December 30, 20177 yr !!! :lol: Popxhart, can you give me a source for that Victorian baby thing? Not disagreeing just find that morbidly interesting. They were a veeery strange generation. I don't have any sources I can point to, sorry - it's just in previous centuries death was so common, especially infant mortality, that there was a morbid reaction to it in humour. Black humour, I guess. I think it's been around as long as people, but at the turn of the last century there was certainly an attitude towards death (including infants) in literature, silent movies and even Punch and Judy, and various Fairy tales, that we would find troubling these days. It's not surprising - all the Brontes died young, for instance. Times were tough!
January 11, 20187 yr Author Don’t call people who use drugs ‘junkies’ http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/10/dont-call-pe...unkies-7219516/
January 16, 20187 yr Author A thread in The Lounge : Are people too easily offended nowadays? http://www.buzzjack.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=208849 And believe it or not, it wasn't even I who set it up! Though you won't be surprised that I've commented on it. ;) Edited January 16, 20187 yr by vidcapper
January 24, 20187 yr Author Good luck with this idea... :rolleyes: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/...el-pupils-have/ The headteacher at a leading public school has said he will expel pupils who have a boyfriend or girlfriend as it is a distraction from their studies. Toby Belfield, principal at £34,500-a-year Ruthin School in north Wales, told staff that he "strongly disapproves" of pupils striking up romances with each other. He vowed to draw up a list of Year 11 or Lower Sixth students - usually aged between 15 and 17 – who are in relationships and said that they can “expect to find new schools in September”. Mr Belfield said he will “not hesitate” to expel pupils that have “any sexual contact” in school, and added that he will give worse university references to students with boyfriends or girlfriends. In an email to staff, he warned teachers to be “more vigilant” about potential student liaisons, adding: "School is not the place for romantic relationships – ever”. He said: "I strongly disapprove of any boyfriend/girlfriend relationships - and it will always affect any university reference I write (meaning - any student in a relationship will definitely get a worse reference from me). "Relationships can start at university - not at Ruthin School. I will be talking to staff and, as in previous years, I will put together a list of any student with a boyfriend or girlfriend. These students - if in L6 (lower sixth form) or F5 (year 11) can expect to find new school in September.” Mr Belfield added: “There are plenty of students that wish to attend Ruthin School without the diversion of romance - and these students can replace those students whose focus is on bf/gf relationships." Mr Belfield, principal of the 700-year-old Ruthin School, has spoken of his desire to expel students because the school is oversubscribed. He told The Daily Telegraph that any students who are found to be in a relationship, will not be “summarily expelled”. Rather, they will “be given the opportunity to review their current romantic situation, and my belief is that they (and their parents) will put their education first”. Mr Belfield explained why he felt strongly about taking a tough stance on teenage relationships. “Parents choose Ruthin School because it is a top ranking academic institution,” he said. “In my experience, students who are in a relationship, whilst at school, are at danger of academically underachieving. “Therefore, if they devote their time to their studies, rather than the emotional turmoil connected with teenage romance, they will achieve higher grades and go to better universities. “This is the primary objective of the School – to enable them to fulfil their academic potential and go to the best universities in the world.” Last year, he introduced a raft of new banning students from going to the park or restaurants, ordering takeaways, smoking and drinking - regardless of their age. Any student caught breaching the tougher policies should not expect to return for the next academic year, he said at the time.
January 24, 20187 yr "Last year, he introduced a raft of new banning students from going to the park or restaurants, ordering takeaways, smoking and drinking - regardless of their age." None of these things are politically correct, just power mad.
January 24, 20187 yr Is it not more politically correct to be against the side of the headteacher in this case? Most people are fine with the idea of teenagers having relationships (as long as they're not literally having sex in school, or if the relationship is abusive etc.)
January 24, 20187 yr I assume he can get away with these ridiculous rules as it is a public school. I'm less sure whether his threat to give worse university references would survive a legal challenge.
January 25, 20187 yr Author How is this anything to do with political correctness? I did consider that - but it didn't seem worth starting a whole new thread for it. The thought occured : what would happen if he expelled pupils who were in same-sex relationships? I dare say he might well fall foul of hate-crime laws in those circumstances? :unsure: Edited January 25, 20187 yr by vidcapper
January 25, 20187 yr Only if students in same sex relationships were the only ones excluded. Obviously. As others have said this has nothing to do with PC at all. It’s a bit draconian for sure but you don’t pay more than my annual salary to send your kids to a place like this and not be the kind of person who these rules would appeal too
January 25, 20187 yr Author Labour hoist by their own petard... https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5409589/labou...hdog-complains/
January 25, 20187 yr Author Heaven forbid they try and encourage under-represented groups to go to events. No problem with that, as long as they don't break anti-discrimination laws by doing so. BTW, would you mind changing the title to 'General Complaining' as that's slightly more neutral than 'Whining'?
January 26, 20187 yr No problem with that, as long as they don't break anti-discrimination laws by doing so. Interesting how you're suddenly concerned about anti-discrimination laws as soon as you think white people might have been discriminated against.
January 26, 20187 yr Author BTW, would you mind changing the title to 'General Complaining' as that's slightly more neutral than 'Whining'? I guess you're not interested in the above suggested change, then? Interesting how you're suddenly concerned about anti-discrimination laws as soon as you think white people might have been discriminated against. My position on this has never varied - it's surely obvious that anti-discrimination laws must protect *everyone* equally? The easiest way to envision it in cases of anti-white discrimination is to mentally switch the victims to 'non-white' and imagine what your reaction would be then - if your reaction of outrage isn't exactly the same, then you need to ask yourself 'why not'? Edited January 26, 20187 yr by vidcapper
January 26, 20187 yr The easiest way to envision it in cases of anti-white discrimination is to mentally switch the victims to 'non-white' and imagine what your reaction would be then - if your reaction of outrage isn't exactly the same, then you need to ask yourself 'why not'? Because that's not how structural discrimination works. Structural discrimination is white people being proportionately better represented in politics than non-white people. Steps to rectify this are positive discrimination. Any attempt to make it worse would be racism.
January 26, 20187 yr Author Because that's not how structural discrimination works. Structural discrimination is white people being proportionately better represented in politics than non-white people. Steps to rectify this are positive discrimination. Any attempt to make it worse would be racism. I never mentioned *structural* discrimination.
January 26, 20187 yr I never mentioned *structural* discrimination. Are you denying that it's a reality of our society?
January 26, 20187 yr I guess you're not interested in the above suggested change, then? My position on this has never varied - it's surely obvious that anti-discrimination laws must protect *everyone* equally? The easiest way to envision it in cases of anti-white discrimination is to mentally switch the victims to 'non-white' and imagine what your reaction would be then - if your reaction of outrage isn't exactly the same, then you need to ask yourself 'why not'? giving subsidies to encourage inclusiveness is not discrimination. Charging them more to keep them out is discrimination. If you can't see that basic principle then presumably you have problems with businesses (and organisations) giving pensioners, students, disabled people cut-price tickets, and clubs giving women free entry to try and balance the male-female ratio? Or people who have a membership card getting money off over those who don't. Surely that's discrimination too? How about charging gas guzzling cars more than small engined cars in tax? That's discrimination too. To use your example, if it were a 95% black organisation in a predominantly black area which wished to see non-blacks better represented when the local non-black population was 10 or 20% which was encouraging it by charging a lower fee, would I be outraged? No, I wouldn't. It's positive action, which is what MP's and local government are required to do by law - to ensure a fair balance. By way of example, Bournemouth Council in the 1980's was virtually 95% or more white, non-white workers were rare. Now they aren't. That isn't racism against whites, it's stopping racism against non-whites.
Create an account or sign in to comment