to say she preferred the "Paki taxi" because he was more reliable. She wasn't at all racist even by the standards of the day.
|
>>but why court controversy<<
But that is exactly the point, it isn't controversial and it isn't racist unless you want to make it that way.
So many people do because they're too concerned with what others say and do, and forget to look at just how they come across themselves.
Pat
|
>> >>but why court controversy<<
>>
>> But that is exactly the point, it isn't controversial and it isn't racist unless you
>> want to make it that way.
People do, so it is.
I have been contrary all my life, but sometimes it's better just to deal with the world as it is, not as it used to be or we would wish it. Pick your battles (other proverbs also available).
|
>>But that is exactly the point, it isn't controversial and it isn't racist unless you want to make it that way.
PAt,
The word Paki has long history of pejorative use, as in too many, smelly etc. Not to mention Paki Bashing as practiced by skinheads etc on sixties/seventies.
If I were to refer to my two Asian volunteer colleagues as Pakis* it would (aside from being gross misconduct) mean loss of any professional respect between us. Similarly I'd have been kicked straight off last week's London bike ride if i'd referred to the organiser as a Chinky.
If you really struggle with your newsagents name then write it phonetically and learn. Or fins out if he has a shortened or Anglicised version. I wonder of your chap laughs inside when these terms are used? 'Banter' is all too often tolerated abuse rather than mutual laughs.
* Both are actually Anglo-Indiian rather than Pakistani but I doubt the vocab that uses Paki would be bothered about difference.
|
. I wonder of your chap
>> laughs inside when these terms are used? 'Banter' is all too often tolerated abuse rather
>> than mutual laughs.
What if it were mutuals laughs? Then what?
|
>> What if it were mutuals laughs? Then what?
OK I guess but I'm still uneasy about it.
|
> OK I guess but I'm still uneasy about it.
>>
That's interesting that it bothers you. Particularly in that context/situation.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 11 Jul 17 at 17:10
|
Surely it's impossible to know whether the newsagent likes being called a Paki or is just playing along with it? If he complained, his customers would probably be embarrassed at best and might avoid shopping there.
I don't believe that a majority are happy with being called Pakis, especially if they aren't from either Pakistan or Bangladesh.
It's unnecessary to use the word, and it might offend, so why do it?
To me it is the same as e***** and jeffing in public - there is just no need to do it.
|
I merely asked the question it's not beyond the realms of fantasy that he isn't offended.
|
he certainly isn't offended when he gives far more back than he gets!
It seems that never happens in London and the Home Counties though and I do wonder why?
Could it be that too many people are too busy worrying about being offended on other people's behalf to allow natural compassion, moderation and banter to find a comfortable level for both parties?
Pat
|
>> he certainly isn't offended when he gives far more back than he gets!
>>
>>
>>
Banter in private between two individuals who know each other and find it mutually acceptable is one thing, but for an MP to come out with such a word in public is stupidity in the extreme. Anyone five years and upwards could have told her what the reaction would be and if she didn't understand that herself you have to wonder what sort of bubble she has existed in for the last three decades.
|
I absolutely agree Robin O'R.
She is guilty of a grave misjudgement of the situation and deserves all she gets.
Pat
|
>> I merely asked the question it's not beyond the realms of fantasy that he isn't
>> offended.
It's possible he's not offended and is a willing participant. It's probable though that, at best, it's in a grey area where he's acquiescent or resigned to it. In our village shop 6ish last night bloke in front of me was teasing the Proprietor (a lady of Indian Heritage) with word Inshallah. When she pointed out her family were Hindu he started off about why she sold beef.
Don't think she was amused.
|
religious beliefs and race are not and should not ever be a subject for humour, teasing or whatever.
I do find some agreement with your original comment at the start of this thread that the Anne Marie Morris quote was a silly thing to say rather than a hanging offence.
|
>> >> I merely asked the question it's not beyond the realms of fantasy that he
>> isn't
>> >> offended.
>>
>> It's probable though that, at
>> best, it's in a grey area where he's acquiescent or resigned to it.
Would it be easier for you if he were?
|
>>teasing the Proprietor (a
>> lady of Indian Heritage) with word Inshallah. When she pointed out her family were Hindu
>> he started off about why she sold beef.
Clearly has some knowledge of races and religions, but looking to offend anyway.
|
>>OK I guess but I'm still uneasy about it<<
...and that, in a nutshell, is the root of the problem.
You're uneasy about it, he most certainly isn't.
You have to accept that there are great swathes of this country outside of London and the Home Counties where we all live in harmony, as one, with no bad feelings between us.
Our Newsagent was born in this country, out Indie had a thriving business here when I moved here nearly 40 years ago and they are all part of the village community.
While people are only too happy to be offended on others behalf this stupid situation of racism or banter will only escalate.
Both parties are happy I can assure you, to live in a community with respect for those of a different caste and colour, but still recognise they are one of us, a village united.
You're breeding problems where otherwise they wouldn't exist for vast parts of the country where we all live happily together.
Pat
|
>>While people are only too happy to be offended on others behalf this stupid situation of racism or banter will only escalate.
My landlord when I was a student in Glasgow was well know for singing "I'd rather be a Paki than a Tim*" on the terraces at Rangers matches.
That was back when hurling the most profane hate was acceptable behaviour at a football match.
Off the terraces no-one would think it polite or even vaguely normal to refer to an Asian as a Paki to their face.
Not being able to pronounce the name of someone you see on a near-daily basis is pathetic. I have worked with plenty of Indians with 20 letter names and they all to a man/woman have dimunutives that are used.
Maybe on the Fens they can't manage more letters than they have fingers on each hand (6).
*pejorative term for Catholics
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 11 Jul 17 at 17:36
|
You can be as insulting as you like about Fenlanders, Lygonos....I have come to expect it of you and despair of your bedside manner.
If you wasn't taught the difference between banter and racism at medical school I do wonder how you manage to stay in your chosen profession and maintain respect.
I work with Poles, Lithuanians, Rumanians, Russians, Latvians and many more on a daily basis.
I make a point of asking them to teach me the correct pronunciation of their name, but I then show by the certificate I create that I can spell it correctly.
I also know my audience........that means that if someone is more comfortable being a part of the banter and being able to give it back, then I'm happy to go along with it.
That way is the way to respect on both sides.
Pat
|
1) "If it offends anyone then tough"
2) "That way is the way to respect on both sides"
I don't quite see how your two statements go together.
|
>>That way is the way to respect on both sides
Anyone who voted 'remain' agree with Pat?
|
I give up Lygonos....can you not face criticism without resorting to blaming Brexit.
That really is clutching at straws:)
...but it shows a man beaten by his own argument!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 11 Jul 17 at 17:59
|
>>I give up Lygonos
Unfortunately I doubt that.
>>without resorting to blaming Brexit
Oh you really don't understand, do you?
It's nothing to do with Brexit - it's about you: what you see as banter and normal 'respectful' relationships is in truth xenophobic, unpleasant and rooted in small-mindedness and bigotry whether passively exhibited or actively espoused.
You talk about healthy village life when you are really demonstrating the worst of the inward-looking little Englander (or Scotlander) who is happy to welcome all until there is a whiff of change to your little microcosm.
You can't remember a shopkeeper's name whom you apparently like, but can manage to remember Slavic drivers who you would rather were restricted in their ability to work and travel here.
Good for you.
|
"It's nothing to do with Brexit"
So why did you introduce 'Brexit' into the thread at 15:19? If it's becoming an obsession, maybe you should see a doctor ;-)
|
>>So why did you introduce 'Brexit'
Because my supposition is that Pat's views are only held by some Brexiters and no Remoaners.
|
>>
>>
>> Because my supposition is that Pat's views are only held by some Brexiters and no
>> Remoaners.
>>
You are joking.
I've known plenty of people from the far left and right of the spectrum, from all classes, races and creeds and I can tell you that racism is something that goes right across the board. It ranges from outright racism to the patronising sort, ie "Where would we be without those wonderful little Pakistani shopkeepers" type - generally uttered by those who would be quietly horrified if a significant number of non whites settled in their area. That wouldn't be their reason for moving of course, it would be the schools, the traffic, Rupert's job or whatever else disguised the real reason.
Remainers mostly voted on perceived economic grounds, it had little to do with their desire to live in a multicultural society - which many of them don't.
|
>>I've known plenty of people from the far left and right of the spectrum, from all classes, races and creeds and I can tell you that racism is something that goes right across the board
Abso-blooming-lutely
>>Remainers mostly voted on perceived economic grounds, it had little to do with their desire to live in a multicultural society - which many of them don't.
As I say, it's a supposition.
Any remainers out there in agreement with Pat's view of banter?
|
>>
>> You can't remember a shopkeeper's name whom you apparently like, but can manage to remember
>> Slavic drivers who you would rather were restricted in their ability to work and travel
>> here.
>>
>> Good for you.
and Zero says
>>I work with Poles, Lithuanians, Rumanians, Russians, Latvians and many more on a daily basis.
And you want them all out of the UK. <<
Despite stating on more than one occasion over the last 2 years that is not why I, or many others voted for Brexit, you cannot and never will. accept it.
That's why the result was such a shock to many of you, but still you live in a little bubble of what you believe to be correct.
You wouldn't listen then and you're not going to listen now.
Pat
|
>>Despite stating on more than one occasion over the last 2 years that is not why I, or many others voted for Brexit, you cannot and never will. accept it.
Perhaps that's because every time you are then asked why you did actually vote for Brexit, you disappear again.
Why not answer?
And as for " bubble of what you believe to be correct", of course people do. *ALL* people do. Or do you live in a bubble of "NAFC", or a bubble of "I believe I am wrong"??
|
>>Why not answer? <<
You wouldn't listen then and you're not going to listen now.
Pat
|
b*******.
You have no answer.
|
|
I think this current Government's bubble wil burst long before Brexit. We'll probably have another election. They're doing a good job of governing badly at the moment. And also annoying the other 27 EU states. How do we get a good deal if this is their approach?
|
>> How do we get a good deal if this is their approach?
I think we just have to accept that there is no such thing as a good deal for whichever government is in. The EU would never allow us to leave having a 'good' deal. Period. It would simply set too much of a precedent that might destabilise the rest of the EU.
Anyway what's wrong with simply being out of the custom's union with WTO tariffs and settling issues of workers rights to stay on a case by case basis? if this is the worst it can get IMHO it's ok.
There is too much scaremongering about this 'worst' scenario'.
|
>> I think this current Government's bubble wil burst long before Brexit. We'll probably have another
>> election. They're doing a good job of governing badly at the moment.>>
To the contrary, I'd say that are doing a bad job of governing well.
|
>
>> Despite stating on more than one occasion over the last 2 years that is not
>> why I, or many others voted for Brexit, you cannot and never will. accept it.
Because you said, on here, that you were voting for brexit because you were fed up with labels in foreign languages on the canteen walls.
|
Selective quoting now?
You'll be as good at it as Piers Morgan soon.
Pat
|
>> Selective quoting now?
>>
>> You'll be as good at it as Piers Morgan soon.
>>
>> Pat
Do you really want me to go back and dredge up all the other quotes about "the non english" and the immigrants? I'd stick at the one if I were you.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Jul 17 at 08:39
|
Yes please, just as long as you dredge up all the times myself and others who voted for Brexit explained repeatedly it wasn't about immigration, all the times we explained exactly what we wanted, expected and were prepared to put up with to get that.
I can quote you selectively anytime, it's child's play and quite honestly, I'm surprised at you for doing it.
Pat
|
>> Yes please, just as long as you dredge up all the times myself and others
>> who voted for Brexit explained repeatedly it wasn't about immigration, all the times we explained
>> exactly what we wanted, expected and were prepared to put up with to get that.
But immigration was all you blethered on about, feeling ostracised because of the polish shops, the signs in european languages, overwhelming your schools, your hospital your doctors surgery, and then we had the fantastic idea that the europeans doing seasonal jobs were helping the native workshy, despite the fact that the country was at nearly full employment.
And now, AFTER you voted you now have the cheek to try and claim it was for other reasons?
you have no other reasons, you wont provide them despite being asked because you can't. I know why you voted out, you know why you voted out, and now you are ashamed to fess up.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Jul 17 at 10:15
|
I tried, and on one occasion managed to explain my reasons which were many.
As we all found, you and many others only read/heard the parts you wanted to hear, and criticised those incessantly because they were taken totally out of context.
Along with many others we all got sick of talking to deaf ears and voted with an X in the leave box.
Hence why it was such a shock to you on here, the Media, the government at the time and the pollsters.
You would really have thought a lesson had been learned there, wouldn't you? But no, deaf ears, selective quoting and the refusal to believe anything other than a vote to Remain is possible by someone who isn't racist still prevails.
Despite 52% of the country doing so.
Pat
|
>> I work with Poles, Lithuanians, Rumanians, Russians, Latvians and many more on a daily basis.
And you want them all out of the UK.
|
>> Well that says a lot for my social circle then.
Yes.
|
>> Surprising how many younger and not-so-young people have never heard expressions like this - I
>> suppose they would be shocked if they thought somebody had just coined it.
>>
I'm one of them, I'd never heard it until today.
|
|
Anybody complaining is guilty of preposterous virtue signalling and should be shot. The MP in question should be hanged, slowly, for utter stupidity for failing to realise that such a comment would bring the virtue-signallers out in force.
|
|
Everything is offensive to someone.
|
>> Everything is offensive to someone.
>>
I thought that to be a ridiculous statement and the I got to thinking a bit more and it is indeed not far from the truth
Religion
Lack of religion
Science as in Global Warning or evolution
What you eat,
What you drink
Where you went to school
Who you vote for
Monarchs
Republicanism
How you speak
How you write
How you dress
Your haircut
Your sexuality
Tattoos
The list is endless. What strange creatures we are.
|
Not me.
You have 15 points there, I cannot say that any of them particularly bother me. [Well except 11) and your/you're, their/they're], but offend me? Hardly.
Bigotry and prejudice bother me quite a lot. Not so much because they offend me, though they most certainly do, but because they are so fundamentally wrong. And ignorant.
But more than something offending us there is another point; when did "NOT being offended" become a human right? I don't see why anybody has a right not to be offended. Not battered, assaulted, discriminated, or lots of other stuff, etc. etc., but not offended?
|
>> when did "NOT being offended" become a human right
Quite right.
However, the key issue now is that being offended is treated as a form of 'micro-aggression' and so put on a par with acts of real aggression. Thus it is now acceptable to respond with an act of real aggression.
e.g. if you racially insult me and I am aggrieved, then I am justified in punching you in the face or at least threatening to.
This is the real threat, because they are completely different things.
I am half chinese - so yes, calling me a 'chinky' is offensive, but then even if you shouted that at me two inches from my face it is completely different to hitting me over the head with a brick.
For the record, I am not particularly offended anyway because I am proud of the chinese part anyway. If someone threw insults I think it says more about them than me...
|
Recording here
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/tory-mp-racist-brexit-recording_uk_59638608e4b02e9bdb0e2c77?
The twitter comments reproduced below make me wonder if this is the worst behaviour that any of these people can think of. And the poll shows that most respondents think she should be sacked.
Bonkers. Presumably it's OK to be mildly racist if you use the right words.
|
"The MP in question should be hanged"
That is highly unlikely as she has already been declared "absolutely insane" by a doctor.
|
>> should be hanged....highly unlikely as she has already been declared "absolutely insane"
Didn't work out too well for this delightful fellow.
Apparently he was diagnosed as a psychopath but this was suppressed as otherwise he'd have spent his years in the State Hospital at Carstairs rather than dangling on the gibbet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Manuel
|
>> Didn't work out too well for this delightful fellow.
>>
>> Apparently he was diagnosed as a psychopath but this was suppressed as otherwise he'd have
>> spent his years in the State Hospital at Carstairs rather than dangling on the gibbet.
>>
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Manuel
TV programme about him a month or two back. V. interesting, if you can find it.
|
>> While I'm generally a stickler for these things letting slip an old colloquialism is very
>> different issue from using the word to describe people. She's apologised, which is probably enough.
>>
>>
>> What does the panel think.
Totally agree in this case.
There are a few of these outdated expressions in use, "eeny meeny miny mo catch a baby by his toe", "baby" used to be the "n" word. Also "happy as a sand boy" is not all PC.
|
Also "happy as
>> a sand boy" is not all PC.
>>
www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/as-happy-as-a-sandboy.html
No reference to race at all here.
|
>> www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/as-happy-as-a-sandboy.html
>>
>> No reference to race at all here.
I was puzzled by Ched's comment as well. The diminutive 'boy' as mentioned in the article would be non PC today though.
|
"The diminutive 'boy' as mentioned in the article would be non PC today though."
Hence the late, great Allan Smethurst's 'Hev Yew Gotta Loight, Boy' would today be considered most un-PC by the righteous Grauniadisti.
|
>> Allan Smethurst's ........
>>
....aaaah, the singing postperson.......
;-)
|
Well he would, wouldn't he? He came from very close to where I live!
We don't see colour, or religion we just see a good caring soul or on the other hand a wrong 'un.
They come in all shades.
Pat
|
>We don't see colour, or religion
Actually you seem to see it very clearly and strongly, that's how you work out what to call people and things.
You don't call it the friendly shop, or the corner shop, or the good caring bloke shop, you call it the paki shop.
Seems you work out what to call most people by their race, religion, colour or nationality.
So how can you say you don't see such things?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 11 Jul 17 at 18:05
|
:)....... Go pick a fight with someone who needs to justify themselves Mark, I certainly don't.
Pat
|
I'm not picking a fight. You made some b******* argument to try to justify your bigotry, I merely pointed out the holes in it.
If you are unable to respond, that's ok, you don't have to try and justify that as well.
|
I will respond...it's not bigotry.
Bigotry is what you want it to be.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 11 Jul 17 at 18:34
|
>>Bigotry is what you want it to be.
I don't even understand what that means.
|
It's the opposite of smallotry
|
>> "The diminutive 'boy' as mentioned in the article would be non PC today though."
>>
>> Hence the late, great Allan Smethurst's 'Hev Yew Gotta Loight, Boy' would today be considered
>> most un-PC by the righteous Grauniadisti.
Sorry post person, Don't call me "boy" and smoking is banned
|
It's actually bor in Norfolk dialect, not boy and derives fom a different source, the same as "bour"in the word neighbour so feel free to call me bor.
|
The Frisians use the word Noflik sounds similar to Norfolk it might have come from that tribe.
A word is a word Cheeseface Clogdancer pot smoking druggies jus a few things the Dutch being called maybe with some justification>:) The N word is small fry.
|
"so feel free to call me bor. "
OK ..... you're a bor!
We were up in Norfolk last week; best bit was the samphire.
|
>> "so feel free to call me bor. "
>>
>> OK ..... you're a bor!
>>
>> We were up in Norfolk last week; best bit was the samphire.
Best bit is Brancaster Moules. (and Cromer Crabs)
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 12 Jul 17 at 08:43
|
>> best bit was the samphire.
A fabulous bit of vegetation - think I'll nab some from Sainsbury on the way home - haven't had any for ages!
|
>> >> best bit was the samphire.
>>
>> A fabulous bit of vegetation - think I'll nab some from Sainsbury on the way
>> home - haven't had any for ages!
DOnt forget the Salmon Steaks to go with it.
|
>> DOnt forget the Salmon Steaks to go with it.
>>
I bought some salmon two weeks ago and the price had increased by 20%
I am told to blame it on the lice.
|
>> >> DOnt forget the Salmon Steaks to go with it.
>> >>
>> I bought some salmon two weeks ago and the price had increased by 20%
>> I am told to blame it on the lice.
Indeed lice is a serious problem, made worse by intensive fish farming.
|
Indeed - salmon and tuna - kids prefer the tuna but will take a bit of pan-fried salmon.
Wee pile of stir-fried shredded veggies/ginger/garlic/lime juice/sesame oil/chilli too with some noodles on the side.
Classic Scottish dish.....
|
Three interesting letters on the subject in the Telegraph today...and the 'N' word was printed in full in two of them.
One refers to an American politician who had to resign after using the word ' niggardly ' in a speech...because of the sheer ignorance of his listeners who thought the word was related to the other 'N'.
One of the reasons that I have stepped away from this forum is because of the way the majority of threads descend into the sort of bigoted slanging matches seen above...you know who you are.
I mean everyone knows samphire is best with sea bream for heavens same...
|
"One of the reasons that I have stepped away from this forum is because of the way the majority of threads descend into the sort of bigoted slanging matches seen above...you know who you are."
Indeed. I took a couple of looks to see the way the thread was going and thought, "Yuk."
Is this the best we can do? Well, we've seen it all before, though some posters have really distinguished themselves this time in sheer nastiness. (People, I must say, whose professional training should have enabled them to behave better - if we believe they are who they say they are.)
Last edited by: Focal Point on Wed 12 Jul 17 at 11:49
|
Yes FP, that shocked me too.
Pat
|
|
What "sheer nastiness"? I think Focal Point is imagining things, I don't knoe why he would do that.
|
Indeed - why would he do that?
One of the problems, Mark, is that people who dish out the nasty stuff either don't see how nasty it is, or else they pretend it's not nasty if challenged. It's about choice of words.
I'm sure you understand, intelligent fellow as you are.
|
|
By his own lights, no one is a bad driver:)
|
>> By his own lights, no one is a bad driver:)
Oh I make no apologies for picking on bigots, surely evetybody knows that. But "sheer nastiness"? From whom and where?
I know Pat hates getting pulled up on her statements, it seems she often struggles to defend them, but again; sheer nastiness?
|
>> it seems she often struggles to defend them,<<
Bad judgement there Mark.
I have finally learned it annoys you more if I refuse to be manipulated by you by answering you:)
*walks away whistling*
When it suits me, of course.
It's the double standards from Lygonos I have a problem with.
It appears he can be racist and bigoted about Fenlanders and Brexiteers while condemning those people for doing just that!
Must be a medical thing.
Pat
|
I have no interest in manipulating you, or indeed in anything else about you.
You make bigoted statements that I prefer do not stand to be read unchallenged. The fact that you are unable to defend them, or that some of them are ridiculous, only helps me.
Were you smart and armed with reasonable or cohesive arguments, then my task would be much harder.
|
>>then my task would be much harder<<
Which of course, is just what you want so you can show everyone just how clever you are!
I think that makes me smart for 'reading you so well' and refusing to allow you to massage your ego............which must be sadly lacking to need so much TLC!
Pat
|
>>It appears he can be racist and bigoted about Fenlanders and Brexiteers while condemning those people for doing just that!
Oh that's just 'banter' Pat - I'm sorry if it offends you - but it was chosen carefully to highlight the double standards all around, and not as an attack on Fenlanders or Brexiteers.
Point is, if people keep repeating low level insulting behaviour it doesn't get any funnier, easier or more pleasant to hear - it just becomes annoying.
The same happens with 'banter' that is relentless and unimaginative.
If my son/daughter came into a local corner shop and heard customers referring to the shopkeeper in derogatory terms, even if lightheartedly or in apparent jest, I'd be less than impressed.
There's a reason racists are upset that they can't be racist in public any more - it's wrong and they know it.
When I was young we were offensive towards everything we were ignorant about - blacks, asians, catholics, gays, etc.
But then Jim Davidson was mainstream comedy, Bernard Manning was tolerated, and black footballers had bananas thrown at them.
As ignorance has reduced, behaviours changed. Where ignorance remains, resentment has increased towards the encroachment of change and open-mindedness.
Even blooming Eire, bastion of small-c conservatism has voted to allow gay marriage - this isn't because all the nice poofs stayed in their closets: it's because they became visible and vocal, allowing people to accept they are normal guys/gals who deserve to be treated with respect.
Bigotry on the other hand doesn't deserve respect and acceptance, although I accept it will in many cases simply go into the now vacant closet to re-awaken when someone gives them a chance to become 'respectable' again.
I'm still waiting for someone else to pop their head above the parapet and agree that what you call banter is acceptable social intercourse in 2017.
|
>>Oh that's just 'banter' Pat - I'm sorry if it offends you <<
Many words Lygonos, all dwarfed by the fact that you can't accept the 'banter' I have with my local corner shop, EU fellow drivers and my local Indie garage is just that.
Measured and delivered with the right amount of moderation and compassion.
I have lived here for almost 40 years now and in that time my I think I know my locals without having to look at their colour or religion.
We may well be backward in the Fen, but I have five fingers on each hand and five toes on each foot, I haven't inter-bred but then again my home is Leicestershire.
A place where colour was accepted, as it should be, long before a lot of other places in this country and certainly in Scotland.
I'm proud of my roots and always will be.
Pat
|
|
The EU drivers you mention might not be working here post March 2019 though - unfortunately. You also mention Russian drivers with them but they are nothing to do with Brexit not being EU members.
|
I sincerely hope they will be allowed to stay.
They have a brilliant work ethic, are happy to work hard and integrate with the local community.
They have families here and have built a new life and love it, they deserve to be able to develop that.
...they also teach me to swear in every language you can imagine!
Pat
|
>> I sincerely hope they will be allowed to stay.
>>
>> They have a brilliant work ethic, are happy to work hard and integrate with the
>> local community.
>>
>> They have families here and have built a new life and love it, they deserve
>> to be able to develop that.
Well you cocked that right up then.
|
I wouldn't presume to tell you how to interact with your friends Pat; I'm sure you have perfectly good relationships with them. Neither will I assume that I know what you call banter.
So please don't be offended when I say that what a lot of people call banter (I'm thinking of some of the heavy drinkers in my local) is either a boring repetition of the same mock insult that was only even mildly funny the first time, or just a form of bullying. Banter (as in humorous name calling and general teasing) has never worked for me.
Anyway that's rather off the point I suppose. Ms Norris is a twit, with a very poor sense of what is likely to cause trouble, but it should be enough that she grovels and doesn't do it again.
Actually it should be up to the people who voted for her to decide when the time comes whether she goes or not. It is not the business of all the "offended" to be telling her to resign.
|
|
So, point me at some of the extreme nastiness in this tgread, because I can't see any. I know, as I am sure you do, that sometimes people just imagine they see things.
|
|
It seems that Focal Point either does not choose to point out examples of this "sheer nastiness", or he is unable to do so. I wonder why that is?
|
Because he can read you like an open book too?
Life's a bitch sometimes Mark!
Pat
|
|
I really do despair of this forum ....they are at it again!
|
Helicopter, I didn't get where I am today (and I suspect neither did you) by being talked down to and belittled in public for what I believe in or who I am.
I learned a long time ago to stand up for myself because as sure as hell, no-one else was ever going to do it for me.
While one or two members are allowed to hurl personal insults without being checked by the mods then you can be sure that gives me carte blanche to hurl them right back at them should I choose to.
I am happy to conform to the forum rules, but not as an individual while a select few don't have to.
As far as I'm concerned we're all equal on here and I don't 'do' a pecking order!
But please don't go away as you are one of the better posters:) and I would miss you.
Pat
|
One of the better posters eh!
Flattery will get you everywhere Pat.:-)
I do not want to leave .....sometimes the forum has been very helpful.
However I think I will just lurk from now on and leave the keyboard warriors on here to their ranting.
|
"It seems that Focal Point either does not choose to point out examples of this "sheer nastiness", or he is unable to do so. I wonder why that is?"
Keep wondering - if indeed that's really what you're doing. Bait not taken.
I'm certainly not going to be drawn into a time-wasting argument about what is or isn't an example of nastiness. We've been here before, Mark - many times. On this forum various individuals seem to get a kick out of trying to dominate anyone who opposes their views - to put them in their (supposed) place, belittle them or whatever.
I really do have better things to do than to get involved in petty insults and clever-clogs pseudo-discussions.
|
You misunderstand. I genuinely cannot see sheer nastiness in this thread.
Therefore either it is as you say and I cannot see it, or you're seeing something that is not there.
If you don't wish to answer, fair enough. But have a read yourself and see if that maybe, this time at least, you overreacted.
|
>> One of the problems, Mark, is that people who dish out the nasty stuff either
>> don't see how nasty it is, or else they pretend it's not nasty if challenged.
>> It's about choice of words.
>>
....that'd be rather like those who deal in "ethnically based" banter then.........??
|
>> One of the reasons that I have stepped away from this forum is because of
>> the way the majority of threads descend into the sort of bigoted slanging matches seen
>> above...you know who you are.
>>
Some of the carp in this thread reminds me why, despite occasionally looking in, I didn't post on here from early '12 until March this year ...
|
>> Indeed - salmon and tuna - kids prefer the tuna but will take a bit
>> of pan-fried salmon.
>>
>> Wee pile of stir-fried shredded veggies/ginger/garlic/lime juice/sesame oil/chilli too with some noodles on the side.
>>
>> Classic Scottish dish.....
Yer, using the old traditional seasonal native scottish ginger, limes, chili.....
|
.....I thought all Scottish natives were Ginger....?
(see, I can do banter as well...)
|
>> .....I thought all Scottish natives were Ginger....?
Yer, but you wouldn't cook and eat one would you.
|
>> >> .....I thought all Scottish natives were Ginger....?
>>
>> Yer, but you wouldn't cook and eat one would you.
>>
That's not what you said about Oxx xxxx
;-}
|
|
I'm English ! :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 12 Jul 17 at 20:49
|
>> I'm English ! :-)
>>
Hannibal Zero says he's quite prepared to overlook such minor detail.............
......oh.........and have you got any fava beans? (not much chance of that in Jockland, I suppose).
;-)
|
I am sure the nearby Waitrose will have them, and probably the more reasonably priced supermarkets.
Broad beans I can recognise, I leave the posh bean procurement to the staff. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 12 Jul 17 at 21:19
|
There's a nice racial joke reported in the Telegraph letters this morning:
Sir Seretse Khama on becoming president of Botswana was asked whether he was going to call his residence the White House.
No, he replied, the Woodpile.
|
>>Sir Seretse Khama on
So was that just banter that he enjoyed; or was he pointing out quite how unpleasant people could be.
On this thread we have Pat, the self-proclaimed nice person and defender of the undertrodden addressing her newsagent with a word I cannot even bring myself to write. Meanwhile, anybody who points out how utterly socially unacceptable her behaviour is has to bear the brunt of her tongue and that of her toadies.
"oh it's just banter"
Lygonos rather amusingly makes a tongue-in-cheek disparaging comment about Fenlanders. Suddenly the boot is on the other foot and it's no longer banter.
I'll give a pound to charity (my choice) for anybody who is prepared to write below that they are surprised that disparaging Fenlanders isn't banter whereas disparaging immigrants with dark skin is.
All you have to do is write "I am surprised that disparaging Fenlanders isn't banter whereas disparaging immigrants with dark skin is." and it will cost me a pound (a bit less, after tax relief, actually).
|
I like to do my bit for charity so here you go.
 "I am surprised that disparaging Fenlanders isn't banter whereas disparaging immigrants with dark skin is."
|
|
.....was that a little white lie?
|
>>was that a little white lie? <<
You can't say that, i's a racist comment according to some on here!
Anyway, it appears to be 'have a go at Pat day' so do keep up please.
I do hope you realise that Stephen Khoo has put me on the payroll to make a perfectly innocent comment and bring all the usual non posters out of the woodwork to have a go.
It's soooo good for forum traffic figures.
Pat
|
>>> amusingly makes a tongue-in-cheek disparaging comment about Fenlanders<<
I despair Mappy that someone with your education can even begin to pretend to see any difference in what you approve of above when uttered by Lygonos, yet manage to make it into a racist comment when when I do the same thing with my friends, as they do with me.
None so blind....as they say.
Pat
|
"a tongue-in-cheek disparaging comment about Fenlanders"
It's interesting that you can mock a group of people who don't practice in-breeding, yet you aren't allowed to mock a cult that does practice in-breeding. Is this something to do with our modern avoidance of the truth?
|
>>"a tongue-in-cheek disparaging comment about Fenlanders"
The whole purpose of the 6-finger comment was to show how rude, and ultimately how boring it is to use stereotyping in 'banter'. I'm glad y'all noticed the boorishness and lack of bonding that it engenders.
>>yet you aren't allowed to mock a cult that does practice in-breeding
More a side effect of the feudal society in Pakistan than one of the six fingers, sorry Pat I mean 5 pillars of Islam.
Marrying first cousins, although legal, really isn't very wise especially in a relatively (oh look: a pun) insular population and the health problems it creates are very real.
Another cult/religion that has issues with endogamy* are the Ashkenazi Jews, where you can be given the OK to marry another Ashkenazi after genetic advice +/- testing
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Medical_genetics
*correct term for marrying within the confines of a culture/social group - in-breeding is tad pejorative and makes me think duelling banjos** from Deliverance
** anyone know if banjos are easier to play with 6 fingers***?
*** sorry Pat :-)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 13 Jul 17 at 14:25
|
I've not been offended yet by anything you've said.
I didn't like the sneering reference to six fingers though.
That proves my point that there is a difference between banter and racist remarks.
The written word is hard to show a context but it came over quite clearly in your remark.
I would have hoped to some, like Mappy, Mark and Z, my banter would have come over in the way it was meant as well.
Like I say...there is none so blind.
...or if it fits the agenda.
Pat
|
>> That proves my point that there is a difference between banter and racist remarks.
But I think quite a few of us on here still think calling someone a Paki is still not classed as banter. Maybe it's not intended to be racist in your example but I think it's wrong to use it.
I also read Lagoons' reference to 6 fingers as a tongue in cheek way of doing similar to prove his point that using the term Paki or Chinkie is wrong.
Maybe it's still an age thing. I'd have never used either term and always have found them unacceptable. Back in the 60s and 70s they were probably widely used by adults.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 13 Jul 17 at 14:45
|
>>But I think quite a few of us on here still think calling someone a Paki is still not classed as banter. Maybe it's not intended to be racist in your example but I think it's wrong to use it.
<<
This has now gone full circle.
It doesn't matter a jot whether you or anyone else think it's banter, it's what the person I'm saying it to thinks, that matters and only them.
I got involved in this thread because quite honestly I'm sick of others being 'offended' on someone else's behalf, when the person involved couldn't care less.
Suppose Lygonos and I were sitting in a Goods In waiting room and the typical conversation would be:
L) Where are you from then?
Pat) Fenland
L) that's where they all have 6 fingers, isn't it from interbreeding? That why you're sitting on your hands then:)
Pat) Well, with that accent, it's better than being a Jock in a b****y frock, isn't it?
Chuckles all round and then a good old moan about how long it takes to get tipped.
That's what I'm used to.
I can't, and won't, change what I am or pretend to be anyone different, to suit the politically correct anywhere, let alone on an internet forum.
It's my honest belief if those people not involved in these conversations kept their noses out, then racism in this country wouldn't be half the problem it is.
If I'm offended by something I will say so and expect an explanation or probably an apology.
If I offend anyone I expect them to do the same, and I'm only too happy to apologise.
Having said that, people who interfere when the situation never involved them, whether it be the media or an individual, when the person involved hasn't complained, are just sad individuals looking to make a name for themselves and certainly don't get my respect or an apology from me.
I've mentioned one word in this thread twice.
Compassion.
It may well have a Oxford dictionary definition but in my book, in this situation, it means knowing when the other person is comfortable and when they are not.
You've either got it or you haven't and sadly, some on this thread have shown they have none.
Pat
|
"** anyone know if banjos are easier to play with 6 fingers***?"
Banjos of the type that you are thinking about, have 5 strings; a sixth finger would be a mere incumbrance. Bluegrass picking is normally done with the thumb and two fingers ........ so you already have two spares. Those two spares can, however, come in handy for waving at know-alls, nitwits and readers of the Grauniad ;-)
I teach guitar and banjo; what instruments do you play? Btw - a stethoscope doesn't count unless you blow into it.
|
I love your style Haywain. Respect!
Pat
|
>> "a tongue-in-cheek disparaging comment about Fenlanders"
>>
>> It's interesting that you can mock a group of people who don't practice in-breeding, yet
>> you aren't allowed to mock a cult that does practice in-breeding.
Thats a ridiculous comparison. Far more inbreeding occurs in Gedney than Gujrat
|
"Far more inbreeding occurs in Gedney than Gujrat"
I didn't know that you came from Gedney.
|
>> "Far more inbreeding occurs in Gedney than Gujrat"
>>
>> I didn't know that you came from Gedney.
I dont, but some of my extended family went there, and extended even more
|
>> >> "Far more inbreeding occurs in Gedney than Gujrat"
>> >>
>> >> I didn't know that you came from Gedney.
>>
>> I dont, but some of my extended family went there, and extended even more
>>
I must declare an interest here and state that I have ancestors from Gedney, in fact Whaplode Drove.
They were smallholders who moved there when the fen was drained in the eighteenth century, so probably did a lot of sploshing around in bog and would have needed their inbred webbed feet.
|
>>It's interesting that you can mock a group of people who don't practice in-breeding, yet you
>>aren't allowed to mock a cult that does practice in-breeding
You are wilfully missing the point, presumably. It was tongue-in-cheek in so far as it was as obviously unacceptably offensive as calling the newsagent after a shortened form of the country he may or may not be from. That's why I offered the cash alternative. As nobody has taken me up on my cash offer, I presume that people can see the parallel.
Pat was offended; Lygonos was just offering a 'bit of banter' = 'being as offensive as possible'.
I don't believe that the newsagent regards anybody who addresses him thus as a friend. He puts up with it for the sake of business.
Just don't do it, Pat. It makes people think of you the way the MP in the OP is thought of. You're making me come across as a bleeding heart liberal; nobody ever does that. Years ago I will admit to having referred to the local shop in such terms within my own four walls; I blush to think of it now, indeed I am ashamed. Learn his real name and use it.
|
>>I don't believe that the newsagent regards anybody who addresses him thus as a friend. He puts up with it for the sake of business.<<
If you read this thread properly Mappy you would see that I never addressed him as a Paki, just made reference to going to the Paki shop.
Perfect example of how others who want to be offended will change what's said to suit their agenda
Just don't do it, Pat. It makes people think of you the way the MP in the OP is thought of.
See above....that's the suitably offended exaggerating to suit.
But he does refer to me as 'that bl**** woman lorry driver:)
You're making me come across as a bleeding heart liberal; nobody ever does that. Years ago I will admit to having referred to the local shop in such terms within my own four walls; I blush to think of it now, indeed I am ashamed. Learn his real name and use it.<<
I know his name, it Iqbal, not sure of the spelling though:)
Pat
|
As I recall, Mapmaker has previously and quite strongly asked you not to call him Mappy. Yet you persist.
Just banter, no doubt.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 13 Jul 17 at 16:15
|
...and that has to do with you what exactly?
Pat
|
|
So let's assume it's okay to call a shopkeeper Paki. If there's an Indian running the newsagents and a Bangladeshi running the off licence, what do I call them? News Paki and Offie Paki? Just curious. ;-)
|
Surely the other inbred area of the UK has already solved this. Paki the News and Paki the Offie.
Jones the milk is surely a badge of honour - it is a sign of pure homo sapiens lineage.
:)
|
>> sign of pure homo sapiens lineage.
So are Asians, Africans, etc. not homo sapiens? Only White Europeans? ;-)
|
|
I wonder if your ability to know or care whether or not your local shopkeeper likes the term "paki" is similarly impressive.
|
|
Maybe we should get him to post on here to backup Pat and agree he takes it as light hearted banter. He probably calls Pat something behind her back when talking to other customers too if he's into banter.
|
Pat is very preoccupied about those offended on the behalf of others. I wonder why she cannot understand that I am not offended, I simply think it is wrong. I wonder if Pat is capable of understanding that it is setting an example to others and encouraging a particular behaviour and lack of regard for others.
Probably not, I guess, since Pat persists in this awful manner.
|
>> Pat is very preoccupied about those offended on the behalf of others. I wonder why
>> she cannot understand that I am not offended, I simply think it is wrong.<<
I wasn't referring to you, why would I be, there are others on this forum, you know.
>>I wonder if Pat is capable of understanding that it is setting an example to others
>> and encouraging a particular behaviour and lack of regard for others.
>>
>> Probably not, I guess, since Pat persists in this awful manner.
>>
Pat understands more than you credit her for.
This thread really hasn't gone the way you wanted it to, has it?
Failed again!
Pat
|
>>Pat understands more than you credit her for.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
No.
|
I sincerely hope you keep believing that Mark.
Pat
|
I know I am replying to you Pat, but it would apply to a number here.
It kind of makes the point though about being offended racially or otherwise, that the defensive responses here are coming from a place of hurt.
In the words of Disney's Frozen, 'Let it go....' As I said one of my other posts, insults say more about the one doing the insulting than the one being insulted.
Just play this, sing along and have a happy day;-)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk
|
You've put it so much better than I could, or indeed, have tried to do:)
Pat
|
Now we have songs from Hebe's on the thread. Excellent ;-)
You do realise I'm being offensive on purpose and it's tongue in cheek. I don't mean it! Had to even look up an appropriate insult for the singer. Never heard of her. Never watched Frozen either.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 13 Jul 17 at 17:51
|
>>You do realise I'm being offensive on purpose
Why be offensive at all?
|
We do know some shopkeepers have more of a sense of humour than Sainsbury's though. Anyone read about someone being threatened to stop calling his shop Singhsbury's? He then changed it to Morrisingh's and all happy - Morrison's don't mind.
www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2017-06-27/trader-renames-singhburys-shop-to-morrisinghs-after-legal-threat-from-supermarket/
There's a few Singhsburys I see from Google.
|
>>
>> Anyone read about someone being threatened to stop calling his shop Singhsbury's? He then changed
>> it to Morrisingh's and all happy - Morrison's don't mind.
>>
>>
Yes, but I think Sainsbury's objected because of the joke at their expense, not on behalf of people called Singh.
Do any Pakistanis object to the name Tetra Pak ?
|
>> Do any Pakistanis object to the name Tetra Pak ?
Only the square ones.
|
A long time ago, when I was about six or seven, I sat next to a Pakistani girl. We were close friends, always giggling and chatting. One day I passed her a crayon or something and as our hands touched, she said 'Eeeuuuw' and I said 'what's wrong?' and she said 'your skin is different from mine, I don't like touching it'. Not verbatim, obviously. It's just something I will never forget. A moment in time that you suddenly realise race has implications.
I've always beelined Indian and Pakistani girls in bars and pubs and I'm far too simple-minded to think there's a link between that event and me today. I just think they are absolutely gorgeous, full stop. Fantastic in bed, or on the stairs to be more precise. Shame that all happened a long time ago, too, but I will never forget that either.
|
So what does that tell us they like shagging?
Whatever colour just stay in the dark and you won't notice.>:)
|
I'm sure I've mentioned on more than one occasion I used to work indirectly with a coloured bloke called Barry.
Everyone knew him as black Barry, everyone called him black Barry, and he absolutely loved banter. If no one tried offending him, he took offence. He even used to go out of his way to try and get people to hurl abuse at him, but it was genuinely just banter. He knew that, every else knew that, and we all got along like a house on fire and no one got upset.
He sometimes referred to me as "Dave, you fat git", just so I could throw an insult back at him. I replied back to him one day, "Barry, I may be fat, but I can lose weight if I want to, you however will always be black". He laughed so much that he almost wet his pants.
He would go around calling people white honkies, etc. Anything to gauge a reaction. Nothing phased him whatsoever.
End of the day, it was a mutual understanding between colleagues.
|
>>End of the day, it was a mutual understanding between colleagues.
Yup. Mutual. Give and take. Just like Pat's Jock in a frock.
When it comes to Pat's newsagent, there is no mutuality. He serves her, she is served by him. If he wants her the certainty of her continuing business, then he has to accept it. If he asks her not to, then she might go elsewhere; he doesn't know. That's what it's like when you are selling stuff; you have to tread on eggshells with people who give you money.
As Mark points out, Pat deliberately calls me Mappy to irritate me. She behaves like a nasty playground bully; yet the whole time gaslights us by telling us that the opposite is true and that she is the victim of the great conspiracy of posters here against her; only woman in a man's world; not from the same class as the rest of the members; not as educated as the rest of the posters - we've heard it all and it's all made up. A really, nasty, manipulative way to behave.
|
>>As Mark points out, Pat deliberately calls me Mappy to irritate me<<
Ask yourself why I do that?
How's your memory?
Do you remember telling me not to call you mappy but allowing another poster to do it on the same day completely unchecked?
Were you treating me differently? Was it because I am female? Did I claim it was because I'm female?
No, I certainly didn't, but it is apparent when other posters (male, I think) have called you mappy since you have let it go.
Could it be you behaving like a 'nasty playground bully'?
Of course not, it couldn't be so.
Yet today, again you are happy to make personal, very personal, comments about me in public.
Am I expected to take it?
If so, please explain why?
You just couldn't let it go, could you mappy.
Pat
|
Unless Mr Mapmaker is one's real name, with a proud descent through generations of the name, then it is surely only a nickname. I don't think nicknames need be treated with quite the same reverence as a real name?
Part of the charm of this forum used to be the ingenious, teasing and at times disrespectful variations accorded to posters' names.
I remember lescargot being called the gastropod, snail, or even slug at times, or Old navy referred to by a variety of hearty naval synonyms.
But a bit irritating, and needless, none the less, perhaps.
|
>> Unless Mr Mapmaker is one's real name, with a proud descent through generations of the
>> name, then it is surely only a nickname. I don't think nicknames need be treated
>> with quite the same reverence as a real name?
A knick name of knick name, although who's to say what irritates and/or annoys people?
Perhaps is/was a cartographer?
|
>> When it comes to Pat's newsagent, there is no mutuality.
Unless I've misread what's already been written, the shop itself is being referred to as Paki, not the actual person. How can a building be offended by what it's called?
i.e.
I'm off down the shop, which is run by a Pakistani family. Therefore some people refer to it as a Paki shop.
I'm off to get a takeaway, which so happens sells Chinese food. Some people refer to it as going down the Chinky.
Now do we become so politically correct that we stop calling Scottish people Jocks, stop calling Irish people Micks, and stop calling the welsh Taffy's (or sheep shaggers)?
|
>> Unless I've misread what's already been written
I think you've misread this. Pat admits she cannot pronounce the name of the shopkeeper and therefore calls him Paki. If she was referring to the shop it probably has a name, e.g. I'm going to McColls or I'm going to the One Stop.
But apparently he likes being called a Paki so that's all okay.
|
>> >> Unless I've misread what's already been written>>
You certainly have deliberately tried to mislead everyone about just what I said
>> I think you've misread this. Pat admits she cannot pronounce the name of the shopkeeper
>> and therefore calls him Paki. If she was referring to the shop it probably has
>> a name, e.g. I'm going to McColls or I'm going to the One Stop.
>>
>> But apparently he likes being called a Paki so that's all okay.
Can you show me where I said that?
What I actually said was
'' The Paki shop is usually the local paper shop and again as no-one can pronounce his name he's quite happy to be known as that and laugh with us, ....and indeed trade 'supposed' insults back.
Our local Indie (isn't that racist??) garage advertises in the local paper as 'You've tried the Cowboys, nor try the Indians'.
Whatever is the matter with people?''
To put it more simply and clearly for those who prefer to accuse me of saying something I certainly did not this is the bit you're all having trouble with.
>>no-one can pronounce his name he's quite happy to be known as that<<
no-one......as in anyone in the village.
Happy to be known as that......as in the local paki shop.
So apologies are awaited from all who have deliberately misquoted me during the last two days in an attempt to discredit me.
VXfan was correct.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 14 Jul 17 at 11:39
|
>>no-one can pronounce his name he's quite happy to be known as that
You're full of it today.
Iqbal.
Ick-bal.
Ick-bal.
Come on - say it - it's really easy - 2 syllables.
|
Just how incredibly thick are you, Lygonos?
I have explained I was referring to the shop, surely even you can understand that the name above the door and also on the paper bills, is something more than a christian name....or should I say forename before you misunderstand again.
But of course, you're not thick at all, you just think you're so superior and clever.
An apology would have made you appear far more gracious to your audience.
I'll keep my opinion of you to myself.
Pat
|
So the name above the door of the newsagents where you live has a long complicated Asian sounding name? I'd be surprised at that - he'd want it easily said and remembered. Like March* Newsagent.
If it's just his name that's complicated then that I can believe.
At university, the Chinese would often adopt English names so as not to confuse people. So Eric was a common 'Chinese' name. Our help desks in the Asian region often use English names too which is probably not their real name.
* March chosen as a random name in the Fenlands :-) I know you don't live there and not suggesting you do.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 14 Jul 17 at 13:40
|
An apology would have been much easier rtj.
I know it hurts a little bit to be proven to be wrong but at least you would have got some respect back for being able to apologise gracefully and admit it.
As you know I live very close to March, but it's no secret at all, so please feel free to publish my full address if you so wish.
Information is freely available on the web these days if you care to delve a bit, as we both know only too well.
Pat
|
How many newsagents where you live BTW Pat? I hope there's more than one. :-)
You posted a link to your own address yourself on here - a Google Street View image of the bush opposite the house. That shows everyone where you live on Google maps. No need for me to say anything - you did that yourself.
|
There's just one rtj, but don't sling your veiled threats at me again.
Two can play at that game and as you probably now realise I believe in fighting fire with fire.
The old adage that the higher you are the further you have to fall springs to mind.
Now,....about that gracious apology?
Pat
|
I do apologise Pat. Sorry for causing anguish.
As you say and I believe you, the shopkeeper does not mind. End of. Have a nice weekend.
|
Oh don't start this crap with comments about who people are and where they live again. Its unpleasant, unnecessary and verging on the creepy.
If people wanted me to know who they were, or more details about them, then they would tell me. Why would I bother trying to stalk them?
>>No need for me to say anything
I agree. So, on this subject, don't.
|
|
Some aren't bothered about knowing where they live.
|
>>Some aren't bothered about knowing where they live.
I would suggest taking the default that no one wants others to know - if they post their name, address, pics of family, bank details that's up to them but I agree with NoFM2R - any alluding to identifying others is unwelcome.
|
I am with you on that. I don't want everyman and his dog (not even zero's dog) knowing everything about me. Which is why I was surprised (even a little shocked) when Pat posted her link to Google Street View. I'd have grabbed a copy of that image, stored it locally, uploaded to a photo sharing site and posted the link to that to show us what had been removed by the numpty* council. But no Pat posted a link to outside her own home.
But she apparently does not care. Maybe a nice mod should have deleted her link in the other thread or at least checked that she really meant to share with us all where she lived.
And no this is not me stalking - it's belatedly pointing out Pat herself shared where she lived and I don't think she really wanted to do that. Or maybe she did. I wouldn't have.
* Are we allowed to call someone a Numpty?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 14 Jul 17 at 17:20
|
*sigh*
As I've explained many times before my address is already in the public domain regarding the Charity I am involved with.
No point in shutting the door after the horse has bolted.
Pat
|
>>Now do we become so politically correct that we stop calling Scottish people Jocks, stop calling Irish people Micks, and stop calling the welsh Taffy's (or sheep shaggers)?
Yes. At least in public forums and workplaces - in private you can do what you want.
Workplaces are not private and if any of my staff acted like you or black Barry in front of me it would be a disciplinary matter.
I appreciate that 20+ years ago what was deemed acceptable at work differs to today, but only 20 years before that landlords had cards saying "no blacks, no irish" in their windows.
By your logic we should start using n1gger, c***, jungle bunny, spade, sambo, etc etc as long as we are being friendly when we do it.
|
>> Workplaces are not private and if any of my staff acted like you or black
>> Barry in front of me it would be a disciplinary matter.
>>
>> I appreciate that 20+ years ago what was deemed acceptable at work differs to today,
It was 20+ years ago. Hence why I said I USED TO work with him. Had it been now, then I would have said I CURRENTLY work with him.
Not content with trying to twist what Pat is saying, you're trying to do the same to me as well.
Next you'll be telling us you don't like being called a quack.
|
>>It was 20+ years ago.
Already covered that:
>> I appreciate that 20+ years ago what was deemed acceptable at work differs to today
Would you still talk like that at work if you were working with him today?
>>Next you'll be telling us you don't like being called a quack.
Doesn't bother me an iota as long as it's done respectfully.
tee hee hee
|
>> >>Next you'll be telling us you don't like being called a quack.
>>
>> Doesn't bother me an iota as long as it's done respectfully.
Just don't say Donald wheres your trousers.
|
>>Doesn't bother me an iota as long as it's done respectfully.
tee hee hee <<
Apparently making a well deserved apology does bother you though.
Why can't you admit to being wrong?
Do you think it will make you look silly, inferior or even just a little bit stupid?
Apparently it was perfectly alright for you, Mappy, rtj, Mark and to a lesser extent Zero to make me look all of those things over the last few days, wasn't it?
I do wonder why? I'd love to know why.
I've never come on here and played the 'female' card accusing anyone of having a go because I'm the only regular woman poster on here.
I'm quite happy to be accepted, and take the same flak, as any of you whatever sex you may be.
I expect to be treated as an equal to any one of you, to be allowed to have opinions and voice them, argue my point, be quoted truthfully and honestly just as in some of the posts I read from you where I don't bother to contribute because I know it will act like a trigger and attract the trolling I seem to get and denigrate into rubbish.
Why is it a half dozen or so of you can't accept that after all the time I've been around here?
Surely you've given up trying to get me to flounce by now...that is never going to happen.
Argue the points I make anytime you like, but don't try and misquote me to make me look bad when you wouldn't dare do it to others who you replying to.
Equality is all I've ever strived for all of my life and I will continue to do it on here.
If you wouldn't try and undermine Mappy, then don't try and undermine me.
We're all equal, we're born the same way, we all end up the same way and I'm going to make my own journey as good as it can possibly get.
I won't ever give up, so maybe it's time to stop trying.
I've never played the 'female' card and never will, so if you can't accept who and what I am then just, bring it on.
|
>>I've never played the 'female' card and never will, so if you can't accept who and what I am then just, bring it on
Umm this appears to be a tad ironic. You're the one bringing it up.
|
No Lygonos, try reading all the posts and you will see it wasn't me who brought it up first.
Apology needed again!
Pat
|
Just to remind you and back up my point that it wasn't me....
>>She behaves like a nasty playground bully; yet the whole time gaslights us by telling us that the opposite is true and that she is the victim of the great conspiracy of posters here against her; only woman in a man's world; not from the same class as the rest of the members; not as educated as the rest of the posters - we've heard it all and it's all made up. A really, nasty, manipulative way to behave.
<<
Posted by Mappy at 10.15 today.
Apology?
Pat
|
>>try reading all the posts and you will see it wasn't me who brought it up first.
I've looked at all my utterances on this thread and can't see any 'genderism'.
First thing I note is a reference you make about me 11-7-17 17:58
"but it shows a man beaten by his own argument!"
I assume the 'man' is simply a statement of fact rather than the highlight of the comment, so I don't see it as unpleasant anyway.
|
>>Surely you've given up trying to get me to flounce by now...that is never going to happen.
I hope you don't. Having your comments out in the open is far, far better than them going underground.
|
>> I do wonder why? I'd love to know why.
Little so called men hiding behind keyboards.
|
|
Another one of your lures, ON?
|
|
No, just my opinion. Having met Pat in the real world.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 14 Jul 17 at 16:28
|
We both know that ON, but they either have to admit it or stop doing it now:)
Had enough of this bl**** b*******, thought I left it behind when I stopped *trying to be a lorry driver*;)
Pat
|
>> I won't ever give up, so maybe it's time to stop trying.
DO NOT call me a "lesser extent Zero" Its "Zero" to you, or if you wish "a greater extent Zero"
Thank you.
|
>> Would you still talk like that at work if you were working with him today?
Yes, because we had that thing that's been mentioned several times in this thread, called a mutual agreement. Also, Black Barry is his nickname, given to him by himself.
>> tee hee hee
Don't give up the day job.
|
>> Would you still talk like that at work if you were working with him today?
>> Yes, because we had that thing that's been mentioned several times in this thread, called a mutual agreement
www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5771
Your 'mutual agreement' is null and void if overheard by someone else who complains, including customers or employees of another firm.
|
Not so.
The complaint would/should then trigger an investigation by management.
Upon investigation of the above scenario it would be found that it was not discriminatory.
See this last paragraph....
''It is important to keep in mind that the law considers how such words are perceived by those who receive them - and it is usually irrelevant how or why someone made them in the first place.''
In VX's scenario the person receiving the remarks is not offended and hasn't complained.
Pat
|
>>how such words are perceived by those who receive them
Persons receiving them also includes the customer overhearing it, or the passing worker.
Basically whoever makes the complaint.
|
>> I don't agree.
>>
>> Pat
OY - Stop defending the indefensible; that's my job :-)
|
>> ''It is important to keep in mind that the law considers how such words are
>> perceived by those who receive them - and it is usually irrelevant how or why
>> someone made them in the first place.''
I don't think that means what you think it does.
|
>> Also, Black Barry is his nickname, given to him by himself.<<
In this context it does.
Pat
|
''It is important to keep in mind that the law considers how such words are perceived by those who receive them - and it is usually irrelevant how or why someone made them in the first place.''
Whoever makes the complaint is the 'receiver' - it can be a 3rd party rather than a direct member of the conversation.
The maker/reason of the original comment is not relevant.
|
I don't think people who eavesdrop on a private conversation can complain if they hear something they find offensive, especially if it is not said with any reference to them?
That would be a little bit like standing on a stepladder with binoculars in order to be offended by what the neighbours were up to.
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Sat 15 Jul 17 at 14:30
|
>> I don't think people who eavesdrop on a private conversation can complain if they hear
>> something they find offensive, especially if it is not said with any reference to them?
Eavesdropping and overhearing are not the same thing.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 15 Jul 17 at 14:38
|
They are both worthy of the retort 'Keep your nose out of things that have nothing to do with you'
Pat
|
>> They are both worthy of the retort 'Keep your nose out of things that have
>> nothing to do with you'
If (hypothetically) Dave and Black Barry's banter, laden with racist epithets, is unavoidably overheard by a colleague who is upset 'Keep your nose out of things that have nothing to do with you' won't wash.
|
Well it should do.
Are you trying to tell me that I have to whisper a private conversation with a colleague in case it offends anyone else who shouldn't be listening?
I think this ranks alongside the HSE website section on 'this weeks myths'
Has it ever been upheld in court?
Or is it just a layman's reading of the law.
ACAS isn't even quoting 'the law', just giving advice which they are actually very good at.
Their advice is often to avoid an issue but that applies to the offended as well as the offender.
Pat
|
>> Are you trying to tell me that I have to whisper a private conversation with
>> a colleague in case it offends anyone else who shouldn't be listening?
If it's a conversation about the weather, your holiday or even Brexit then no. If you're using words like Paki, which any dictionary will tell you is derogatory and a racial slur, then they're better not used at all in the workplace. Same goes for sexist stuff.
>> ACAS isn't even quoting 'the law', just giving advice which they are actually very good
>> at.
ACAS codes don't have force of law but failure to follow them can put the employer in a bad light.
|
That's mixing employment with a private conversation........and I still would like to see a private conversation stand up in court to believe it's possible.
Whether made in the work place or anywhere else.
Pat
|
It doesn't have to stand up in criminal court - disciplinary procedures at work don't follow the criminal burden of proof.
employment.law-ondemand.com/the-most-common-mistakes-employers-make-when-handling-a-disciplinary-issue/
"Employers often forget that, before any decision to dismiss is made, there are two things to consider if the employee has denied the allegations. The first is whether the employee is guilty of the alleged gross misconduct “on the balance of probabilitiesâ€. This isn’t a criminal burden of proof; the employer need only prove that the employee is more likely than not to have committed the act of gross misconduct"
And if taken to a tribunal, trying to defend yourself for calling someone an "e***** smelly black B" or whatever because you didn't think a customer could overhear you isn't going to go down too well, whether or not it was 'banter'.
|
.....but a conversation overheard by someone else is not, by definition, a private conversation.
I think someone should do you a favour, and relieve you of your shovel.......
|
I despair. Pat, you introduced ACAS into the thread!
Take your shovel and bury it.
|
|
This sort of brings us back to the beginning of the thread. Because Anne Marie Morris was suspended by the Conservative party because she used racist language in public.
|
Hang on Sherlock, it was Lygonos who introduced ACAS into this thread.
He posted this link at 8.09 this morning.
www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5771
Nothing whatsoever to do with me.
Pat
|
Indeed.
Years ago I sorted out getting some Ethernet cables for work. They were an orangey colour but we just needed some patch cables that were different to the others we were using. More senior colleague called them 'gay'. Put him in his place and made it clear I'd take it further if necessary. He apologised.
|
>> Years ago I sorted out getting some Ethernet cables for work. They were an orangey
>> colour but we just needed some patch cables that were different to the others we
>> were using. More senior colleague called them 'gay'. Put him in his place and made
>> it clear I'd take it further if necessary. He apologised.
Good job they weren't pink then, else you would have had him hung, drawn, and quartered for his opinions.
|
>> Hang on Sherlock, it was Lygonos who introduced ACAS into this thread.
>>
>> He posted this link at 8.09 this morning.
>>
>> www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5771
>>
>> Nothing whatsoever to do with me.
>>
>> Pat
>>
I apologise for my error.
However the sentiment still stands.
Rewritten
"I despair.
Take your shovel and bury it."
|
>> Take your shovel and bury it.
>>
I can't help observing that she would need another shovel to do that.
|
>>
>> >> Take your shovel and bury it.
>> >>
>>
>> I can't help observing that she would need another shovel to do that.
>>
.....or a spade....
(am I allowed to say that??)
|
(am I allowed to say that??)
my original, (but unpublished), text was ' take your shovel and find a spade to bury it'. On reflection I decided it was probably not the most appropriate phrase that I had ever written. :)
|
But does demonstrate perfectly and confirm my views that when something is said unintentionally, and not taken as a racist comment by the recipient, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it should never go further than that.
Pat
|
>> But does demonstrate perfectly and confirm my views that when something is said unintentionally, and
>> not taken as a racist comment by the recipient,
Depends what's said and how far it's truly unintentional. As I understand spade it's a shortened form of black as the ace of spades; crude but relatively inoffensive. Googling however suggests that, at least in American English, it's a racial slur on a par with, or worse than, Paki.
As we've all pointed out repeatedly the recipients point of view, in a work context or that of certain criminal offences, is not the only one that matters. A third aprty overhearing is a potential complainant too.
If you won't accept that I only hope it doesn't come back and bite should you ignore it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 16 Jul 17 at 14:20
|
>> That's mixing employment with a private conversation........and I still would like to see a private
>> conversation stand up in court to believe it's possible.
>>
>> Whether made in the work place or anywhere else.
These are exactly the sort of arguments trotted out 25 or so years ago when my then employer took it's first faltering steps towards an equality and diversity policy. It's like the five stages of grief; people thinking like Pat stick at the denial/anger phase.
|
>> In this context it does.
If the bloke is happy to be Black Barry (as opposed to Welsh Barry or Bald Barry) you'd likely be on safe ground; it's a description. The word 'Paki' is different. It's not a description but, as the briefest research will tell you, a racial slur. So even if Paki Barry was happy a complaint from an offended third party would probably be upheld.
Once you start trading racial epthets in 'banter' with Black Barry your right in line for a complaint. Just like too much effin and jeffin c word abuse etc when describing the weekend's football.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 15 Jul 17 at 09:39
|
>> Your 'mutual agreement' is null and void if overheard by someone else who complains, including customers or employees of another firm.
How fortunate then that we didn't have customers as such, and all employees around us worked for the same company, and all knew him as Black Barry, from the cleaners right up to the MD.
I really don't know what your problem is. If I were to bump into him in the street today, I would still greet him as Black Barry, and no doubt he would either still call me a fat git, a white honky, or some other such name that neither of us would take offence at. If other people around us take offence at it - tough. They shouldn't be listening to our conversation or banter.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 15 Jul 17 at 17:45
|
>>I really don't know what your problem is
That is your problem then, not mine.
>>and all employees around us worked for the same company, and all knew him as Black Barry, from the cleaners right up to the MD
And as you say this was 25+ years ago, when the world was different and we laughed along with Jim Davidson et al.
Today, it would take one person to feel uncomfortable and complain and the whole comfortable little house of cards would come tumbling down.
I've been an employer for 20 years - I know what I'm talking about.
|
>> I've been an employer for 20 years - I know what I'm talking about.
Whatever, Fed up with your nit picking now.
|
>>Whatever, Fed up with your nit picking now
Nit picking - employment law - much the same I guess.
|
We must all become annoyed with 'political correctness' at times but frankly the passing of much of what was normal when I were a lad is no bad thing.
I was never a fan of Jim-Davidson-or-Bernard-Manning-type humour, but see it now and it is pretty clear that what is rightly unacceptable today was largely based on ridiculing difference and minorities. Good riddance to that.
Unfortunately, anyone trying to make name for themselves now has publicly to condemn anybody in public life who makes the slightest slip, and no subtlety or irony is allowed for.
I hold no brief for Philip Hammond, but he does have a dry sense of humour and was clearly being ironic when he said that even women can drive trains, and in fact was almost certainly pointing up the deficit of women in such jobs, but the race to condemn him and to construe the PM's reply "I'm going to take your shovel away Chancellor" as a slap down began immediately.
If we are going to label people as racist, sexist or whatever, it should be on the basis of their actions and attitudes as displayed over time, not on the evidence of a couple of words in isolation.
|
" he said that even women can drive trains,"
That may be so, but I haven't met one yet that can load a dishwasher :-(
|
>>I've been an employer for 20 years - I know what I'm talking about<<
So then as an employer let's assume a private conversation between Black Barry and VX Fan was overheard by one of your patients and they complained to you.
As an employer you would be required to investigate the complaint.....
So upon investigation you found this was a mutually acceptable term and no racist connotation was meant.
Your action would then be what?
Mine would be to ask to see the patient, Black Barry and VXFan at an informal meeting over a cup of tea. Ask them all to explain to each other what you had found out and to go away happy.
The outcome of any complaint is usually influenced by the person dealing with it and the way they do it.
Pat
|
The mutually acceptable bit is totally irrelevant Pat. If someone complains and this what has been said is found to be true then this is misconduct. Nowhere near gross misconduct. But it will be recorded on the personnel file and be active for a few years. Do it again and you will be dismissed. It's pretty simple.
Your personal view on action is totally irrelevant. Someone like Lygonos in a GP partnership runs a business and has responsibilities. You (Pat) possibly never have had management responsibilities - but we don't know and do not need to know.
Fact is... spout racist or sexist stuff at work and you could lose your job. Fact.
Post racist stuff on Facebook and the police might get involved. Fact.
What management training (as in knowing regulations, etc.) have you had Pat?
Stick to running lorry driver courses. I'll stick to my IT (I don't want to do the management side on projects even though I could earn more). Leave the doc to being a GP.
|
Obviously more than you imagine:)
I asked Lygonos a direct question, I don't recall asking you.
Pat
|
Since we're going all hypothetical let's drag poor Dave back into things...
Here's what the patient hears:
-"Dave, you fat git"
-"Barry, I may be fat, but I can lose weight if I want to, you however will always be black".
And the patient is 'shocked and appalled' to hear this leading to them complaining.
After said investigation, Dave and Barry would be in no uncertain terms what is acceptable as banter at work - the above exchange is not.
The patient would then be advised in writing that the matter hand been dealt with following an investigation and the opportunity had been taken to remind all staff what was unacceptable conduct at work, even if they mean it as a joke, and an apology given.
If the patient is unhappy with that, then they can speak to me directly, or if still unhappy they can take it to the Ombudsman as is the right of anyone with a complaint against a public service.
What about Dave and Barry? Probably an informal ticking off if they immediately accepted they were in the wrong and said they'd not do it again, or a formal first verbal warning if they didn't (usually stays on record for 6 mths).
Might even get them to write it up as a "Significant Event Analysis" as part of their annual appraisal process.
www.spso.org.uk/
You think I want myself and my practice to get bummed by the Ombudsman because 2 employees want to use offensive banter at work and I turn a blind eye?
Naw.
>>informal meeting over a cup of tea
Waits for Bromp to say "that sounds like the Met pre-Macpherson report"
|
I would prefer you to answer my original question, which you seem reluctant to do.
The scenario I pose is the one you have constantly harped on about, so let's hear just how you would deal with it please.
Pat
|
>>I would prefer you to answer my original question, which you seem reluctant to do.
You really are twisting aren't you - here's your 'original question':
>>So then as an employer let's assume a private conversation between Black Barry and VX Fan was overheard by one of your patients and they complained to you.
And my response used pretty much verbatim an exchange suggested by Dave in an earlier post in this thread, which he still appears to think is acceptable in today's workplace (as in a further post he made in the thread).
Do you think my response posted above is wrong? If so, feel free to discuss further.
|
>> And my response used pretty much verbatim an exchange suggested by Dave in an earlier
>> post in this thread, which he still appears to think is acceptable in today's workplace
>> (as in a further post he made in the thread).
Well I won't go into too much detail about what happened to me a couple of months ago, other than I had to go into the security building of a company I was visiting. There were approx. 3 or 4 white men and 2 coloured men (all security officers). The 2 coloured guys had nicknames that related to their colour. Some banter was also flying around the place while I was waiting for my visitors pass. e.g. careful he doesn't give you a black look.
Granted I already knew a couple of the blokes in there, so there was some familiarity between us.
Was I offended? No. Were they offended? No.
The only people who generally get offended are the ones who think they know best by sticking their oar into other people's business and making a bigger issue of it than it actually is.
|
>> The only people who generally get offended are the ones who think they know best
>> by sticking their oar into other people's business and making a bigger issue of it
>> than it actually is.
Last time I was in my local tyre fitting emporium I complained about the non stop e***** and jeffing in the workshop which was clearly audible in the customer waiting area. Doesn't bother me personally but it would be a problem for kids. Was I sticking my oar in other people's business and making it a bigger issue than it actually is?
|
Last time I was in my local tyre fitting emporium I complained about the non
>> stop e***** and jeffing in the workshop which was clearly audible in the customer waiting
>> area. Doesn't bother me personally but it would be a problem for kids. Was I
>> sticking my oar in other people's business and making it a bigger issue than it
>> actually is?
What did the parents of the children think?
|
>> What did the parents of the children think?
As it happened at time there were no children there but don't think for a minute that had any bearing on fitter's behaviour. As well as being unacceptable in itself it was perhaps evidence of a wider malaise of mangement. As well as swearing their was horseplay and at one point a spring compressor left carelessly on floor was dragged under my raised car by a pneumatic hose. Would have been just too easy to drop my car onto it.
|
>> >> What did the parents of the children think?
>>
>> As it happened at time there were no children there
Right a bit too theoretically offensive to me.
As well as being unacceptable in itself
>> it was perhaps evidence of a wider malaise of management.
possible but the two aren't always linked.
|
>> Right a bit too theoretically offensive to me.
Seriously, you regard a stream of eff and cu type words audible to customers as OK in a retail establishment as only theoretically offensive?
|
I suppose ultimately we go back to CGN's post upthread.
Just an opinion. Where I'd draw the line is different to others in given situations, i accept that and don't find it an issue. Others do.
|
By extension of my point;
"The sheer range of opinion on this planet means you can’t be inoffensive. It’s something that can only really be aspired to within homogenous groups or authoritarian societies. What would a completely inoffensive cartoon look like? Those little cartoons you used to see in Punch or Private Eye in a doctor’s waiting room maybe?"
And by posting that I mean in the wider area of what is perceived as offence.
|
>> By extension of my point;
>> "The sheer range of opinion on this planet means you can’t be inoffensive.
There's incidentally offensive, and there's gratuitously offensive. When I go in the local and hear the alcoholics propping the bar up F & Cing, as sometimes happens, it doesn't give me the vapours but I am embarrassed for them nonetheless, and as it usually goes with loud behaviour.so everybody gets it - children included. I'm not a fan of children in bars, but if they are there then they should not be subjected to it. Nobody should, actually, in a public leisure facility.
Who benefits? Nobody. It's unnecessary, selfish and thoughtless. Like throwing litter, parking on pavements, and generally being oafish.
|
There's incidentally offensive, and there's gratuitously offensive.
Indeed there's a grey area around offensiveness.
Btw the quote was from frankie boyle. I wonder how many people find him so offensive they want him banned?
|
>> What is jeffing?
>>
He's the brother of e*****.
|
>>The only people who generally get offended are the ones who think they know best by sticking their oar into other people's business and making a bigger issue of it than it actually is.
This is the myth perpetrated by 'right to free-speechers' (which in itself is and always has been a myth).
For every one person that complains that they have been offended/upset/made uncomfortable by this kind of exchange there will be many more who keep their mouth shut.
In the workplace mentioned somewhere higher up where 'even the cleaners and the MD' take part in it - who is going to complain or bring up their concerns when even the boss is at it - they'll simply ignore it or go elsewhere.
It's wrong, plain and simple - if you get caught out there are consequences - just because you don't get caught out doesn't make it right.
Just in case you missed it:
>>I'm still impressed that adults in 2017 seem to think it is perfectly fine to swear and call people racist terms at work, in front of the public or their colleagues, and expect no sanction.
|
>> In the workplace mentioned somewhere higher up where 'even the cleaners and the MD' take part in it - who is going to complain or bring up their concerns when even the boss is at it - they'll simply ignore it or go elsewhere.
What part of "everyone concerned who worked there had a mutual understanding" have you failed to understand? And also that it was a closed environment so people of a nosy disposition couldn't stick their oar in.
I hope you listen more carefully to your patients than you seem to on here, and be not quite so patronising too.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 12:21
|
Oh they listen, but they only hear what they want to hear in their determination to make us fit their agenda.
I've been trying to make that point since the start of this thread but it's been solidly ignored by all who want to appear holier than thou.
I think they only ever have conversations 'in the workplace' and can't comprehend a workplace that isn't in an office or any particular building!
Such a narrow world to live in.
Pat
|
>> I've been trying to make that point since the start of this thread but it's
>> been solidly ignored by all who want to appear holier than thou.
And the bit that Lygonos and others, me included, who hold or have recently held responsible management posts in culturally aware environments is that fact participants are all comfortable with this form of "banter" is a red herring. The language itself is unacceptable.
If you cannot see that in the Dave/Black Barry context then try the 'shaggability of talent show competitors' analogy offered yesterday.
Is it clearer then?
|
>> There were approx. 3 or 4 white men and 2 coloured
>> men (all security officers). The 2 coloured guys had nicknames that related to their colour.
>> Some banter was also flying around the place while I was waiting for my visitors
>> pass. e.g. careful he doesn't give you a black look.
Jeez, it's the second decade of the 21st century and there are still people making that 'black look' joke? Was this in the Fens too? Which one of this mixed race group was the supervisor?
>> Was I offended? No. Were they offended? No.
Are you sure? Security work is notoriously insecure even when folks are directly employed. Add an agency, zero hours contracts etc and people will put up with all sorts of sheet to keep the wages coming in.
>> The only people who generally get offended are the ones who think they know best
>> by sticking their oar into other people's business and making a bigger issue of it
>> than it actually is.
Those who are offended are the ones living in the real world.
|
>>Was this in the Fens too?<<
That remark was entirely unnecessary and as someone who lives in the Fen, I am offended.
Pat
|
>> That remark was entirely unnecessary and as someone who lives in the Fen, I am
>> offended.
I apologise; no offence was intended.
But it was you who was telling us earlier that 'banter' using supposed insults, including by implication racial epithets, was normal chit chat in the Fen. Furthermore you suggested that such colourful discourse differentiated the area from London and the Home Counties.
Or did I misunderstand?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 15:16
|
Not at all Bromp, you understand perfectly well now how it feels to say something you 'expect' will be taken in context, but the other person doesn't think like that.
You see how easily YOU can offend too.
You feel it's justified because I use 'normal chit chat in the Fens' for you to use it AT me.
There is a difference, as I think I've been trying to point out since the start of this thread.
No offence was intended.......that may be your starting point to what some of us have been getting at.
In other words you're happy to moderate other peoples language and choice of words when nether addressed to you or at you. yet happy to do the same yourself when you think it will be, or should be acceptable.
Double standards.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 16:28
|
>> Jeez, it's the second decade of the 21st century and there are still people making
>> that 'black look' joke? Was this in the Fens too?
No, it was in the real world where people can still have a laugh and a joke with one another without taking offence.
>> Are you sure? Security work is notoriously insecure even when folks are directly employed.
100% sure. I was there.
>> Those who are offended are the ones living in the real world.
So, presumably your letter of complaint is on its way to ITV for Bradley Walsh referring to The Chase's Shaun Wallace as the "Dark Destroyer"?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 21:45
|
>>So, presumably your letter of complaint is on its way to ITV for Bradley Walsh referring to The Chase's Shaun Wallace as the "Dark Destroyer"?
I think you're not quite grasping the principles here and you are confusing crime with workplace behaviour.
If I say to the police, the person that committed that crime I witnessed was black / female / sikh / pregnant / fat etc. etc. there is no offence. That is merely a description.
There's no discrimination, no value judgement, no prejudice. Were someone to overhear and complain about my comment, it would go nowhere.
Was I making a discriminatory or prejudicial comment, that would be different.
However, we are [mostly] talking about the work environment, and there are rules that apply there that do not apply elsewhere. And it covers anything that can create what the US used to call "hostile environment".
Essentially comments interpreted referring [usually negatively] to such things as religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, gender, etc. will be unacceptable, even if both the person saying and the person hearing them are comfortable.
For example, tell a racist / sexist joke in an office environment, and anyone who hears it can complain about it. In itself they could not sue for it. However, if the company failed to take appropriate action, they would then be able to sue the company.
"Appropriate action" ranges from warnings, formal and informal, written and verbal, through to dismissal. Further offences beyond the initial offence are typically dealt with brutally. In either case they will be career limiting.
Your pleas as to how much your mate liked your comment and that it was just banter would be irrelevant, whether true or not.
So do it in the work environment and you'll cop a warning. Do it more than once and you'll get fired. Do it on your own time in public with no malicious intent, and you're just silly. Though potentially a barmaid could complain to the Landlord, for example - he'd probably ask you to desist and then bar you if you did not.
Calling your friend "Black Barry" breaks no laws that I am aware of, but it is inappropriate in the workplace. And it is a bit of a sad level of "banter", time to grow up and move on, perhaps.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 22:19
|
>> time to grow up and move on, perhaps.
If only some people could.
Like I previously said, it was well over 20 years ago, but for all I know he could still be known as Black Barry. After all said and done, it was just a nickname - and one of his own choosing.
|
I think your reluctance to answer a direct question speaks volumes.
Pat
|
Thought I had.
Your failure to make a useful response is more telling.
|
>>Thought I had<<
I call it prevaricating.
Pat
|
Pat said:
So then as an employer let's assume a private conversation between Black Barry and VX Fan was overheard by one of your patients and they complained to you.
As an employer you would be required to investigate the complaint.....
So upon investigation you found this was a mutually acceptable term and no racist connotation was meant.
Your action would then be what?
The flaw in this question is line 3 - what part of referring to someone's ethnicity/skin colour holds no 'racist connotation'?
If we used the 2 instances that VxFan had put forward as workplace banter, both have 'racist connotations' and your little hypothetical scenario falls down.
If after investigation is was determined nothing inappropriate had been said then that would obviously be the end of the matter.
If you are still determined to try to allow workers to make racially based derogatory comments about each other in front of the public or offended colleagues, you're going to continue to fail.
|
>>If you are still determined to try to allow workers to make racially based derogatory comments about each other in front of the public or offended colleagues, you're going to continue to fail.<<
That, of course, assumes I've failed already.
It does confirm my beliefs that the outcome of any investigation is swayed by the beliefs of the investigator though.
You refer to my line 3 but conveniently forget to address the last two words.
Pat
|
>>You refer to my line 3 but conveniently forget to address the last two words
No need because you fail again as they have been dealt with previously in this thread:
www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=5771
Unacceptable language and phrases:
Employers should be very clear that some language and phrases can cause offence, even if they have been made unintentionally or as a joke. Derogatory terms that refer to race are clearly unacceptable and discriminatory. It is important to keep in mind that the law considers how such words are perceived by those who receive them - and it is usually irrelevant how or why someone made them in the first place.
Keep reading and re-reading the bold part 'til you get it, remembering that the 'receiving' party is anyone who hears it, not just the intended target.
>>If you are still determined to try to allow workers to make racially based derogatory comments about each other in front of the public or offended colleagues, you're going to continue to fail
|
Why the reluctance to say exactly how you would deal with that exact situation with that scenario?
You assume Dodgy Dave and Black Barry are employees I presume?
They are NOT workers, they are sitting in the waiting room waiting to see you, for goodness sake.
That's why we keep stressing it's a private conversation.
This whole thing is getting to the point where you are determined to be correct and will read anything I write to suit that agenda......not for the first time either, although I notice no apology was forthcoming earlier on in the thread when it should have been.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 16:53
|
If you were sat somewhere public and couldn't help over hearing a discussion which related to something illegal.... should you act? Because as Pat says it's a private conversation and you shouldn't be listening?
What if that private conversation related to say beating up someone of a different race? Police would probably be interested. I wonder where one draws the line to what should be acted on.
|
>> You assume Dodgy Dave and Black Barry are employees I presume?
>>
>> They are NOT workers, they are sitting in the waiting room waiting to see you,
>> for goodness sake.
It was YOU, on Sunday 16-07 at 01:28 who said So then as an employer let's assume a private conversation between Black Barry and VX Fan was overheard by one of your patients and they complained to you.
So no assumption on anybody's part.
|
Yes there was.
Lygonos has repeatedly told us as an Employer he has procedures to follow in the event of a complaint.
That's why I wanted his reaction to this one....it's the only way I can seem to get it through to you two that what you condemning me and VX for is NOT what you think it is, or indeed, making it out to be.
Pat
|
|
Are you really finding it *that* challenging to follow Lygonos's posts?
|
Lygonos can reply for himself but I suspect that, like other businesses, a GP practice will have a process whereby people who insist on breaking the rules get shown to the door.
I think both of us understand what you and VX are saying. We're equally clear that you're both, in an employment context and probably others too, wrong.
|
>> Lygonos can reply for himself but I suspect that, like other businesses, a GP practice
>> will have a process whereby people who insist on breaking the rules get shown to
>> the door.
>>
I suspect you are correct so why does he have difficulty in saying how he would deal with this exact situation?
Are the rules unwritten rules or are they displayed. I was in my GP's surgery yesterday morning and no such rules were displayed.
>> I think both of us understand what you and VX are saying. We're equally clear
>> that you're both, in an employment context and probably others too, wrong.
>>
In an employment context.....there we go again.
Despite our great efforts to explain to you this is not an 'employment context', you had to add it in an effort to make us wrong:)
I presume by a process of elimination, in a roundabout backdoor way, in order to save a bit of pride you are 'probably' saying we're right!
Pat
|
>>Despite our great efforts to explain to you this is not an 'employment context'...
Pat said:
So then as an employer let's assume a private conversation between Black Barry and VX Fan was overheard by one of your patients and they complained to you.
Fail.
Once again.
|
I appreciate being deliberately obtuse obviously delights you but....
The waiting room is YOUR work place which YOU keep telling us is YOUR responsibility to uphold the ACAS guidelines.
The complaint involves three of your patients.
It's really not difficult to deal with, or are we to assume it is beyond your capabilities?
Pat
|
>> In an employment context.....there we go again.
Dave and Black Barry's intercourse took place at work. So did the 'banter' in the security lodge in Dave's much more recent anecdote. As has already been pointed out it was YOU, in the small hours of Sunday, who put up the example of Dave and BB as staff in Lygonos's surgery.
If you now want to test out the alternative of patients in the waiting room by all means do so.
But please don't try and make out it always concerned patients and that others keep making it about employment to make you look wrong. The only effect of doing so is to make you look a little silly.
|
>>as staff in Lygonos's surgery. <<
I did not say they were staff at all, you assumed they were to fit your agenda.
I've just been to my GP's surgery again this morning and the only notice is one saying 'Please do not abuse our reception staff'.
On another note, I overheard a patient being offered the earliest appointment with their own Doctor for the first week in November, or A N Other Doctor would be September 15th as the first available appointment.
This is what I mean about our local services groaning under the strain of Fenlands increased population.
Pat
|
They might be groaning under the strain of a lack of GPs.
|
>>>On another note, I overheard a patient being offered the earliest appointment with their own Doctor for the first week in November, or A N Other Doctor would be September 15th as the first available appointment.<<<
Barely believable, but I seem to recall another poster on here saying virtually the same about appointments in his area. It might have been CGN.
Certainly a point worth looking into, if elderly folk are looking to move closer to younger relatives in another part of the country.
I am lucky to be able to secure an appointment with a doctor at my local surgery within a few hours, and a doctor of my choice within no more than a couple of days or so.
|
>> I did not say they were staff at all, you assumed they were to fit
>> your agenda.
Keep digging. You're nearly in Australia.
The post Lygonos and I have repeatedly referred to is here:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=t&t=24541&m=540532
The words so then as an employer let's assume a private conversation between Black Barry and VX Fan was overheard by one of your patients and they complained to you. could just be a poorly worded attempt at a scenario involving three patients.
Any doubt though is removed by the next sentence:
As an employer you would be required to investigate the complaint.
No agenda. We were answering your question.
|
Already been explained if you read it all.
>>
The waiting room is YOUR work place which YOU keep telling us is YOUR responsibility to uphold the ACAS guidelines.<<
Pat
|
>> The waiting room is YOUR work place which YOU keep telling us is YOUR
>> responsibility to uphold the ACAS guidelines.<<
If it's a three way spat between patients what relevance has ACAS?
|
>>I did not say they were staff at all, you assumed they were to fit your agenda.
A reasonable assumption to have made given that all of the Black Barry/Dave chat prior to you bringing them up was about it in the workplace, and you didn't specify BB and D were patients in the waiting room (which would have made your 'exact' scenario just that little bit more, um, exact).
Hope this helps (assuming BB and D are patients):
1. Patient complains after the event, no staff or myself witnessed the episode. Reply to patient advising that we take offensive behaviour of any kind very seriously and if they experience it in future to let a member of staff or one of the partners know immediately and it will be dealt with... or if it was directed at them or someone else in a menacing or grossly obscene fashion they should contact the Police who would decide if a criminal offence may have taken place.
2. BB and D are overheard by staff or myself making such comments and they are not obviously trying to make other uncomfortable but equally not keeping quiet - I would immediately have a (private) chat with them about acceptable behaviour on the premises.
3. BB and D are being deliberately abusive, threatening or offensive to someone else in the room, witnessed by myself/staff/more than one other patient: I'd likely call the cops.
If BB and D worked for me, see previous replies.
If BB and D worked for a company that is involved with the delivery of my business (eg. for the Health Board, or a delivery company) then I would forward the complaint to their line manager.
Does that clarify the position given the degree of ambiguity?
I think you are looking for no. 2
Ultimately if a patient is repeatedly inappropriate in the workplace they are going to be finding a new GP but obviously they are outside ACAS/workplace disciplinary measures.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 12:08
|
Yep, that's pretty much what I suggested way up thread when I talked about all parties having a chat over a cup of tea.
Pity we had to go all around the houses, not to mention Scotland, to get there.
Pat
|
>>Yep, that's pretty much what I suggested way up thread
And utterly irrelevant to the original issue about racist banter at work between 'consenting' work colleagues.
Your turn, since you like 'exact' questions that are far from precise.
Is it perfectly fine to call people racist terms at work, in front of the public or their colleagues whether on purpose or by accident, and expect no sanction whatsoever?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 14:08
|
Since you feel you have to ask that question and really don't know me any better that to know the answer, then of course I don't.
I'm very well versed in what is, and isn't, acceptable at work and the procedures to deal with it, and indeed do so on the rare occasion it happens.
If you look back at the start of this thread it started because I said that in the Fen the local shop is commonly known as the Paki shop.
Nothing to do with the workplace whatsoever.
Nothing to do with me calling the shopkeeper a Paki.
But you, and a few others had to be offended at that to the extent of trying repeatedly to accuse me of being a raging racist by falsely claiming I'd said, and believed far more than that.
I will not have my words twisted by you or anyone else, and will solidly keep dogging away at this until I am satisfied that is clear.
You claim my posts were misleading, I claim yours were made very early on, to deliberately mislead, and have carried on in that manner with anyone else who has dared to question you.
What have you gained from this? Do I suppose, by your Katie Hopkins comment, you dislike strong, outspoken women who won't be talked down to?
What I do know is before this you had my respect, sadly you no longer have.
Pat
|
>>Since you feel you have to ask that question and really don't know me any better that to know the answer, then of course I don't.
Ah good, so you agree that VxFan is indeed wrong about his assertion that his workplace banter is ok.
>>Nothing to do with the workplace whatsoever.
Black Barry and Dave are nothing to do with your local shop, and neither are they patients at my surgery. Why use them as an example if you want to avoid workplace connotations.
>>Do I suppose, by your Katie Hopkins comment, you dislike strong, outspoken women who won't be talked down to?
There you go again playing the gender card you know I have never used - Katie Hopkins is a disgusting caricature because of what she says, not because she has 2 X chromosomes.
In a similar vein I think Diane Abbott is useless because she is a vacuous muppet, not because she is a female or black.
>>Nothing to do with me calling the shopkeeper a Paki.
"Going to the Chinkie for a takeaway is common in Fenland and indeed within a 100 miles radius of where I live.
The Paki shop is usually the local paper shop and again as no-one can pronounce his name he's quite happy to be known as that and laugh with us, ....and indeed trade 'supposed' insults back."
Laugh with US - hmm sounds like you're in on the 'joke'
Stop digging.
Fail.
|
Methinks you do protest too much!
I take it Psychology isn't in your remit.
Pat
|
[weak sarcasm after being shown herself in the mirror]
Fail.
|
Childish would be my description.....
Pat
|
>>Childish would be my description.....
Indeed, that would be a good description for grown men and women using race based banter.
|
>> Indeed, that would be a good description for grown men and women using race based
>> banter.
For goodness sake!
It wasn't race based banter, with regard to Black Barry.
He was a black guy, his name was Barry, and he had been known for years as Black Barry - a nickname of his own choosing. Granted, there was banter among work colleagues, all mutual, all taken with no offence intended, and everyone got along like a house on fire.
Had anyone complained, or felt uncomfortable, then obviously we would have apologised and toned things down. But no one did - and do you know why? It was all mutual and no one took offence.
God, I'd really hate to work in the some of the environments that you guys portray. What a bunch of stuffy, square, and boring lot you are. You wouldn't know fun and banter was like if it came along and bit you on the bum.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 19 Jul 17 at 01:50
|
>> Dave and Black Barry's intercourse
He was only a work colleague. Nothing more. Banter was as far as it ever went ;)
|
>> Dave and Black Barry's intercourse
Who uses that word anymore in that context... next he'll be talking about n*****s in the woodpile ;-)
|
>>
>> >> Dave and Black Barry's intercourse
>>
>> Who uses that word anymore in that context...
Me :-P It was though deliberately chosen for its tic value.....
|
>> Are the rules unwritten rules or are they displayed. I was in my GP's surgery
>> yesterday morning and no such rules were displayed.
Mine has some detailed rules which, as might be expected, major on what is expected in terms of timely attendance at appointments and consequences of failure to do so.
They also include specifically A zero tolerance policy towards violent, threatening and abusive behaviour is in place in the practice. That would be sufficient to deal with 'banter' which was racially, sexually or otherwise offensive.
|
>>Waits for Bromp to say "that sounds like the Met pre-Macpherson report"<<
I think Bromp knows exactly the course of action I mean, and I also think he would thoroughly approve of it in this situation.
Pat
|
>> I think Bromp knows exactly the course of action I mean, and I also think
>> he would thoroughly approve of it in this situation.
An informal meeting, with or without tea and biccies, might be a way of getting the irons out of the fire and salvaging the situation. OTOH it might make matters worse because it looks like management siding with the perpetrator of the offence.
As such I'd be vary wary of it as an option.
|
Funny that, because it would be a first option, not a final option.
But as I say, most complaints depend entirely on the way the investigator handles them and possibly, that persons own feelings on the subject.
of course, that shouldn't come into it, but it does.
Remember what the C in ACAS stands for?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Sun 16 Jul 17 at 14:40
|
>> Funny that, because it would be a first option, not a final option.
I agree it's a first rather than final option. There may though be reasons, as I mentioned, to rule it out and proceed more formally.
>> Remember what the C in ACAS stands for?
I've sat through whole seminars on conciliation, arbitration, mediation and (early) neutral evaluation and their differing characteristics. One was enlivened by a tanks/lawn spat between different factions in world of Alternative/Proportionate Dispute Resolution.
Trying to be (formally) a conciliator between people in your own management chain is poor practice; you're not sufficiently neutral. Getting an HR appointed conciliator is a possibility but is use of racially offensive language proper territory for conciliation?
|
>> So upon investigation you found this was a mutually acceptable term and no racist connotation
>> was meant.
It doesn't matter that they found the language mutually acceptable or that the conversation was private.
Lets turn the hypothesis in another direction. A mixed group of colleagues are discussing in loud and profane terms the shaggability of contestants, both male and female, in the weekend's TV talent shows. They're comfortable with the language but somebody who unavoidably overhears is grossly offended.
What does the employer do?
|
In other words, vxfan and his friend have lost their right to free speech. Anything that they may say to each other now has to be done either out of earshot of everyone or be approved by everyone within earshot before they can say it.
No wonder we now have a generation of snowflakes.
|
>> In other words, vxfan and his friend have lost their right to free speech. Anything
>> that they may say to each other now has to be done either out of
>> earshot of everyone or be approved by everyone within earshot before they can say it.
No. They just have to think before opening their mouths.
|
I think having a good look around first might be a better option.
;-)
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 16 Jul 17 at 22:08
|
MJM voted Out.
Pat voted Out.
VxFan voted Out.
Who'da thunk they wanted to defend offensive racist tosh at work, eh?
|
TBF, L , it looks like you've attended equality and diversity awareness sessions, and I bet you looked forward to them with the same sense of anticipation as most of us on here would have in advance of a speeding awareness course.
I know I did. :-)
|
I can't remember anything much like that per se, but I have done enough disciplinary work to know how to do it, and a big part is consistency.
You also have to follow the correct pathways or by definition anything you do can then be deemed 'unfair' even if otherwise correct.
I'm still impressed that adults in 2017 seem to think it is perfectly fine to swear and call people racist terms at work, in front of the public or their colleagues, and expect no sanction.
|
The sessions I did were, I must say, largely motherhood and apple pie, with the legal background thrown in.
There was usually a bit of "putting you on the spot" with some scenarios which, if you were prepared to take lessons on board, made you think somewhat differently about behaviours, and how they (might) affect other people.
After one fairly fruitful session, however, the facilitator wound up with "of course, I'm here to give you insight into how these things might expose your employer in legal terms - you now should understand why some things are wrong because they're illegal or actionable, but I think you're beginning to realise that some things are also wrong simply because they are wrong!".
She got a round of applause!
I've had to deal directly with only a few such issues within the workplace, but deal with them I did, and it isn't a comfortable experience (though sometimes, the outcome can be quite surprising and rewarding).
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sun 16 Jul 17 at 22:50
|
We've got them at work expect it's not E&D but diversity and inclusivity. Apparently the previous description is no longer acceptable/accurate. We have to have annual training on this and others in a list as long as your arm.
The only time I didn't see people look as though they'd rather have root canal surgery was when they showed the 'cup of tea' video, that got people chuckling. Never had anyone get a round of applause for training session mind.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 07:29
|
Don't forget the 7 anonymous thumbs up too!
Pat
|
"Who'da thunk..........."
Precisely ............... how to win friends and influence people ...........
First - you ignore their concerns
......... Then you call call them "ignorant bigots" (thank you, G Brown)
................ Then you call them racist, xenophobic scumbags (thank you, snowflakes)
Then you ask them to vote for your ideas
........... ha ha ha ha ha!
|
Lygonos
Can you point me to where I have “wanted to defend offensive racist tosh at work� It shouldn’t take you long; I’ve only posted about 10 times since last June.
Are you attempting to call me racist because I voted out of the EU?
Why is it that you tend to be offensive to anyone who holds a different opinion to you? Is that not bigotry?
Bromptonaught
>> No. They just have to think before opening their mouths>>
Ah, I see, just like North Korea, the old USSR and the USA in the McCarthy era. I thought that we had moved on from there.
edited to reveal the hidden text caused by using the incorrect symbols
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 21:49
|
>> Bromptonaught
>>
>> <>
>>
>> Ah, I see, just like North Korea, the old USSR and the USA in the
>> McCarthy era. I thought that we had moved on from there.
Ahhh was about to ask what you were on about but quoting shows the 'hidden' message No. They just have to think before opening their mouths.
This site uses pointy brackets as HTML switches leading to your repeat of my words being hidden.
Engage brain before selecting mouth isn't exactly dictatorship territory.
|
>>Can you point me to where I have "wanted to defend offensive racist tosh at work"?
Sure thing:
>> Anything that they may say to each other now has to be done either out of earshot of everyone or be approved by everyone within earshot before they can say it.
So you are saying you are against offensive racist tosh, or simply tolerant of it?
Try reading your own trite Katie Hopkinsesque drivel before you press 'post'.
|
>>
>> I was puzzled by Ched's comment as well. The diminutive 'boy' as mentioned in the
>> article would be non PC today though.
>>
I have always understood it alluding to slavery.
|
>>
>> I have always understood it alluding to slavery.
>>
Just a servant, I think, particularly in colonial Africa or post-colonial South Africa.
As in that Private Eye satirical spoof advert "Robertson's Wog Jam - send your boy out to get some".
|
It matters not a jot what Dave, Pat, me or anybody else think about the rules and laws as they apply to the work situation - and almost everywhere is someone's work situation. They are what they are and Lygonos and others have a good and correct understanding of them.
In so far as bad language at Kwik Fit, its different. Those words exist, they are used, and there isn't really any reason why they shouldn't be other than politeness, decency and respect when one can be overheard.
The only reason I think Kwik Fit should pay attention is because from a business perspective it might give an impression or an experience which will impact their revenue. I wouldn't complain about it, I might comment on it if the Manager was someone I knew, to be helpful to him.
I do not believe we have a right to not be offended. We live in a society and that's what its like.
That is not the same as, for example, racial prejudice which is not only against the law, I believe it is fundamentally wrong.
My guideline to my children is this [because they've previously asked];
If it is something that someone cannot change (race / colour / height / sex / disability and others] then it is not a subject for humour, banter, or abuse.
If it is something that someone can change [behaviour / cleanliness / attitude and others] then it is not something to be governed by the law, and is a matter of judgement.
And before you raise religion, that is something that people believe they cannot change.
Not a perfect guideline, and no doubt lots of people will now write "ah, but what about...", however it works for us - as a *guideline*.
|
How do you define "fundamentally wrong". There have certainly been societies and cultures where racism wouldn't have been considered wrong.
Unless you believe that there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong in the universe, which really pre-supposes the existence of a deity, then racism as a crime is just like other crimes we find abhorrent, a man made construct, a part of modern Western culture
|
>> There have certainly been societies and cultures where racism wouldn't have been considered wrong.
Ah I see your point. Perhaps I should have put the words "I believe...." in front of my statement.
No, wait.......................
|
Racism as an evolutionary development made a lot of sense in the absence of law, order and civilisation. There are probably places where it still does.
I'm sure if I were a government minister I'd have to resign for saying that. I don't think it's a particularly sagacious thought, but it's very sad and a sign of something unpleasant that thinking something and saying it is such a risky pastime. Unless that changes, we will never hear anything from our politicians but slogans and banalities.
|
>> thinking something and saying it is such a risky pastime.
Just don't think it or believe it in the first place. Simple really.
|
>>we will never hear anything from our politicians but slogans and banalities
Aren't we pretty much there already?
I don't think saying it was a dismissable offence, but being stupid enough to say it should have been.
|
NoFM2R's recent managerial/consulting input will be considerably above man-management (more like manager management?) but he is pretty much on the button with the characteristics about which it is against the law to act discriminatorily.
Religion I believe wasn't in the original guidelines when race/sex discrimination was legislated, and I think age discrimination is a relative newcomer also.
www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1363
Under the Act, it is unlawful to discriminate against people at work because of nine areas termed in the legislation as protected characteristics:
•age
•disability
•gender reassignment
•marriage and civil partnership
•pregnancy and maternity
•race
•religion or belief
•sex
•sexual orientation
Anything else may infringe good taste or politeness of course.
|
|
I must admit that I have some trouble embracing religions and beliefs that discriminate against women and gays - but then I'm a bit old-fashioned :-(
|
Yes, I struggle with the same. The problem is, pretty much all of them do to one extent or another.
Not a big fan of religions, me. Not any of them. As far as I can see they've all done more harm than good over the years.
I can't think the various Gods, if they exist, can be all that happy with the religions and churches following them either.
|
>>Not a big fan of religions, me
"The all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims..."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE&list=RD8r-e2NDSTuE&index=1
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 17 Jul 17 at 23:01
|
The Western world is full of the self-righteous.
I have a copy of the word game "Bookworm" on my laptop. It won't accept swear words.
Oddly enough, it will accept "goys", but not "y**s".
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 08:51
|
>> Oddly enough, it will accept "goys", but not "y**s".
That would be because, as the most rudimentary research shows, Goy/Goys/Goyim is the standard Hebrew term for a non Jew. Only a few think it pejorative. Y** is always offensive (except perhaps in some Jewish circles when pronounced to rhyme with deed rather than lid).
And you criticise others for looking for offence where it doesn't exist.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 09:16
|
Being called a "goy" would be very offensive and pejorative to some people. Personally I am not offended by such a description being applied to me.
In fact, being called a honky, or other term applied as an insult, would neither increase nor decrease the offensiveness to me.
|
When an orthodox Jewish boss of mine, whom I got on with extremely well, left at 2pm on a winter's Friday afternoon and left me to get on with the project we were working on, I laughed 'lucky you've got a shabbos goy to help!'
He said that goy was an offensive word and I should not use it. (Not that I had offended him by using it, but it would be offensive about me if he were to use it of me and it was therefore not a word he would use.) He also added that having a gentile serve a Jew on the Sabbath did not 'work' as his servants were required to rest. He was indeed somewhat uncomfortable about leaving me working on Friday afternoons - but it was my job.
"Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed."
I cannot believe that Prat* is still going on about her blatant casual racism.
*Just an amusing nickname amending another nickname.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 10:37
|
|
What's a shabbos? Not heard that before.
|
"Shabbos goy" is Y**dish and means "Sabbath person" - i.e. a Gentile who is not therefore bound to observe the traditions of the Sabbath (no work etc.) and who performs tasks for a Jewish family like preparing meals, lighting fires etc., usually for money.
My Polish wife's grandmother, when the family lived in the Polish part of Ukraine before WW2, used to do this.
Perhaps the most famous shabbos goy was Elvis Presley.
B***** swear filter! (I suppose it's an apt comment, considering some of the stuff in this thread.)
Last edited by: Focal Point on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 11:23
|
>> What's a shabbos? Not heard that before.
If you highlight the words shabbos goy, and then right click search google for 'shabbos goy' it will give you the answer far more quickly than responding on here!
|
If you highlight the words shabbos goy, and then right click search google for 'shabbos
>> goy' it will give you the answer far more quickly than responding on here!
I'm on phone when I look on here so I don't think it's got that. Either way I think it's best to ask rather than assume.
|
>> cannot believe that Prat* is still going on about her blatant casual racism.
*Just an amusing nickname amending another nickname. <<
OK Mappy, you can call me Prat and I'll call you Mappy.
Now that seems entirely fair and I've been called far worse than that, it hasn't worried me yet:)
Pat
|
|
This sort of thing used to be routine in the playground. If one brat called another a nitbag, would the victim have a case in law?
|
|
Well, I have asked you more than once not to call me Mappy, and you persist in doing it; it's not OK by me. You really are unpleasant, why would anybody be surprised that you are a racist.
|
So you can call me racist, call me a prat and expect me to be respectful enough to consider what you prefer to be called?
I don't think so.
I give back what I get and it's always fared me well to date so I will just carry on.
I cannot believe you would lower yourself to abusive name calling....that's breeding and education for you!
Pat
|
So what have we learned from this thread then?
It's had 340 replies and 4525 page views.
That means despite the odd protest, a lot have been reading it even though they didn't contribute.
Why didn't they contribute?
Couldn't be bothered or didn't want to put themselves in the position of taking the flak.
If they weren't interested then why not just scroll past it......it was clear what it was about after day 1.
Have we learned anything about our fellow forum posters...I think we have.
It takes an emotive subject to bring out true colours.
Does it encourage new posters to read this sort of thing?
Do the flying insults put them off?
Should posts about Race, Religion, Politics and Brexit be banned?
So what have others learned from this thread then, because it's opened my eyes and I'd love to hear others views who haven't been involved.
Pat
|
"That means despite the odd protest, a lot have been reading it even though they didn't contribute. Why didn't they contribute?"
As I made clear, I didn't like the tone and content of a lot of the postings and I didn't care to get dragged into a pointless argument in which insults seemed likely to be thrown around.
"Does it encourage new posters to read this sort of thing?"
Probably not.
"Do the flying insults put them off?"
Probably yes.
"Should posts about Race, Religion, Politics and Brexit be banned?"
They shouldn't need to be. Sadly, on this forum, such topics seem to bring out the worst in people.
"So what have others learned from this thread then, because it's opened my eyes and I'd love to hear others views who haven't been involved."
Nothing. It's merely confirmed what I knew or suspected about individuals and illustrates some unpleasant universal human traits. It just confirms my cynicism.
Last edited by: Focal Point on Tue 18 Jul 17 at 17:37
|
>> So what have others learned from this thread then,
Learned nothing, merely reinforced my perceptions of others.
|
It's had 340 replies and 4525 page views.
>>
>> That means despite the odd protest, a lot have been reading it even though they
>> didn't contribute.
>>
>> Why didn't they contribute?
>>
>> Couldn't be bothered or didn't want to put themselves in the position of taking the
>> flak.
I wouldn't read too much into it, 10:1 reading to replying is roughly normal.
|
>> I wouldn't read too much into it, 10:1 reading to replying is roughly normal.
Agreed.
And how many views are automated 'crawlers' rather than sentient readers.
|
>> sentient readers.
Do we have any regular sentient readers?
|
>> I cannot believe that Prat* is still going on about her blatant casual racism.
>>
>> *Just an amusing nickname amending another nickname.
Too far Mapmaker.
AFAIAC, calling someone Mappy isn't a personal attack as it's just an abbreviation of a nickname/forum handle. However amending someone's real name from Pat to Prat is a personal attack on them.
|
Anne Marie Morris and the N Word - sherlock47
