Old ADUK...oh dear

[fungus]

My son's school is multi-cultural and everyone knows who's gay and who's disabled because it's there to see every day.

My experience, from a parental point of view, is that children at school often haven't been socialised out of being cruel, will pick on any 'difference' mercilessly. You only need to look at prevalence of cutting or incidents of suicide to know this happens.


When I worked in Basingstoke, one of my colleagues was from Sweden. As a result my impression was that people from that country spoke very loudly. When I subsequently worked in Sweden, I found that wasn't so!

+1

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

When I worked in Basingstoke, one of my colleagues was from Sweden. As a result my impression was that people from that country spoke very loudly. When I subsequently worked in Sweden, I found that wasn't so!

PARDON??

[Gareth]

PARDON??

I know, it's quite shocking that I actually worked in Basingstoke - I try to keep it under wraps for fear of damaging my reputation.

[Silk]

Examples? Well, let's look at popular culture 'then' . . .
Alf Garnet
'Love thy neighbour'

Fantastic examples of anti-racist satire - only a thick lefty would see them as anything else. Far better than what we have these days, which seems to consist primarily of a few banned words.

You should go on YouTube and watch a few episodes of the above and prepare for a good laugh - it's quite obvious you've never actually watched them or, at least, not recently.

True, I've not watched them since they were aired. If they were satire or political comment, I wonder how many people missed that depth and just laughed?

Love Thy Neighbour was so blatantly anti-racist, it would be extremely hard to see it as anything else. It only appears racist now because of all the banned words. The odd thing was that Eddie (the white racist) was a left-wing union type while Bill (the Black neighbour) was more right-wing, which goes against the modern stereotype that racism is associated with the right-wing of politics.

Here's the Wikipedia link, so I don't get in trouble on here for quoting any banned words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Thy_Neighbour

[Horse]

Why were words banned?

[Silk]

Why were words banned?

I probably should have said "banned". Apart from the Richard Branson "Bollocks" case where he won his argument in court that it wasn't swearing, I can't find anything to say there are any words that are banned under British law. I believe there are words banned in American law - you can beat a man to a pulp on screen as long as you don't call him a n****r while you're doing it.

I think these things are just decided on our behalf by lefties and media types, depending on which minority group is "offended" that particular week.

[TripleS]

Why were words banned?

I probably should have said "banned". Apart from the Richard Branson "Bollocks" case where he won his argument in court that it wasn't swearing, I can't find anything to say there are any words that are banned under British law. I believe there are words banned in American law - you can beat a man to a pulp on screen as long as you don't call him a n****r while you're doing it.

I think these things are just decided on our behalf by lefties and media types, depending on which minority group is "offended" that particular week.

It might not even be the minority group itself that is offended, but some busybody purporting to act on their behalf.

What I want to know is why Robertsons removed the golliwog from the label on their jars. Were they right to remove it?

Here's a more difficult one - though I'm not sure that it should be:
In the 1953 film "The Dam Busters", Wing Commander Guy Gibson had a black dog which he called Nigger. That is a fact, but am I now in trouble for simply reporting that fact, including mentioning the dog's name? Do we not see how ridiculous this has become?

Anyhow, I've been missing for a couple of days on account of my accident and I need to return to the comments by Mr C-W, which I will do later. Something went wrong between us there, and I don't think it was entirely my fault; but I will review what was said, and I'll try to clear it up.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

Thank you, Paul. That's a nice clear explanation of a safe and sensible way to proceed.

Thanks to yourself and Nick I think I'm now less likely to expire with a little flash and puff of smoke! (Cue a chorus of groans from the assembled masses.)

While you're there, you may want to lay some conduit with drawstrings under the floor for Audio Cables/Ethernet/Cat5/6 etc. Even if you see no benefit yourself, the next owners will thank you for it.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't think I can anticipate the wishes of a future owner sufficiently well to make appropriate provision at this stage. In any case we're only doing UFH in bedrooms for the moment, and I imagine what you're talking about would be more applicable to the lounge area, which we plan to deal with later in the year.

It is probable that when Eileen and I have expired this will become our son's home so I'll talk to him about it.

[TripleS]

Anyhow, you remind me of a comment made by an elderly relative of mine some years ago when listening to some young people sounding off on a certain topic: "Aye, they can talk alright, but their problem is that they haven't lived long enough!"

I do not wish to dismiss the views of the young too readily, but I do think that in some subjects, where there are numerous aspects involved, and possibly far reaching consequences to be considered, one needs to have lived quite a long time and experienced a fair bit of life before trying to come to final conclusions about what is best; and even then one can sometimes end up being seen to have got it wrong.

I doubt if I'm alone. Re-read the above and see if it doesn't say (in very arcane wording):

"I'm older than you, I know more than you, therefore I know better. You're wrong to be offended because you don't know as much as me".

That's what it says to me.

I don't dispute that you were brought up at a different time, when different norms pertained, but I don't see that as an excuse to ignore the sensibilities of others, just because they're younger. Insanity1234 has demonstrated maturity beyond his years many times, he deserves to have his views treated with respect. That doesn't mean we can't have a giggle within the bounds of (dubious) taste, but if he says he's offended, we should believe him.

This is by no means diminishing your right to hold your own opinions. Just pointing out how your prose reads.

(in your own words) Best Wishes.

Silk didn't write that: I did.

Sorry, Nick, but I have looked again at what I said, and i don't think it illustrated an unreasonable stance. This might again be long winded, but I'll have another go anyhow.

What I was trying to say (whether or not you believe me) was that I am interested in all shades of opinion, but in certain subjects I think it unlikely that a very young person will understand all the factors and implications within certain subjects, and it is therefore unlikely that he/she will have a balanced viewpoint and be able to reach a firm and reliable conclusion at that stage. I would therefore respectfully suggest that they should avoid finalising their view too early, and be prepared to adjust it in the light of further experience and understanding as they mature further.

I hope that will not lead anyone to feel that they, and their views, are being dismissed too readily; that is certainly not my intention.

It appears some young people these days are far more mature than the young people of 60 years ago, and they should have full credit for that, but I would simply suggest that they recognise some limitations in understanding and judgement, and basically not make up their minds too soon.

What I was also recognising was that some of the oldies - which I guess has to include me - can, despite all the experience, still sometimes find ourselves needing to change our opinions and attitude.

Incidentally, you are right to point out that TheInsanity1234 has regularly displayed maturity beyond his years (and I hope that will not be dismissed as patronising, it is a genuine compliment) but that is mostly within the realms of driving. Certain other subjects are, I would suggest, more complex, and I think they need more patiently acquired experience to provide a basis for forming firm opinions on them.

[TheInsanity1234]

What I was trying to say (whether or not you believe me) was that I am interested in all shades of opinion, but in certain subjects I think it unlikely that a very young person will understand all the factors and implications within certain subjects, and it is therefore unlikely that he/she will have a balanced viewpoint and be able to reach a firm and reliable conclusion at that stage. I would therefore respectfully suggest that they should avoid finalising their view too early, and be prepared to adjust it in the light of further experience and understanding as they mature further.

What you're effectively saying is "You can't hold an opinion on certain situations until you've amassed enough experience first-hand to enable you to form a fair, reasonable and rational opinion".
That is perfectly true, and I agree with you on there. However, you seem to be assuming that because I'm young, I won't have enough experience to offer an opinion on this particular subject.
I'd probably argue that I have significantly more experience of people within the LGBT communities because I am part of the LGBT community. This would mean my opinion on this kind of situation is probably more valid and relevant than the opinion of someone who is older than me, but most likely has had a lot less experience regarding the LGBT communities.

I completely accepted your opinion, and I can see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid the way you've been writing has, as Nick pointed out, implied that you feel my opinion is irrelevant because I'm vastly younger than the majority of members on here.

I hope that will not lead anyone to feel that they, and their views, are being dismissed too readily; that is certainly not my intention.

I fully accept that you do not intend to come across that way, much in the same way I didn't intend to come across as lecturing when I told people that kind of joke may not be suitable. But it did.

It appears some young people these days are far more mature than the young people of 60 years ago, and they should have full credit for that, but I would simply suggest that they recognise some limitations in understanding and judgement, and basically not make up their minds too soon.

What I was also recognising was that some of the oldies - which I guess has to include me - can, despite all the experience, still sometimes find ourselves needing to change our opinions and attitude.

I would agree with you there. The whole point of opinions is that they are rooted in personal experience and values, but they are easily adapted as you progress through life and encounter various situations. However, some people will have different amounts of experience in different areas of life. A 15 year old at my school will have encountered plenty of gay people within school, whereas a person over 60 might have only met one or two. However, the older person should not be allowed to reject the younger person's opinions based on the younger person's age. Equally, the younger person should not be allowed to reject the older person's opinion just because they have had less experience of LGBT people.

Incidentally, you are right to point out that TheInsanity1234 has regularly displayed maturity beyond his years (and I hope that will not be dismissed as patronising, it is a genuine compliment) but that is mostly within the realms of driving. Certain other subjects are, I would suggest, more complex, and I think they need more patiently acquired experience to provide a basis for forming firm opinions on them.

I accept your compliment, and it hasn't been taken as patronising, so don't worry about that.

However, I'd argue against my maturity only being within the realms of driving. I'd argue that my maturity is a core part of my personality, and I've regularly received comments on how I've handled situations far more complex than what we've encountered in this thread, with maturity.

I daresay you're coming across as having made certain assumptions about who I am as a person in general, despite only really encountering me in situations regarding driving. However, I hope I've taken it the wrong way, and that you're not actually the sort of person to instantly form judgements about people based on very limited experience of them, because you have said repeatedly yourself, that it is not a good idea to form opinions of situations (which can include people) based on limited experience of them...