| WESTLONDONCHAT.COM https://b65a9t-westlondonchatcom-7590.site.tb-hosting.com/ |
|
| Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? https://b65a9t-westlondonchatcom-7590.site.tb-hosting.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=511 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | SOT [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
OK, this might be a bit controversial, but hear me out before branding me a racist. (which will be some people's instant response) Firstly, I have no time for racists or racial discrimination. Anyone who unfairly treats somebody unfairly due to the other persons race deserves all that the law can throw at them. But the John Terry case has raised several important questions, one of them is why is racial verbal abuse seen as so abhorrent compared to other forms of verbal abuse? For example: A) Calling someone a 'Black B******' is likely to get you into court and perhaps a criminal record B) However calling someone a 'Fat B******' or a 'Ginger B******' is unlikely to get much Police/Court time or sympathy Any verbal abuse is designed to make the victim feel low, belittled, upset, embarrassed and/or angry. So what's the difference? Surely demeaning anyone by such violent verbal abuse is wrong, so why, when this sort of abuse is racial (and/or homophobic) in nature, is it taken so seriously. At the more serious end of the continuum, repeated verbal humiliation is harassment, but at the other end of the scale in it's most simplest of forms, it's merely name calling. Isn't treating racial verbal abuse as a more serious 'offence' than abuse which is aimed at the fat, lazy or those such as 'gingers' or 'baldies' also discrimination?? Just a thought |
|
| Author: | jim [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
Its a free country as long as you do as your told, or have any particular viewpoint, the law is an ass, we all know that and the racial discrimination bit is a botch to encompass rowdy behaviour, or any restrictive practice on sales and services, how long before multi sex public toilets another discrimination !  
|
|
| Author: | john [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
Its a turn about that , you can be called a racist , and it is concidered worse than , say a robber , shop lifter , flighting , violence , drug taker etc |
|
| Author: | geezer466 [ Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
The process was initiated some years ago by Trevor Phillips, first a problem was created and then legislation introduced to combat the supposed problem. I have been called ever every expletive under the sun prefixing the word ba$tard, did it bother me, not in the slightest, even racists terms have been used such as honkie or white trash and that never bothered me but I suppose it is very much personal opinion. Did we need to legislate? Well clearly the Blair government thought it necessary to amend the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and make racial and religious harassment an offence. Do the police treat all types of racial abuse the same well the jury is still out on that one.. Still the Liberal left are at it trying to push through largely irrelevant legislation.... This country is in the middle of the what will probably turn out to be the worst and longest economic downturn in history and all they can do is faff about with trying to reform the Lords and getting gay marriage onto the statute books. For some people these are of course important issues but not as far as getting our young people into work and sorting out the burgeoning deficit... |
|
| Author: | jim [ Fri Jul 13, 2012 7:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
ANOTHER RED HERRING, OR IS THAT DISSCRIMIATING OTHER HERRINGS ?? 
|
|
| Author: | john [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
Terry should have been charged with being thick |
|
| Author: | SOT [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 11:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
john wrote: Terry should have been charged with being thick Top post
|
|
| Author: | geezer466 [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
SOT wrote: john wrote: Terry should have been charged with being thick Top post I take it you all this.............. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/9395243/John-Terry-racism-trial-Chelsea-captain-only-too-pleased-to-follow-orders-in-courtroom-gaffe.html |
|
| Author: | john [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
well does the England want a foul mouth bloke like this in the England team , he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute , swearing in a public place etc etc |
|
| Author: | jim [ Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Why Different Responses to Different Verbal Abuse??? |
john wrote: well does the England want a foul mouth bloke like this in the England team , he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute , swearing in a public place etc etc they are probably all foul mouthed, its nature of competition team sports, seems to me like crying Wolfe, and a holyer than thou attitude, what happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me, this is how we were bought up, before the anti everything do gooders.
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|