UK: Meddling with the English language again

Yeah, who'd think that a vehemently anti-immigration rag would not be liked on a forum full of immigrants?

People brought up pretty reasonable observations that had nothing to do with The Mail, and most were ignored.  It's not like people were debating the issue at that point anyway.  They were just taking what they saw as extreme PC to even more extremes for a laugh.

It's predictable how it turns into a 'bash the Mail-a-thon' here versus actually discussing/debating a story. If the story is true, it's true regarless of if we agree/disagree with the tone of writing.

Personally, I feel that PC nonsense is ridiculous and taken to extremes.   

By definition, any kind of nonsense is ridiculous, surely?! Except when it's published in the Daily Mail of course.

But as LegsAkimbo said, attempts have been made to discuss the subject matter of the article but the OP doesn't seem to want to hear any other points of view.

As I seem to be repeating myself endlessly to no avail in this thread, I guess I may as well give up. 

Hold on a minute -

As immigrants, many of us have been in situations where we felt frustrated and confused  because we didn't understand a British phrase or custom, or a British person didn't understand us - and we all have the advantage of having some form of English as a native language.

When a police officer has a conversation with someone, there is a good chance that his is having that conversation in response to a difficult situation - and speaking with someone who is very angry, frightened or confused; may be in pain, behaving violently, etc.

In such a situation, why make things worse by using language that could be confusing or could offend someone? Which is more important, trying to calm down an agitated person or using a non-PC word in order to defend your right to free speech?

If anyone should be be careful of the language that they use, it's a police officer.

Some of the daftest dictats
Don't assume those words for the time of day, such as afternoon or evening have the same meaning
Do be sensitive to using colloquialisms or terms of endearment that may cause offence (My love, My dear)'
Don't use phrases that include Black in a negative context, such as 'Black mark' or 'Black day''
Do take care to be patient and reassuring when accent or language hinders communication. (Remember, a translator could be useful)
'Homosexual' in most people's minds relate to men only, this is not the case, however as the word is interpreted differently by many, and relates to sexual practice as opposed to sexual orientation, it is best avoided'
Other words, many slightly archaic and best avoided, include:
       - Passive homosexual - use the term 'gay man'
       - Practising homosexual - ditto above.
       - A woman with lesbian tendencies - just say lesbian.
       - Frequent - use the term 'often visited', 'enjoyed going to' as frequent is normally used in reference to criminals'

These are under the heading 'Daftest Dictats'.   Why?  Surely, a police officer SHOULD be trained to use non-offensive language.  As Sweetpeach says they're probably dealing with stressful situations.  Why would they want to use language that might further upset people. 
This is a job situation.  Every job includes language that should be used and shouldn't be used.  Ask a social worker or a person who works with people who have learning disabilities.  Hell, even cashiers are expected to speak to people differently when they're at work then when they're in their every day life.  Why make such a big deal about this? 

It's predictable how it turns into a 'bash the Mail-a-thon' here versus actually discussing/debating a story. If the story is true, it's true regarless of if we agree/disagree with the tone of writing.

But the tone of the writing is the important issue in this case.  The Mail isn't just reporting facts, they've taken a position.  You and Paul support that position, and have posted your views on this thread presumably in an effort to have a discussion about that position.  Nobody is disputing the facts of the story; they're providing another interpretation of the facts.

If you don't want to have that discussion, if you only want to hear from people who agree with your point of view, post someplace else.

We're commenting on the idea that the subject of the Mail story can be reported in a number of different ways, not all of which would support the Mail's conclusion.

Right, because what I saw was a discussion about the content of the article, with a very brief (and typically british) piss-take in the middle, which then became a Daily Mail/Paul bashing. It seems to me that many people in this thread are guilty of clamping down on someone they don't like/have issues with, not just the original OP.

OF COURSE the Mail have taken a position, they're a TABLOID. I would never quote the DM anymore than I would quote Wikipedia, but don't let that stand in the way of a good debate.

Right, so your piss take posts are ok but the ones which followed are not?? Get off the grass!! I made several posts attempting to have a sensible discussion before saying I felt there was no point continuing doing so with someone who is clearly not interested. I don't think that was unreasonable. I don't understand why Paul continues to start threads like this, week after week, motnh after month, year after year,  when he doesn't really want to take differing opinions on board or discuss them beyond saying things like "it's PC gone mad."  That's not attacking him, it's just me querying his motivation.

[MOD NOTE]

Right, because what I saw was a discussion about the content of the article, with a very brief (and typically british) piss-take in the middle, which then became a Daily Mail/Paul bashing. It seems to me that many people in this thread are guilty of clamping down on someone they don't like/have issues with, not just the original OP.

OF COURSE the Mail have taken a position, they're a TABLOID. I would never quote the DM anymore than I would quote Wikipedia, but don't let that stand in the way of a good debate.

There are no rules on this forum about not discussing where the article came from or the angle of the article.  Many times it is part of the debate -whether it's the BBC, Fox, The Mail, The Guardian or The Sun.  Where an article comes from is often very important to how it is written and what it is written about.

If you think a particular member is being picked on, please use the report to mod button or if you feel that a topic is off topic.  A mod will have a look and make a decision.  But topics in News and Politics are watched pretty closely.  There is no need to 'play mod'.  

Generally, debates are allowed to proceed even if they veer off topic.

Also, once a topic is posted the OP is not allowed to maintain 'control' and to dictact how it can be debated. The OP is aware of the views held by quite a few vocal members of this forum and as such is well aware of the response he is likely to get when posting Daily Mail articles.

Right, so your piss take posts are ok but the ones which followed are not?? Get off the grass!! I made several posts attempting to have a sensible discussion before saying I felt there was no point continuing doing so with someone who is clearly not interested. I don't think that was unreasonable. I don't understand why Paul continues to start threads like this, week after week, motnh after month, year after year,  when he doesn't really want to take differing opinions on board or discuss them beyond saying things like "it's PC gone mad."  That's not attacking him, it's just me querying his motivation.

Sorry, I didn't see any pisstakes. If they were intended that way, then maybe smilies would have helped to show some lightness in your remarks and no misunderstanding would have occurred. There's clearly history between various people on this forum. It's evident in lots of threads.

But the tone of the writing is the important issue in this case.  The Mail isn't just reporting facts, they've taken a position.  You and Paul support that position, and have posted your views on this thread presumably in an effort to have a discussion about that position.  Nobody is disputing the facts of the story; they're providing another interpretation of the facts.

If you don't want to have that discussion, if you only want to hear from people who agree with your point of view, post someplace else.

Let's try not putting words in my mouth, OK? I'm just stunned at how quickly you lot are prepared to start attacking each other. Maybe you guys are used to it, but it's pretty shocking to someone who isn't.

I don't actually agree with the sentiment of the article. I think, in general, the guidelines are good ones. But there are some ridiculous rules (like manhole cover), which do support the general lean of the DM's article. That was my only point.

Anyway, lesson learned.

[MOD NOTE]

This part of the discussion is over.  Take it to PM.  We're not discussing the forum or individual members.  The discussion is the article from The Daily Mail.

Any more off topic posts will be deleted.  Any questions or comments PM me.  Do not post them here.  Do not start a new topic to post them.  k

MOVE ALONG, People.  I am this close to locking it.

Man, I had a whole response ready, but I respect your decision Mindy, and I'll keep it to myself. 

Generally, debates are allowed to proceed even if they veer off topic.

I thought debates were required to veer off topic.   

Man, I had a whole response ready, but I respect your decision Mindy, and I'll keep it to myself.  

I thought debates were required to veer off topic.  

No doubt this one will end up being about cheese in a couple of days.

How did you know I was just thinking about having some cheese and crackers Mindy? I've got some lovely black pepper Boursin here. Delicious with on crackers topped with slices of vine tomatoes. Mmmmm.

No doubt this one will end up being about cheese in a couple of days.

Cheese = France = the EU = French-speaking immigrants = The Daily Mail righteous anger at cops being required to speak French

Let's get back on track, people.  This cheese discussion is making us look like a bunch of morons.

 

I don't actually agree with the sentiment of the article. I think, in general, the guidelines are good ones. But there are some ridiculous rules (like manhole cover), which do support the general lean of the DM's article. That was my only point.

I've just looked again and there's actually no mention of 'man hole cover'.