Handbags are offensive?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Outrage with the headline, without bothering with the detail, is par for the course nowadays.

Like all that utter bollocks about the Union Jack on vaccine bottles earlier in the week.

And we’ve still got the annual story, about (insert name of random Council here) banning Christmas, to look forward to next week.
 
Idioms are by their very nature linguistically removed from the literal interpretation which spawned them. They sustain meaning via usage which then renders them a separate linguistic entity over time. It really is absurd to reconnect them with their original derivation and serves only to demonstrate the ignorance of those who claim offence from hearing them.

Handbags (at ten paces) has been in common usage within football since at least the mid-eighties and, as Tommo's legal team will quickly establish, holds meaning distinct from being a potentially offensive word due to the offended person assuming he was using it in a way that is derogatory to women.

The phrase Rule of Thumb is similar but more ancient. Potentially this could be much more offensive to women than Handbags but due to the fact that it's original meaning has long fallen out of usage, is not universally understood or isn't easily derived from a mere reading of the words, then no one ever appears to get offended by it.


Words and phrases evolve. Language and meaning changes over time. Getting offended due to not understanding this says more about the offendee than the offender.




Anyway, I'm away to have a really gay old time this afternoon. Hopefully it'll be both sick and wicked.

Bad...
 
What a silly post.

You've yet to say whether you agree that saying 'handbags' is worthy of being sacked. You've also failed to demonstrate who decided that, or how they let anyone know, as I doubt few if any did. That alone blows a gaping great hole in your theory that society decides.

Yes I have, I’ve said twice now that personally I don’t agree with it. But my opinion doesn’t matter, in terms of what happened, it’s evidence of people taking language use more seriously.

Who decided what he said was inappropriate? His boss. How did his boss decide? He used the societal landscape to make a judgement. It’s not as though there’s a panel made up of people who get pissed off at stuff, we make the decisions on what to say on a daily basis. Everybody knows what’s acceptable and what isn’t. Society dictates what is acceptable, it’s a fluid system, it’s not decided by any one group or person. It usually takes something bad happening for society to phase something out, which is a bit of a shame.

I watched Harry Enfield and Chums the other night and one of the lines was “don’t be a ****, eat white bread” and shortly followed by “backs to the wall lads” when referring to a bloke with a pony tail. I remember watching that as a kid and laughing. Watching it the other night, I didn’t find it funny at all. And, lo and behold, you don’t see things like that on TV anymore. The consensus of society has shifted. People generally don’t find that sort of stuff acceptable anymore and as I’ve said before, it’s up to the individual to adapt to society, not for society to adapt to the individual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
Yes I have, I’ve said twice now that personally I don’t agree with it. But my opinion doesn’t matter, in terms of what happened, it’s evidence of people taking language use more seriously.

Who decided what he said was inappropriate? His boss. How did his boss decide? He used the societal landscape to make a judgement. It’s not as though there’s a panel made up of people who get pissed off at stuff, we make the decisions on what to say on a daily basis. Everybody knows what’s acceptable and what isn’t. Society dictates what is acceptable, it’s a fluid system, it’s not decided by any one group or person. It usually takes something bad happening for society to phase something out, which is a bit of a shame.

I watched Harry Enfield and Chums the other night and one of the lines was “don’t be a ****, eat white bread” and shortly followed by “backs to the wall lads” when referring to a bloke with a pony tail. I remember watching that as a kid and laughing. Watching it the other night, I didn’t find it funny at all. And, lo and behold, you don’t see things like that on TV anymore. The consensus of society has shifted. People generally don’t find that sort of stuff acceptable anymore and as I’ve said before, it’s up to the individual to adapt to society, not for society to adapt to the individual.


So it wasn't society, it was an individual at the TV company, and you agree with most of us that it was ridiculous.

You could have saved a lot of words by simply putting that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber
Outrage with the headline, without bothering with the detail, is par for the course nowadays.

Like all that utter bollocks about the Union Jack on vaccine bottles earlier in the week.

And we’ve still got the annual story, about (insert name of random Council here) banning Christmas, to look forward to next week.

Any examples of anyone claiming a council has banned Christmas?
 
Outrage with the headline, without bothering with the detail, is par for the course nowadays.

Like all that utter bollocks about the Union Jack on vaccine bottles earlier in the week.

And we’ve still got the annual story, about (insert name of random Council here) banning Christmas, to look forward to next week.

I managed to buy an Easter Egg with Easter on it earlier this year. I was stunned.
 
I think point 1 is a tad selective to say the least, and I doubt the others caused any real 'offence'.
I'm defending neither him or the BBC, just painting a slightly wider picture. Also who decides what real offence is. Point 1 is just a statement of fact.
If what he is alleged to have said, on a number of occasions, is true then I'd probably class him as a bit of a harmless dick but 20 years past his sell by date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
As we're down to feeble strawmen, I'll get on with a few other bits.
 
Yes I have, I’ve said twice now that personally I don’t agree with it. But my opinion doesn’t matter, in terms of what happened, it’s evidence of people taking language use more seriously.

Who decided what he said was inappropriate? His boss. How did his boss decide? He used the societal landscape to make a judgement. It’s not as though there’s a panel made up of people who get pissed off at stuff, we make the decisions on what to say on a daily basis. Everybody knows what’s acceptable and what isn’t. Society dictates what is acceptable, it’s a fluid system, it’s not decided by any one group or person. It usually takes something bad happening for society to phase something out, which is a bit of a shame.

I watched Harry Enfield and Chums the other night and one of the lines was “don’t be a ****, eat white bread” and shortly followed by “backs to the wall lads” when referring to a bloke with a pony tail. I remember watching that as a kid and laughing. Watching it the other night, I didn’t find it funny at all. And, lo and behold, you don’t see things like that on TV anymore. The consensus of society has shifted. People generally don’t find that sort of stuff acceptable anymore and as I’ve said before, it’s up to the individual to adapt to society, not for society to adapt to the individual.

Inappropriate...That catch all weasel word to justify nonsense when there is no justifiable reason.
 
So it wasn't society, it was an individual at the TV company, and you agree with most of us that it was ridiculous.

You could have saved a lot of words by simply putting that.

And how did the individual at the company reach that conclusion?
 
And how did the individual at the company reach that conclusion?

I said I was moving on when you started with the piss poor strawmen, but as you asked, it was NOT by consulting society, which is the nub of your claim. :emoticon-0128-hi:
 
I said I was moving on when you started with the piss poor strawmen, but as you asked, it was NOT by consulting society, which is the nub of your claim. :emoticon-0128-hi:

Twice you’ve played the strawman card on me recently and twice you’ve used it incorrectly <laugh>.

It’s like when your mum tries to use the word meme unironically

I haven’t used another irrelevant argument to further my own, everything I’ve said has been in the context of society and the media. If the TV person didn’t go on societal norms, then they made a personal choice and that’s a ridiculous, not to mention spurious, claim to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
Twice you’ve played the strawman card on me recently and twice you’ve used it incorrectly <laugh>.

It’s like when your mum tries to use the word meme unironically

I haven’t used another irrelevant argument to further my own, everything I’ve said has been in the context of society and the media. If the TV person didn’t go on societal norms, then they made a personal choice and that’s a ridiculous, not to mention spurious, claim to make.

You agree it was ridiculous to claim the use of handbags was offensive, and you agree that removing him from his role was excessive.

The rest of your responses are simply hyperbole, and generally inaccurate hyperbole at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: look_back_in_amber
I've had to delete some posts, can we keep off politics please. Ta.
 
You agree it was ridiculous to claim the use of handbags was offensive, and you agree that removing him from his role was excessive.

The rest of your responses are simply hyperbole, and generally inaccurate hyperbole at that.

I agree that sacking him would be harsh, but I can see how the term is demeaning to women.
 
Well, you’ve dug your own grave there pal.

I will laugh at the three stooges you mentioned though. <laugh>

If this was Twitter, I’d counter. Instead, I’ll just leave that to hang for the world to see.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

And I haven't dug any grave,I answered your question and got the expected response from you.
 
Last edited: