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.
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 poof, 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.
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.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...anned-in-Oxford-by-council-owned-charity.html https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/3814694.No_ban_on_Christmas_in_Oxford/
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.
The ****ing worlds run by a bunch of fannies. Oh **** can I say fannies anymore? Tell you what, make it ****s.
Twice you’ve played the strawman card on me recently and twice you’ve used it incorrectly . 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.
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.