Not PC on LM

[Greenback]

So if it was clearly meant as a joke the rest surely is inconsequential? You're contradicting yourself. One moment you say it's prejudice, the next minute you're telling all of us that it was 'clearly meant as a joke'.
Your sophistry is tying your knickers in a twist.

No it's not, you are simply trying to twist what others say to suit your own opinion!

To say that someone intended something as a joke does not mean it's not prejudice, clearly the joke is prejudicial in this context.

To argue otherwise suggests that any sort of behaviour can be excused on the grounds that it was meant as a joke. how many times have we heard the law say it is not the intention that counts, but the actions and consequences. (Though of course, intentions can be taken into account as mitigation).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How people can still argue that the guard was in no wrong is baffling. Its nothing to do with political correctness, or being offended, to make such an announcement just shows complete lack of common sense. I'd like to see the reaction if a guard warned people of the Pakistanis whilst arriving into Rochdale, or the gays arriving into Brighton, Samolians into Birmingham. I somehow doubt people would still be defending him.

Absolutely spot on!

At the risk of repeating myself, how can we ever learn to trust and respect those who are different from ourselves if we don't eliminate stereotyping and prejudice that is based largely on ignorance and fear?

 

[DownSouth]

So if it was clearly meant as a joke the rest surely is inconsequential? You're contradicting yourself. One moment you say it's prejudice, the next minute you're telling all of us that it was 'clearly meant as a joke'.
Your sophistry is tying your knickers in a twist.

So you're saying anything can be excused if it was "meant as a joke" even if it's not actually funny (and therefore not a joke) - presumably you would be fine with this approach being applied consistently to comments about Jews and gas chambers, or maybe people of African descent and primates?

That the rail staffer even thought it was funny is incontrovertible evidence that he is a racist bigot. I don't think firing would be a good course of action as it might cause avoidable conflict with a union (unless they have a non-discrimination policy themselves) but it would certainly be worth a final written warning and perhaps some sort of suspension during which he would be required to meet with community leaders of different minority groups for them to explain the impacts of racism.

 

[meridian2]

No it's not, you are simply trying to twist what others say to suit your own opinion!

To say that someone intended something as a joke does not mean it's not prejudice, clearly the joke is prejudicial in this context.

To argue otherwise suggests that any sort of behaviour can be excused on the grounds that it was meant as a joke. how many times have we heard the law say it is not the intention that counts, but the actions and consequences. (Though of course, intentions can be taken into account as mitigation).
?

Whether any prejudice is to be inferred from it has to be up to those who investigate this complaint. He should be reprimanded, that is all, given that this was in poor taste. Anything beyond that is subjective, glib and completely open to debate since clearly not everybody is agreeing the intention was prejudice.
Believe me, trying to twist others opinion to suit mine is a far easier exercise that trying to unanimously agree his intention was to offend and offend alone. It's also impossible to say that he was using flippancy to conceal his original intention, as the only thing that is clear-cut is it is in poor taste, since we do not know his original intention.

 

[andypops]

I'm amazed how much of a feeding frenzy this had become. Perhaps the OP should have added a poll to the thread to measure just how many people are on each side of the debate?

I'm equally astounded that Godwin's Rule hasn't yet rung true. The thread is young though.

Samolians into Birmingham

Brilliant. I always remember a quote from "The Thin Blue Line" when accurate spelling is being discussed... "we could arrest someone for Burglary, drop a few letters and end up charging them for Buggery"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whether any prejudice is to be inferred from it has to be up to those who investigate this complaint... Anything beyond that is subjective, glib and completely open to debate

since we do not know his original intention.

Some of the most sensible argument so far, IMO.

 

[Oswyntail]

... people getting offended on other peoples' behalves.

I am not a gypsy, but I found the remarks offensive. Not because I was imagining how a gypsy could be offended. What offended me was that there are still people, in customer-facing roles, in our society who are so primitive and unthinking as to suppose that such remarks are in any way humourous, worthy of sharing with a group of passengers about whom they know tiddly squit, and acceptable when made by anyone in their position. I had hoped that such unintelligent behaviour had been left behind with knuckle-scrapers like Bernard Manning. It is an insult to British society, and it is that I find offensive.

 

[Greenback]

Whether any prejudice is to be inferred from it has to be up to those who investigate this complaint. He should be reprimanded, that is all, given that this was in poor taste. Anything beyond that is subjective, glib and completely open to debate since clearly not everybody is agreeing the intention was prejudice.
Believe me, trying to twist others opinion to suit mine is a far easier exercise that trying to unanimously agree his intention was to offend and offend alone. It's also impossible to say that he was using flippancy to conceal his original intention, as the only thing that is clear-cut is it is in poor taste, since we do not know his original intention.

I agree with you on several points. The guard should be spoken to, given a refresher but not disciplined formally or sacked unless he has a history of similar mistakes. I am pretty sure that the inidividual does not realise that he displayed prejudice as well as insensitivity in making the announcement, and while it is impossible to know his intention, I suspect that he did not realise the implications of what he was saying.

It's the bigger picture that I am trying to look at. We need to try and make sure that as many people as possible are aware of how prejudice, steretyping, fear and ignorance inform these sorts of 'jokes'. We also need to look at how humour works, and recognise that where it undermines and demonises sections of society it is unacceptable and needs to be recognised as such.

I am sure that many of the people who tell these sorts of 'jokes' do not realise that they are exhibiting negative character traits such as prejudice, racism and stereotyping simply by the act of telling them. Some would be horrified to know this, while others, of course, simply would not care, as it is their intention to perpetuate hatred of certain groups.

I do like to give people the beenfit of the doubt, so I am content to assume that the guard thought he was making a light hearted remark and did not rrealise how foolish he was, in fact, being.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am not a gypsy, but I found the remarks offensive. Not because I was imagining how a gypsy could be offended. What offended me was that there are still people, in customer-facing roles, in our society who are so primitive and unthinking as to suppose that such remarks are in any way humourous, worthy of sharing with a group of passengers about whom they know tiddly squit, and acceptable when made by anyone in their position. I had hoped that such unintelligent behaviour had been left behind with knuckle-scrapers like Bernard Manning. It is an insult to British society, and it is that I find offensive.

I'm disappointed that there are still people who seek to defend such behaviour as the guard's, though in my view it merely shows that we haven't yet as much progress in this area as I had thought and hoped.

More education is clearly needed on the nature of prejudice, what stereotyping is and further highlighting of the negative effect that these things have on society would undoubtedly help.

 

[andypops]

I'd like to know what is so wrong with aspiring to eliminate the demonisation of particular groups, whether it be Gypsies, Jews or Irish (off the top of my head examples).

Do we really want to return to earlier times, or do we want to try and be more respectful and tolerant to each other? I want the latter rather than go backl to childish name calling and stereotyping, but perhaps I am in the minority.

I don't think you are in the minority; I would say the vast majority of people in this country are progressively-minded and aspire to be both respectful and tolerant, and I personally adhere to these principles. Look at the way that previously popular comedians - such as Jim Davidson, Bernard Manning, to a lesser extent Al Murray etc. - whose acts relied on potentially racist material, have been shunned by audiences in this country and have had to adapt their material or give up their careers in comedy?

My point is that offense is a subjective term, and it is my personal belief that if a comment is aimed at a person or group in order to insult, offend or otherwise negatively influence them then it is absolutely reprehensible and wrong. However, in this case I don't believe the comment was said with any malice and certainly not in order to offend. As I said before, at worst I would say it was a poorly chosen remark, and I dearly hope the guard involved suffers no ill consequences for this single action.


And as for the people who obviously wish to see the guard sacked, with the potentially devastating prospects for him, his family and dependents, I would ask if these people have ever made a single mistake in their lives? Is it right for a career, a family and potentially a life destroyed over a single comment made in jest?

 

[Greenback]

I don't think you are in the minority; I would say the vast majority of people in this country are progressively-minded and aspire to be both respectful and tolerant, and I personally adhere to these principles. Look at the way that previously popular comedians - such as Jim Davidson, Bernard Manning, to a lesser extent Al Murray etc. - whose acts relied on potentially racist material, have been shunned by audiences in this country and have had to adapt their material or give up their careers in comedy?

Agreed. I think that the majority of people are progressive, too, and this may well include the guard in question. As I said in an earlier post, he may now have realised the consequences of what was probably an off the cuff remark, and be embarrassed and maybe even horrified at his own actions.

My point is that offense is a subjective term, and it is my personal belief that if a comment is aimed at a person or group in order to insult, offend or otherwise negatively influence them then it is absolutely reprehensible and wrong. However, in this case I don't believe the comment was said with any malice and certainly not in order to offend. As I said before, at worst I would say it was a poorly chosen remark, and I dearly hope the guard involved suffers no ill consequences for this single action.

My point is merely that offence shouldn't come into it all. I may not be offended myself by jokes about Welsh people and certain woolly animals, though others may be. I don't find them funny, though, and I don't think they are acceptable in a progressive society. Similarly with jokes about other groups, such as the Scots being tight or the Irish being thick. It doesn't matte rif one person or one million finds these offensive, they are based on tired old stereotypes, and frankly, I thought we had progressed beyond that a while ago!

And as for the people who obviously wish to see the guard sacked, with the potentially devastating prospects for him, his family and dependents, I would ask if these people have ever made a single mistake in their lives? Is it right for a career, a family and potentially a life destroyed over a single comment made in jest?

My sentiments as well, pretty much.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Whether any prejudice is to be inferred from it has to be up to those who investigate this complaint. He should be reprimanded, that is all, given that this was in poor taste. Anything beyond that is subjective, glib and completely open to debate since clearly not everybody is agreeing the intention was prejudice.
Believe me, trying to twist others opinion to suit mine is a far easier exercise that trying to unanimously agree his intention was to offend and offend alone. It's also impossible to say that he was using flippancy to conceal his original intention, as the only thing that is clear-cut is it is in poor taste, since we do not know his original intention.

Prejudice is not always intentional. Many of us harbour subconscious prejudices even if we don't want to. The difference is between people who actively deny that, and people who seek to rectify it.

 

[meridian2]

I agree with you on several points. The guard should be spoken to, given a refresher but not disciplined formally or sacked unless he has a history of similar mistakes. I am pretty sure that the inidividual does not realise that he displayed prejudice as well as insensitivity in making the announcement, and while it is impossible to know his intention, I suspect that he did not realise the implications of what he was saying.

It's the bigger picture that I am trying to look at. We need to try and make sure that as many people as possible are aware of how prejudice, steretyping, fear and ignorance inform these sorts of 'jokes'. We also need to look at how humour works, and recognise that where it undermines and demonises sections of society it is unacceptable and needs to be recognised as such.

I am sure that many of the people who tell these sorts of 'jokes' do not realise that they are exhibiting negative character traits such as prejudice, racism and stereotyping simply by the act of telling them. Some would be horrified to know this, while others, of course, simply would not care, as it is their intention to perpetuate hatred of certain groups.

I do like to give people the beenfit of the doubt, so I am content to assume that the guard thought he was making a light hearted remark and did not rrealise how foolish he was, in fact, being.
.

I agree completely on the last point, but I do think it's a case of 'let he who is without sin' when it comes to judging people on the jokes they make. We are all prejudiced to some degree, or we all have experienced prejudice at some time in our lives. The latter is definitely character building; it makes you more aware of the different types of discrimination that exist in the world. The former is, and this is definitely IMO, what befell this guard. By making an ill-thought out quip, some people have come out and said he is out-and-out prejudiced towards certain specific walks of life. But is he an offensive person? Does he harbour ill-will towards gypsies? Was it a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying slur in his joke? These are important questions and we just don't know the answers to them, but we cannot, and must not, judge him on this poor-taste of a joke.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I agree completely on the last point, but I do think it's a case of 'let he who is without sin' when it comes to judging people on the jokes they make. We are all prejudiced to some degree, or we all have experienced prejudice at some time in our lives. The latter is definitely character building; it makes you more aware of the different types of discrimination that exist in the world. The former is, and this is definitely IMO, what befell this guard. By making an ill-thought out quip, some people have come out and said he is out-and-out prejudiced towards certain specific walks of life. But is he an offensive person? Does he harbour ill-will towards gypsies? Was it a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying slur in his joke? These are important questions and we just don't know, but we cannot, and must not, judge him on this poor-taste of a joke.

But it's not necessarily about intention. A lot of people mean well in life who do things that are actively harmful for others, and we shouldn't just excuse them simply because they're trying. If they really do mean well then they'd respond well to suggestions that perhaps they try things a different way.

Of course better than people who're actively trying to be harmful, but that's only a small number of people compared to those who are accidentally or unthinkingly being prejudiced in day to day life.

 

[meridian2]

But it's not necessarily about intention. A lot of people mean well in life who do things that are actively harmful for others, and we shouldn't just excuse them simply because they're trying. If they really do mean well then they'd respond well to suggestions that perhaps they try things a different way.

.

Exactly why a reprimand is a fitting punishment here. To err is human.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Exactly why a reprimand is a fitting punishment here. To err is human.

Which I entirely agree with. However, my point applies on a much broader level as well.

 

[Greenback]

I agree completely on the last point, but I do think it's a case of 'let he who is without sin' when it comes to judging people on the jokes they make. We are all prejudiced to some degree, or we all have experienced prejudice at some time in our lives. The latter is definitely character building; it makes you more aware of the different types of discrimination that exist in the world. The former is, and this is definitely IMO, what befell this guard. By making an ill-thought out quip, some people have come out and said he is out-and-out prejudiced towards certain specific walks of life. But is he an offensive person? Does he harbour ill-will towards gypsies? Was it a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying slur in his joke? These are important questions and we just don't know the answers to them, but we cannot, and must not, judge him on this poor-taste of a joke.

Personally, I think that to judge the guard on the basis of this one remark, without knowing anything else about him and without him having the right to defend himself, is worse than what he has done.

 

[Minilad]

Well quite.

Why doesn't the announcer warn the normal passengers about the drunken, violent football supporters?

It's just bullying.

I certainly would prefer not to be on a train with football supporters.

So. You don't think someone should generalise about the gypsy community but you are perfectly OK in generalising about football supporters. Right Oh

 

[edwin_m]

What would we all think if an announcement was made that all UK Rail Forum members are idiots whose pie-in-the-sky opinions are always totally worthless?

 

[455driver]

So you finally admit it Edwin!

 

[PaxVobiscum]

What would we all think if an announcement was made that all UK Rail Forum members are idiots whose pie-in-the-sky opinions are always totally worthless?

Well, I would laugh - clearly we are such a disparate bunch that such an accusation would not be targeted at any particular ethnicity, minority, political viewpoint or religious belief (or lack thereof) and would just come across as someone having a bad day.

The fact we all share an interest in railways is no more significant for the validity of our opinions than if our surnames all began with the same letter.

 

[Zoidberg]

Because I laughed at a statement I found amusing? Right ...

If you can't piece together that laughing at that statement is indicative of prejudice (why would you find it funny if you believed it?), then I'm a bit worried.

So, on that basis you'd have it that I am prejudiced against the French because I found The Simpson's character Groundskeeper Willie's reference to them being "cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys" funny.

Behave yourself.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So, on that basis you'd have it that I am prejudiced against the French because I found The Simpson's character Groundskeeper Willie's reference to them being "cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys" funny.

Behave yourself.

Alright then - could you explain what is funny about the statement, then?

 

[Zoidberg]

Alright then - could you explain what is funny about the statement, then?

Seriously? Wow!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Seriously? Wow!

I genuinely see nothing funny about the statement "most gypsies are law abiding citizens". I'm wondering what you see that I'm missing, unless it's the fact that you consider it so ridiculous as to be funny.

 

[47802]

So you're saying anything can be excused if it was "meant as a joke" even if it's not actually funny (and therefore not a joke) - presumably you would be fine with this approach being applied consistently to comments about Jews and gas chambers, or maybe people of African descent and primates?

That the rail staffer even thought it was funny is incontrovertible evidence that he is a racist bigot. I don't think firing would be a good course of action as it might cause avoidable conflict with a union (unless they have a non-discrimination policy themselves) but it would certainly be worth a final written warning and perhaps some sort of suspension during which he would be required to meet with community leaders of different minority groups for them to explain the impacts of racism.

Is not the term gypsies describing a lifestyle rather than a race, particularly as there are English gypsies, Irish gypsies etc. etc. therefore I'm not sure it could be described as racism, a misuse of the word which seems to happen frequently in this country these days

 

[TheKnightWho]

Is not the term gypsies describing a lifestyle rather than a race, particularly as there are English gypsies, Irish gypsies etc. etc. therefore I'm not sure it could be described as racism, a misuse of the word which seems to happen frequently in this country these days

That doesn't make it any better, though...

 

[47802]

That doesn't make it any better, though...

I'm not saying it does, but at the end of the day it was a throwaway comment which he shouldn't have made, people are making far too much off it, his superiors should speak to him about it and that's it, anything else is ridiculously over the top.

 

[poshfan]

I'm not saying it does, but at the end of the day it was a throwaway comment which he shouldn't have made, people are making far too much off it, his superiors should speak to him about it and that's it, anything else is ridiculously over the top.

Agreed. Storm in a tea cup.

 

[455driver]

But some people are so perfect that nobody else is allowed to make a mistake even in jest, once somebody makes a mistake, however lighthearted, they should be immediately sacked, their names emblazoned across all the front pages and then they taken to Court, fined/imprisoned until the day they die! :roll:

FFS* I do wish some people would get a grip!

* If you dont know what this means PM me and I will tell you, PS the second word is a naughty word, I hope I dont get banned/sacked for using it!

 

[Starmill]

Hahahah you guys should stick to controversies about trains... anything about serious ethics or philosophy and nope, just can't handle it!

 

[455driver]

Hahahah you guys should stick to controversies about trains... anything about serious ethics or philosophy and nope, just can't handle it!

I seem to recall a thread started by you where you hadnt allowed the minimum connection time from a replacement bus, missed your booked train, were then (correctly) refused access to a Northern train (with your TPE only ticket) and got in a right hissy fit when your error was pointed out to you!

People in glass houses etc!

This thread has got nothing to do with ethics (isnt that over Cambridge way?) and everything to do with people tasking a light hearted joke way to seriously.

 

[andypops]

people in glass houses etc!

This thread has got nothing to do with ethics (isnt that over cambridge way?) and everything to do with people tasking a light hearted joke way to seriously.

+1