Offence can only be taken, not given. Someone can say whatever they like, but if others decline to be offended their words are wasted. Hence the old proverb about sticks and stones.

Is it okay to call a white man an ape? It happens a lot. People like Donald Trump, Jeremy Clarkson, Jeremy Corbyn, Piers Morgan, Liam Gallagher, Wayne Rooney. They get it from those in the media, such as journalists and comedians; also from the public in below the line forums for comment and on social media. Since that is generally deemed acceptable, then if the same people call a black man an ape, any outcry is more indicative of some perception formed in the minds of the complainants than the ones who said it, who are simply treating everyone the same, regardless of the colour of their skin.

Edited by Snookey on 04/02/2020 at 03:24

...we should not waste too much effort drafting laws to control what is often simple thoughtlessness...

True, but nonetheless it will be interesting to see whether, as with Alistair Stewart, Rebecca Long-Bailey loses her job after describing one of her constituents as having been "a practical vegetable". Though she did have a spokesman apologize for her.

AS lost his job because his employer decided his tweets damaged their reputation.

Only because certain people who take delight in taking offence (normally at any criticism) did so. Presumably if I take offence at something you say, I, by the same logic, either make a complaint to the Police or go to your employer and demand you get the sack or are forced to resign.

Other than these people who appear to take offence very easily and on behalf of others, I have yet to hear anything from anyone who has said that ITN's reputation has been damaged in any serious or irreprable way in all this. The media, of course, are taking delight in stirring the pot with the activists.

I don't recall any of these people or yourself getting so wound up by leftist or ethnic or religious minority activists getting invloved in online spats and often making very derogatory comments, e.g. Jo Brand (surely either the BBC or CH4's reputation would suffer in the same manner as ITN over Alastiar Stewart) or Naz Shah MP's comments about young white girls from Rotherham (to the Labour party and the standing of MPs generally, and her position generally).

The same also could be said for the derogatory comments made in spats by many SKY News and BBC journalists and presenters, and yet they've gotten away with it. I suspect Stewart hasn't because he's an older white man, now considered to be at the bottom of the tree as regards PC culture and what people can 'get away with'.

Funny how non-apology apologies sufficed for you and them in those cases, despite both being far worse, i.e. thinking violence (that would scar them for life) against democratically elected representatives is fine, and funny (which it wasn't), or the latter thinking that gangs of Mulsim men grooming and then raping young white girls across the UK for years is fine and that 'they deserve it'.

R L-B's embarrassing slip around a constituent in what sounds to be something close to Persistent Vegetative State is a different kettle of fish.

Ms Wrong-Daily's utterances are more a general indictment on the current state of the Labour party and especially the Hard Left that currently dominates it. Yes, it was likely a slip-of-the-tongue, but hers is a Long-established pattern in that regard, hence the pun name she has been saddled with.

To many of us, she is just a younger and female version of Jeremy Corbyn, and why she will, if elected, complete the job of destroying that party that Corbyn started in 2015.

You might think as a (small c) conservative that I might rejoice at that, but as a person that likes democracy (and not bureaucracy), this country needs a decent, credible Opposition to:

• Hold the government to account and to provide a reasonable alternative, and;
• To keep the government on their toes (and why May was not removed from her position as PM the day after the 2017 General Election by the Tory party) by showing they could take over if required.

A poor Opposition leads to bad government, as we saw from 2016 - 2019.

Going back to the first points: I just hope you don't make any faux-pas, in case someone 'takes offence' and proverbially asks for you head. Cancel culture should be stopped. The media always goes way too far generally (often baying for blood), but also they stir up issues as well by often berrating people in the public eye for NOT being 'hip' if they aren't on social media.

I watched the film 'Richard Jewel' (an excellent and underrated film) at a local cinema today. His case (23+ years ago) of the media and law enforcement unjustifiably going after him rather than the truth just shows that many people in positions of power have learnt nothing and have gotten worse in their behaviour since then.

@ Engineer Andy

You're repeating stuff that's already been covered re Naz Shah and Jo Brand. If Stewart had made an edgy joke about (say) genitalia and been sacked he might have elicited some sympathy.

Likening a black/mixed race man to an ape is blind man/galloping horse offensive. That's why he got his cards.

Presumably you'd be all over me if I likened some ginger-haired (but otherwise white) bloke to an orangutan in the heat of an argument. I've occasionally heard a bloke being called an 'ape', the reason - because they acted like one in being overly agressive, throwing their weight around and having tantrums.

I'm happy to stand by the position I've outlined in this and other similar threads.

If i put a foot wrong or get hoist by my own petard then so be it.

But then you're living very comfortably on a government pension and have very little to lose. For most people on social media or forums such as this, posting relatively anonymously means they can get away with a significant amount more than someone in the public eye - it doesn't mean that the former didn't do anything less wrong or the latter deserves their life ruined for one mistake in the heat of the moment.

Do you apply the 'one strike and you're out' policy to all your family and friends? Do they to you? If so, you will be alone pretty soon. People make mistakes, but that doesn't mean they should have their lives ruined for what is, essentially, 'just words' - you know, 'sticks and stones' and all that.

I endured years of nasty name-calling at school, far more than a short twitter spat between two people. Does that mean I would like all these people to be sacked from their jobs as a result - no. There needs to be a sense of proportionality in all this.

Snowlfakes indeed. People these days take offence WAY too easily. All those students etc talking about 'micro-agressions', etc. Why? Because they can monetise it or gain power by doing so rather than by genuine, honest hard work, which is, in my eyes, just as bad as those perpetrating genuine discrimination over the centuries.

It is commonly expected for people to make themselves identifiable.

I think what is being described here are certain specific circumstances. There is a long history of crash helmets used both as concealment and protection from security with truncheons and such like when carrying out robbery.

There's no such history with Islamic female dress. If there is a rash of hold ups by men in Burkas the issue might need looking at but the provisions in Equalities legislation mandating reasonable adjustments would be hard to overcome.

As far as I can see, the slot in a burqa is pretty wide and allows peripheral vision.

The scenario in which a child obscures the burqa-wearing driver's vision is a disingenuous way of trying to discredit the wearer. All kinds of things could happen in a car carrying children which could distract or compromise the ability of the driver to drive properly.

I'm afraid this is yet another post which seeks to put back the clock to some time in the past when white European males were unashamed about their supposed superiority. The word "snowflake" in the OP is part of the right-wing vocabulary that has been adopted by those who wish to discredit the so-called liberal left - in many cases the word is just hurled about as some kind of insult.

I am well aware that some of those who take offence and protest about trivia do their cause no good, but to ignore or even exacerbate the vulnerabilities and suffering of those who are despised on a daily basis because of some aspect of their appearance or life-style is not the behaviour of a civilised society.

This thread in general - with some notable exceptions - has made me increasingly uncomfortable the more it has gone on.

In so far as an offence is committed for lack of proper vision with Islamic dress then it's a matter of fact on the day. Is that driver's vision so so compromised as to be a hazard?

How far can any reduction in vision be mitigated for by turning the head? How does it compare with thick framed spectacles or for that matter letterbox type spectacles where significant areas of vision are outside the optically correct portion of the lens? Don't forget people can legitimately drive with significant defects of vision, including only one functioning eye. My late father in law was in exactly that situation and drove with no problem at all.

Obviously the sort of Burkha sometimes seen in pictures of Afghanistan where vision is through netting would be a no no. On the other hand the (relatively few even in most cosmopolitan areas of UK) women who are fully veiled have a respectable sized gap for the eyes and head movement would adequately compensate.

To me it's a non-problem.

When everyday British life is limited in so many ways by H&S rules and regulations, it is feebly inconsistent to make concessions to minorities because of religious beliefs or because they might take offence and claim discrimination.

With the greatest possible respect, and ignoring the text I have italicised, I think you need to read my post again.

First of all, as I made explicitly clear I'm not talking of the Afghan style garment with mesh. I'm looking at variations in what we used to call a yashmak. If you look at the pictures here (Wiki) the Afghan dress would be unsuitable, the woman with a scarf over her nose/mouth has vision no worse than mine. There are plenty of other variations where the garment's intrusion into peripheral vision is nil or minimal.

You're off the mark about spectacles too. I've worn glasses for all but fifty years. I choose designs in a teardrop or aviator style where pretty much my entire field of vision is through the lens. For a while fashion dictated narrow letterbox style lenses, with or without frames. In those, unless I moved my head in an exaggerated fashion I'd risk relying on uncorrected vision under, over or to side of lens and distortions at its extremities. Never mind bits of the frame. .

Edited by Bromptonaut on 04/02/2020 at 21:03

My point about wearing glasses (while driving) was that their purpose (as I'm sure you realised) is to improve the driver's vision. Pieces of fabric around the eyes, however they are named, cannot.

And my point is that there are plenty of instances where spectacles that are in various combinations wrongly prescribed, badly fitted or with frames that owe more to fashion than practicality.

They too can mean drivers vision is not what it should be.

Law should look at individual cases/facts.

Banning a tiny minority of women from driving in their chosen dress, which I presume is what you advocate, will achieve nothing while stoking up a lot of ill will.

I missed this remark earlier. I have never suggested a ban; you are making another of your random assumptions. I suggested that ethnic or religious differences should not be a reason for special dispensations which might affect others adversely - hence my reference to the Sikh turban. Equality for all, if you prefer.

You made points on this thread which appeared to me to suggest driving in a headscarf might be unacceptable or present a danger. It seemed that you and at least one other were saying 'something must be done'.

If the risk is a real and serious one I agree but for most part IF there is an issue it can be mitigated by moving the head. If a police officer sees a driver in (say) an Afghan style Burkha then he/she should be stopped and relevant not in control or similar offence charged.

Do we need more than that?

Edited by Bromptonaut on 06/02/2020 at 09:34

When everyday British life is limited in so many ways by H&S rules and regulations,

No it's not and never has been.

Show me the regulations that you believ curtails your freedom or way of life for the worse.

When everyday British life is limited in so many ways by H&S rules and regulations,

You any examples of these limitations?

Interesting article here by Douglas Murray, about the recent sacking of Alastair Stewart.

Anyone still capable of balanced thought should read and digest this.

unherd.com/2020/01/will-no-one-resist-the-new-tota.../

I don't recall you seeing his employment contract. Or that other celebs and people in the public eye getting the sack for doing similar things on every occasion.

Funny how those same 'standards' never apply to 'people of colour' or Muslims when abusing either colleagues, competitors or ordinary people, despite what is being said and done being far worse, as I pointed out earlier. Is racism or sexism (or any other ism) something that cannot happen to a white person, specifically a straight man who's a Christian, for example?

Douglas Murray is probably one of the top minds as regards political and societal commentary today, a man who was a protege of the late, great Roger Scruton.

You just cannot ever admit to being wrong, or even the possibility - the sheer arrogance of the hard core socialist. And you wonder why more and more of the population have utter contempt for Civil Servants, especially those in Whitehall.

A balanced view of the world is not obtained by looking down a rolled up copy of the Telegraph.

Or The Grauniad ? :-)

@Engineer Andy,

You repeat stuff about so called unfair treatment of white people and men c/p to other races and women over again. Repetition does not make it true.

I repeat it because you appear not to want to comment on things that destory your own assertions and arguments. Not engaging in debate and admittting ones flaws in an argument is a sign of arrogance, often to be found in those on the more extreme ideological wings of political parties.

I'm also fed up with your constant personal digs about my former career, pension and your assertion that I am some sort of hard core socialist. As I'm sure I've made clear before I'm Old Labour in tradition best exemplified by Tony Crosland.

Saying something and your actions are two very different things, Sir. And I've seen some of your commentary on other websites regarding your views about both socialism and Communism, and they certainly aren't on the moderate 'right' of the Labour party.

A balanced view of the world is not obtained by looking down a rolled up copy of the Telegraph.

The difference is that you, on principle, will seemingly never consider reading or believing anything from such newspapers, meaning you only take your news from within your bubble, reinforcing your views even more, just like with Corbyn, McDonnell & Co. I can almost see the utter disdain dripping from your words when you mention The Telegraph.

I, and many other people, have different political views to you and come from a right-of-centre persuasion, but still read articles from newspapers, online media etc whose editorial/political standpoint is different to ours. I take each article on its merits, which is why on these pages I have consistently advocated newspapers of all hues, especially the 'serious' newspapers, to separate factual news reporting from commentary.

It is also the reason why I am becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Telegraph, not because it is necessarily going too right wing or too much towards the centre, but that factual news reporting is being increasingly mixed in with commentary and agendas of the articles' authors. Sadly, the same is happeneing across the traditional print news media and now TV news.

As such, I now have to search more often and far wider to get a more accurate picture of the news, not just from the Telegraph. And I don't always think I'm correct on all issues, and am willing to listen to and debate others who at least acknowledge other viewpoints and possible outcomes/answers are possible.

TBH, it still staggers me you worked in Whitehall as a Civil Servant, because your views are both so strident and you cannot appear to consider ther is another side to an issue or argument or that the other view might be right. I cannot see how you would happily compromise those views at work that you could never do outside of it.

Tim Pool has said this on his YT channel about many on the political Left, that their worldview is so limited by their ideology that it distorts how they conduct themselves in the jobs or when discussing issues. He said that many on the Right (not including the Far Right) as well as centrists (including centre-left and centre-right) are able to be objective and essentially unbiased in the workplace, but rarely those on the hard Left/proper socialist side of things.

I am merely pointing out that sometimes people need to look inwardly and at other perspectives on life and issues, because sometimes what we think we believe is right and whatactually is are two very different things. I'm happy to do that (I question myself regularly) - are you? Are you that sure of yourself on every issue?

I would suggest you don't waste more of your time on this topic ...

Galileo, you may have noticed that I decided on that course already. I know this is a General Discussion, but we are a long way from discussing Snowflakes.

Andy, be reassured that most of the population have similar views to yourself, the recent election result is proof of this.

Your comments that Civil Servants' personal beliefs may influence their actions may well be true and apply also to Local Council chiefs, heads of Quangos and various other posts which all have a great influence on how the country is run (or mismanaged).

"Yes Minister" and "Yes Prime Minister" illustrated how bureaucracy operated to delay and frustrate changes it does not like. The writers drew on inside experience, the last three years of Project Fear suggest things have not changed much since they wrote those scripts.

I would suggest you don't waste more of your time on this topic, it is as pointless as trying to reform habitual criminals or de-radicalise terrorists

Probably true, even if I would never call Bromp something that severe.

I would suggest you don't waste more of your time on this topic, it is as pointless as trying to reform habitual criminals or de-radicalise terrorists

I trust you are not suggesting that the views anyone holds should they be different to yours could possibly mean that they are criminals or terrorists.

Lots of people hold views very different to mine and I doubt any are terrorists, just simply missguided souls.

Personal attacks are indeed in breach of site rules. I was tempted to close this thread yesterday, and will do so tomorrow unless anyone has anything constructive to add.

Please always express views on here in terms that you would be happy to use if you were meeting face-to-face - as Bromptonaut invariably does.

There are examples of people in glass houses everywhere, this forum is not exempt.

For myself i shall no longer bother with threads on this forum that get involved in politics or other social subjects, personal attacks can result in vile insults and have done so before, either moderation applies equally to all or it doesn't.

Moderation does apply equally here though - it's a very well managed forum.

"For clarification, my comments about how hard it is to change people's opinions, attitudes and beliefs.."

Some of you may realsie we have had a General Election in which one Party was trounced. There were a number of reasons suggested for that trouncing.. some of which were probably more important than others..

Read the Guardian's Opinion columns and the comments and you will see large scale denial of any issues at all ..is widespread..

(the DT's columns are similar but on differing subjects.. On Global Warming for example, it is obvious to many commentators that the climate is cooling but they have yet to produe teh evidence:-)