StevoD Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 i mean what next fast food restaurants start catering specially for the minority rather than everyone 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 i mean what next fast food restaurants start catering specially for the minority rather than everyone Talking of Subway, by any chance? To be fair I can see why they'd do that in the named locations, but they'd be better off just admitting it and saying it's down to customer demand which is just good business practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsexr Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 What ever the views you hold on wether you should use a word or not, surely knowing it may offend someone tells you what you need to know. Don`t use it. Thats fundementaly whats wrong with people in general today. There`re more concerned about their right to do or say something rather than the fact it may offend. If we all tried to consider others first the world would be a nicer place. You need to keep this in context.....consider others.....make an allowance for their feelings....whilst trying to enjoy your own life at the same time. Much better than shuving it straight down their throat with some... i have the right to say that if i want attitude. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 What ever the views you hold on wether you should use a word or not, surely knowing it may offend someone tells you what you need to know. Don`t use it. Thats fundementaly whats wrong with people in general today. There`re more concerned about their right to do or say something rather than the fact it may offend. If we all tried to consider others first the world would be a nicer place. You need to keep this in context.....consider others.....make an allowance for their feelings....whilst trying to enjoy your own life at the same time. Much better than shuving it straight down their throat with some... i have the right to say that if i want attitude. to a degree yes but that is just PC gone mad again ok so i cant tell advise they should have buy product A because i might offend them as they bought product B, im not racists but as ekona said why should a white man be shamed for using it when black people use it daily, You might aswell never speak as there is always going to be someone offended by something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaz 350z Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Had the mirror not published this, surely no one would have been offended? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Ironically, and maybe it's because I don't read The Mirror, but I've yet to see a single black person complain about this. Should they not be the most offended here? Well thats what happened with the whole "Alf Garnett" thing. I remember watching a documentary on it the other year and all these white people were saying how offensive to black people the show was because of Alf`s attitude. Then they interviewed a load of black people who grew up watching the show and they loved it they said they were not offended at all and thought the show was hilarious at how it portrayed Alf. It wasnt about being rude to black people but more about making the Alf character look like an ignorant idiot. So you werent laughing (or agreeing) with what he was saying, but laughing at how stupid the character was. i mean what next fast food restaurants start catering specially for the minority rather than everyone Talking of Subway, by any chance? To be fair I can see why they'd do that in the named locations, but they'd be better off just admitting it and saying it's down to customer demand which is just good business practice. One of those Subways affected is in Cambridge. I dont see why they cant just have both halal meat and ordinary meat in their shops - like they do with veggie options. That way all customers will be happy rather than non muslim`s being forced to either eat halal meat or pick other options other than ham/pork. Also, I have to say ive never really noticed muslims queuing up wanting to buy sarnies in the past. Most muslims i know bring their own hot food to work for their lunch and wont touch a sarnie with a barge pole - but maybe Subway are right and theres a huge demand for halal meatball subs from the muslim community.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Anybody remember a program called "Love thy Neighbour"... or "Mind Your Language".. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 One of those Subways affected is in Cambridge. I dont see why they cant just have both halal meat and ordinary meat in their shops - like they do with veggie options. That way all customers will be happy rather than non muslim`s being forced to either eat halal meat or pick other options other than ham/pork. Also, I have to say ive never really noticed muslims queuing up wanting to buy sarnies in the past. Most muslims i know bring their own hot food to work for their lunch and wont touch a sarnie with a barge pole - but maybe Subway are right and theres a huge demand for halal meatball subs from the muslim community.. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO which one best not be the one at the beehive center i need my subway melt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 One of those Subways affected is in Cambridge. I dont see why they cant just have both halal meat and ordinary meat in their shops - like they do with veggie options. That way all customers will be happy rather than non muslim`s being forced to either eat halal meat or pick other options other than ham/pork. Also, I have to say ive never really noticed muslims queuing up wanting to buy sarnies in the past. Most muslims i know bring their own hot food to work for their lunch and wont touch a sarnie with a barge pole - but maybe Subway are right and theres a huge demand for halal meatball subs from the muslim community.. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO which one best not be the one at the beehive center i need my subway melt! Think its the one on Mill Road according to the local news. But apparently theres something like 7 Subway`s in Cambridge so hopefully not all of them are affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsexr Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) You might call yer mate a see you next tuesday but you would`nt use it on yer grandma...same principal Its a case of getting the balance right and not offending people if you think you might offend them, rather than try and justify saying something just beacause someone else does. You could call yer other half all sorts of things but might not like it if someone else does so surely its best for them to not do it rather than try and justify it. I dont like the PC thing anymore than most, but you also have to move with the times and wether you like it or not, if there is a chance that someone might be offended why not be aware of that rather than trying to justify saying something. Its not a case of right or wrong but a case of being aware of other peoples feelings and making an allowance for it. Its what we are losing in the world and need to re-educate people about thinking of others. Its the downside of being PC. Dont hold a door open in case you offend them....lol It works both ways. Edited May 2, 2014 by gsexr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudman Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I strongly suggest we all spend a few hours to contemplate this postings content - with the help of a screening of Blazing Saddles tends to put it all back onto an even keel so to speak 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 There are far worse things going on in this world than the use of the n word imho, if people are seriously going to get all emotional about it, particularly if it has no bearing on their existence, should really look at channelling their moral compass into far more worthy fights, dare i say crusades! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIXXERUK Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 What Clarkson says or doesn't say means absolutely nothing to me, he's consider a clown now and uses the media for his own promotion It's threads like this that give his comments any value, he's better ignored imo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhackyWill Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I got far more important thing just now to worry about rather than Clarkson and his N word..! My Bloody Sky + HD box has just blown up on the Fri before a Bank Holiday.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Whilst I personally am not a big fan of clarkson, some of the things he has said are quite funny from this wiki list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson#Controversy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) Whilst I personally am not a big fan of clarkson, some of the things he has said are quite funny from this wiki list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson#Controversy I can cope with people using racial slurs, the misguided saying, "it's not even England for the English anymore", "we're a minority in our own country" but I WILL NOT just stand by whilst someone shamelessly says that Clarkson is "quite funny". There is a line you just cannot cross!!!! PS - I had subway for lunch, it contained ham* *ham is used to mean a product that was at some point alive, on, or near, a pig. Edited May 2, 2014 by SuperStu 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 BBC cannot afford to do anything to Clarkson as a major part of their finance is generated by Clarkson and Top Gear . Quite true, but BBC are rightly concerned about their image. Sky sacked their 2 main football commentators because of sexist slurs they made off camera, Andy Gray and Richard Keys and they also got rid of Rodney Marsh over a joke he made about the Asian Tsunami. Clarkson isn't unsackable and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if at the very least they suspended him. Pete 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if at the very least they suspended him. Maybe but it wont affect much. Look at Jonathan Ross, he still gets plenty of work after the "manuel" scandel, and wasnt Chris Evans at one point "sacked" by the BBC for something or another, and yet now he`s rinsing it and has a fleet of cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I thought the N word on here (that must not be spoken) was Nissans***tz ..? I'll get my coat.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chubbster Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 The word itself, on its own, in no other context, can be considered as incitement to racial hatred, but in addition to this, the heinous context in which it was used (as part of a well-known racist rhyme, whilst knowingly being filmed for a national TV show) makes it uncontestably so. What would you say if your child's schoolteacher used this rhyme and got your child's class to recite it? Would you be defending that person too? I'm very surprised that someone as astute as you is questioning this. You ask what should his punishment be?... whatever the law of our country decides, if he were to be found guilty. Personally I think in this particular situation a conviction would be punishment enough, but I am not the judge. The " I tried not to say it" excuse is pitifully similar to the sort of thing a seven year old would say to his teacher, but less excusable, because he isn't a seven year old, he just behaves like one. I cannot fathom why you are trying to defend a man who has admitted that he was totally wrong - Even he is not on your side. ...and if you want to provoke me into answering the question in your first sentence - clearly the answer is yes - and you seem to be quite comfortable there. I feel sad that you are happy to parade this disgusting word as you do. Why not apologise, as Mr. Clarkson quite rightly has already done? Thanks for replying. So you believe he should be charged for inciting racial hatred, correct? But you decline to say what punishment you think he should get for that, why? Conviction is not a punishment. Should it be community service, jail, execution? You must have an opinion on this, I'm sure. I'm not defending his usage of the word, nor the phrase, what I am is against the witch hunt over nothing. At worst it's casual racism, but really I struggle to see why suddenly it's the biggest crime in the world and headline news. It wasn't broadcast, and I would imagine at least 10-20 people had seen that clip either when it was recorded or when the editing was happening, so are we to charge them with casual racism as none of them reported it? At what point do we all stop being offended on the behalf of other people? Ironically, and maybe it's because I don't read The Mirror, but I've yet to see a single black person complain about this. Should they not be the most offended here? If you genuinely believe that I'm a racist because I dared to write the word n***** when it is being used in the context of a debate, then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Would I use it in person? In the same context of discussion, yes. Would I use it in person in the rhyme? Well, no. Would I use it when singing along to a rap song (secret fact: I'm a massive Snoop Dogg fan!)? Yup. Would I ever use it casual conversation? Absolutely not. However, we shouldn't suddenly be afraid to ever use a word when there's legitimate use for it. English is a great language, and whilst we clearly have some words that are no longer used in their original meaning because they are offensive, that doesn't mean we should never write them down when having a reasoned debate, or for educational purposes. That applies to everything, not the specific term in question here, and is a personal viewpoint. So here's a very straightforward and direct question for you: Should the word be removed from society full stop? I'm including all art forms in that, so music & films. Should a black person be prosecuted for referring to a friend in the same manner? If not, why? Thanks for the measured reply Ekona (more than a little better than thinking that telling me to 'get a life' somehow adds to the debate!) - To answer your question, I actually did say what I think should happen to Mr Clarkson. To elaborate slightly on what I said, I think he should be convicted and given a conditional discharge (ie no further punishment), on conditon that he agrees to refrain from using racist language in future. I think that would be fair. Now may I ask you a simple question in return? If a primary school teacher sang this rhyme in front of a class of children, in your opinion would they be breaking the law? Yes or No? As you can imagine, I don't think there is such a thing as 'casual racism'. Singing this racist rhyme is not 'the biggest crime in the world', but, as I hope you agree, it's still a crime. It actually doesn't matter what color anyone's skin is - a crime is a crime. Everyone should be offended by a person making racist remarks, not just black people, because it damages and debases humanity - along with the many other bad things people do. To be fair, I think you have a good point about being able to use any word in the context of debate - you're absolutely right. If you were using the n word in that context I'd fiercely defend your right to do it. I just wouldn't use it myself, in any context. I apologise if I've taken your use of the word out of context - but I condemn you if you used it as a racist slur. I should have re-read your post, but I didn't. To answer your final questions, no, the arts should not be censored in any way. If someone breaks the law through their art we have plenty of laws to deal with it. If you start banning words from the arts you will inevitably be preventing artists from making a case against things like racism. Censorship of the arts (like racism) is one of the first acts of a facist state. And finally - if a word is unacceptable, it's unacceptable for all - so I think it should not be used by anyone, black, white, green, grey or pinstriped. I'm not trying to upset anyone here, but I have my views. And as for the people who find this boring - don't read it if you find it boring. There are plenty of other things to do. Personally, I feel it's quite important. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firemansim Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 What I actually think is important is our own sevice personnel being be-headed on the streets of our own country, not some remark made on a television "soap" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 (edited) My mother used to run a play school, for years and years she looked after many children without issue! One day the pc brigade turned up, they were no longer able to sing the nursery rhymes, bah bah black sheep, three blind mice and others and as said above, gollywogs toys were banned! The toys the kids played with had to have a black doll introduced and also one without an arm or leg, i sh*t you not! In all name of political correctness! Edited May 2, 2014 by Jetpilot 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if at the very least they suspended him. Maybe but it wont affect much. Look at Jonathan Ross, he still gets plenty of work after the "manuel" scandel, and wasnt Chris Evans at one point "sacked" by the BBC for something or another, and yet now he`s rinsing it and has a fleet of cars. Probably true, most celebrities with huge ego's have the ability to bounce back and I'm sure Clarkson could make a decent living outside of TV. Simon Dee (remember him?) would probably be the exception to this rule though . Pete 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 [simon Dee (remember him?) would probably be the exception to this rule though . [Rabbitstew goes off to google Simon Dee........] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Stuff Great reply, seriously. Not a lot I can add, although to answer your question about the primary school teacher then no, I don't think they'd be breaking the law. I would find it hideously inappropriate and wouldn't expect them to keep their job for long, but then I don't feel Clarkson has broken any laws either. Out of curiosity (and to find out whether I'd be right or wrong in my assumption above!), I looked up the actual text of the law. It's as this: 29B Use of words or behaviour or display of written material (1)A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. (2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling. (3)A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section. (4)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling. (5)This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme service. Clicky here to read the whole thing Interestingly, although the Act is called the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, it doesn't mention anything about racial stuff in there. I've no idea why, and I assume that case law now exists to back this up, but that's still very odd. Anyway, assuming it does apply, has Clarkson broken that law? I'm not so sure. Is it threatening, or intended to stir up hatred? You'd have a hard time proving that in court, I think. Again, I can only see this referring to religious stuff, so if I'm reading the .gov site wrong and there's more text here then please let me know, as I can't see it anywhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.