Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Oh definitely worse things have been said, but that's part of what inclusive language is supposed to avoid.
Phrasing?
What is ‘cultural banter?’ I’m curious.
Racial slurs, probably.
Oh, no doubt.
I’m just curious as to how some are worded.
Especially after seeing how ‘Anglo Saxon traditions’ are being championed here politically.
Would love to compare the two.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Is cultural banter illegal whatever that means?
No idea. There was another bloke opposing vaccine passports, stopping future lockdowns and something about keeping our incredible cultural heritage....which no doubt includes Afghan, Iraqi, Pakistani, Kurdish, Italian, Chinese, Turkish et al restaurants and food places. I like the way folk enjoy a good kebab in this country. Talking about kebabs I had a great lamb shawarma yesterday.
Sounds like McDiversity
Last edited:
And imagine, if no one had used the word 'dad' during those couple of weeks you would have been dead because of oversensitivity by now. You should send someone a thank you letter.
I know you're joking, but it potentially is. Harassment laws are shocking and in need of change/clarification, as it essentially comes down to causing someone offence, but offence is so subjective. I don't think it's enforced much though, but the potential is there. A service user at my old workplace (a vulnerable adult) got charged and prosecuted for texting his ex on three separate occassions after they broke up that he missed her/still loved her/that she was beautiful etc, because the cnut went crying to the police saying she was distressed by it.
Sadly it may be a genuine topic but the vast majority of people who mention it are either just actual racists, or are so dumb their idea of top quality banter is puerile garbage. As stupid as they may be however, I don't want any police officer, magistrate, judge or other state official determining what is offensive, or what is banter. Education and encouragement of acceptable/preferred behaviour is more beneficial than outlawing/punishing those who step out of line IMO.
I'm less decided when it comes to companies/schools enforcing what is acceptable. Again I'd think encouraging correct behaviour, establishing a culture that is desired is beneficial. I'd like to think most workplaces let people off for one-off indiscretions with some words of advice and a warning. In my experience the only people who get fired or properly disciplined for a balls-up are the ones who constantly overstep the line or who are a general liability, so it's a good excuse to get rid of them. So any Daily Mail articles in the future about "Teacher fired for Wrongspeak!", my first thought will be that they're probably a shit teacher anyway.
How do you know the facts of the story are right? What if she had asked him to stop texting (or calling) her? How do you know it was only three times? How do you know he had only said that he missed her? Do you know why they broke up in the first place? To be honest, even if it's just what you said it was, it could very well be harassment.
You calling her a cnut who "went crying to the police" makes it abundantly clear how you approached this.
Because I was involved in supporting him through the process. I saw the messages, liaised with his solicitors etc, and attended court. She was a cnut. Fully functioning adult who dated a guy with learning disabilities, manipulated him, milked him for money and a place to live. He couldn't understand that he had been used.
The magistrate pretty much said as much, and criticised the CPS, but said his hands were tied as the letter of the law said X (two or more unwanted contacts = harassment).
This was just after their was some new legislation about domestic violence, which also meant she didn't even need to press charges or attend as a witness. She literally sent one email to the police and then said she didn't want to press charges, but the police ran with it. Basically, the police had this new power and wanted to use it first chance they got. I have no doubt in my mind they were motivated/encouraged by policies/brieifings/campaigns to "protect women", and convinced themselves they were being heroes.
Which kind of exemplifies why I'm against increased state power. Its not a left vs right thing. Everyone knows the stereotypes about police officers, they are grunts, the modern day front line mercenaries sent into battle, they have egos, they like enforcing the little bit of power the have. Giving them more power, just because it's under the guise of clamping down on something you don't like, just isn't a good idea. It also distracts from other police work they should be doing. Mix that in with the capitalist-efficiency based obsession with targets that has crept into the public sector and you have a deadly mix. My friend is a criminal solicitor and says close to 50% of interviews she attends are harassment related. Yet police officers often don't even attend burglaries anymore. It's a quick and easy crime for them to up their statistics and hit their targets.
Reminds me of The Wire. Police loved to show good statistics in the show.
Is this the phenomen of non-crime hate incidents in the UK? Like where people get visits from the Police for saying writing something offensive over social media and it goes on your record despite not breaking any laws.
Yes
It breaks the law. Or at least, the police will encourage you to accept a caution usin
Exactly. I saw a document/publication from the force that pressed charges in this case a couple years later, in which they boasted about how they had increased their number of prosecutions for "domestic incidents" in the past few years. Boiled my blood knowing at least one of those was the case I mentioned.
It's such a shame because the law was implemented with good intentions - to protect women in abusive relationships who are too scared to press charges. But it got abused by some coppers to get an easy result.
If it breaks the law it's not the non-crime hate incidents i'm talking about where there have apparently been 120000 in the last five years in the Uk.
Jeez. Yeah I thought I had deleted my reply to you as I was gonna go into more detail and look some stuff up before replying but I left the post in unfortunately.
I'm really intrigued about this. Is this figure incidents that the police investigate but doesn't end up with a charge/caution? Or is it entirely separate?
Well apparently, it's not a crime, but it still goes on your register, so your employee's can see that you have been investigated for a non-crime hate incident so it has potential repercussions for your career.
I'm sharing this for Andrew doyle commentary(who's good on free speech), not Rubin who's an idiot.
Last edited:
Douglas Murray. You're a nuttter.
You've deleted the nutter, mein fuhrer.
I did it, because the clip was worse than I remembered it to be. Before you made the response. I think Douglas has his merits on some issues and con's on others.
Last edited:
Interesting, will watch later. I assume its classified as a warning/reprimand then. I have to get enhanced DBS checks and there's a section for convictions and a section for cautions/warnings/reprimands. I know a caution is an admission of guilt and the person has to sign it to accept, so would be a crime. A warning needn't be an admission of guilt though, so it's on your record even if you deny the allegations.
I reckon you owe the man an apology for all the assumption in this post.
You're having a laugh.
He told a story that he had in-depth knowledge of, you essentially questioned everything he said, and seemed to posit that he had no real knowledge of the details, and had just decided that she was a cnut because he is a chauvinist or something(not sure what your last sentence was really trying to say). You seem to be able to dish it out to everyone in the CE forum(not that you're wrong on most occasions), but you happily just let his response to you fade into the ether, as it disproved literally everything you had said, atop your high horse.
It didn't disprove anything, it seemingly answered my questions. You call them assumptions, but the only assumption I made was the last one. How am I supposed to know he's "holding back"? The only way this forum works is if you assume people are telling you the information you need to make a decision. If not, you ask questions - which is what I did.
I think when someone states “the cnut went crying to the police” over a woman claiming harassment, it’s worth querying the person who said it. If someone said to me that “cnut of a woman got a restraining order against my friend” I’m going to ask what makes the woman a cnut.
What makes you think he wasn't simply asking questions to verify how "honest" the post was?
You can't know, but you basically labelled him something, and when he then explained the situation fully, surely it warrants some form of retraction?
You can ask what makes the woman a cnut without insinuating that the poster is victim shaming/a chauvinist, no? Or at least apologise when you are given more detail(sounds to me like the label cnut is fully warranted, given the details).
The last sentence.
You're free to feel how you want to about it, but I don't think I said anything wrong. The way he phrased that informed my response.
Agree.. minimum warrants an acknowledgement of being wrong
I thought it was pretty apparent that she was a cnut for reporting her ex, who happened to be a vulnerable person, to the police for texting her that he missed her/wanted her back. Three times. Three!! She was a cnut for additional reasons but that wasnt really the original point. The point was that criminalising the act of upsetting someone is an extremely dangerous road to tread down. She could have been a lovely person, it'd still have been ridiculous for the police to have intervened in any way other than to have a few words. But that's not how the police operate if they have the power to do more. They're jumped up traffic wardens on steroids.
I would point out there's a weird sort of hypocrisy in the extreme left/woke - on one hand they want the police to be defunded, reformed or abolished, want them to be under scrutiny for their actions of excessive force, but at the same time want to give them MORE powers to criminalise people for upsetting someone else. The average police officer is a total cretin and can not weigh up nuanced personal situations, giving them the power to intervene in a heavy handed manner just won't end well. Its also a massive waste of time and resources. It seems like a massive blind spot for a lot of people, cos as long as the grunts in blue are tackling behaviour they don't like then it's all good.
You'd think it'd be a point that the wokey idealists and the libertarian idealists would have common ground on. feck the police.
She told the guy to stop contacting her. He continued to do so. She informed the police, but didn’t want to press charges. Coupled with the last paragraph about the police having too much power when it comes to harassment (which is a very peculiar take, especially when one looks at the statistics )and that they should have less power to deal with people being harassed (often woman).
so no, I’m not going to call someone a cnut for reporting harassment.
You yourself said she decided to not press charges didn’t you?
You have no idea how he acted towards her when they lived together. Do you really think enough is done to stop harassment and stalking?
How on earth is is the woman the cnut is that situation?
Pretty sure an ex not leaving you alone is enough for a woman to feel worried. What's she supposed to do, wait and see if things escalate into an even worse/possibly dangerous situation before doing anything about it and just hope nothing happens in the meantime?
Pretty sure an ex not leaving you alone is enough for a woman to feel worried. What's she supposed to do, wait and see if things escalate into an even worse/possibly dangerous situation before doing anything about it and just hope nothing happens in the meantime?
So judging on that post the woman manipulated and used the guy, but the guy couldn't leave it alone though.How on earth is is the woman the cnut is that situation?
Pretty sure an ex not leaving you alone is enough for a woman to feel worried. What's she supposed to do, wait and see if things escalate into an even worse/possibly dangerous situation before doing anything about it and just hope nothing happens in the meantime?