Political correctness & other nonsensical rubbish

[Liverpool]

The Catholic Church has come out today on this, with the mob from Adelaide wanting it off the air.
I'm glad they are running with this, because Catholic priests are such reputed men of good moral fibre :
These guys should find a hole and hide in it for ten years, and thats only after they finish apologising for the all crap they allowed their priests to get up to over the years

I think it's quite funny that the Micks are having a crack at Ramsay (an ex Gers player) :hihi

 

[kb7882]

This could be in "Game for a laugh", but sort of belongs here too.


THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR (TWO HUNDRED YEARS ON)

Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy"

Hardy: "Aye, Aye, sir"

Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to
the Signals Officer. What's
the meaning of this?

Hardy: "Sorry sir"

Nelson: (reading aloud): " 'England expects every
person to do his duty,
regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation,
religious persuasion or
disability.' What sort of gobbledygook is this?"

Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're
an equal opportunities
employer now. We had the devil's own job getting
'England' past the censors,
lest it be considered racist."

Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and
tobacco"

Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have been
designated smoke-free working
environments."

Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration.
Let us splice the
mainbrace to steel the men before battle."

Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished,
Admiral. It's part of the
Government's policy on binge drinking."

Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd
better get on with it....full
speed ahead."

Hardy: "I think you'll find there's a 4 knot speed
limit in this stretch of
water."

Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the
greatest sea battle in
history. We must advance with all dispatch. A
report from the crow's nest
please."

Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."

Nelson: "What?"

Hardy: "Health and safety have closed the crow's
nest, sir. No harness. And
they said that rope ladders don't meet
regulations. They won't let anyone up
there until proper scaffolding can be erected."

Nelson: "Then get the ship's carpenter without
delay, Hardy."

Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access
to the fo'c'sle, Admiral."

Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard
anything so absurd."

Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to
provide a barrier-free
environment for the differently disabled."

Nelson: "Differently disabled? I've only one arm
and one eye and I refuse
even to hear mention of the word. I didn't get to
the rank of admiral by
playing the disability card."

Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy Was
under-represented in the
areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency.

Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The
salt spray beckons."

Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir.
Health and safety won't let the
crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they
don't want anyone breathing
in too much salt because of the effect on blood
pressure- haven't you seen
the adverts?"

Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out
the cannon and tell the men
to stand by to engage the enemy."

Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting
at anyone, Admiral."

Nelson: "What? This is mutiny."

Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're
afraid of being charged
with murder if they actually kill anyone. There
are a couple of legal-aid
lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."

Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and
the Spanish?"

Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."

Nelson: "We're not?"

Hardy: "No, sir. The Frenchies and the Spanish are
our European partners
now. According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we
shouldn't even be in this
stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim
for compensation."

Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate
the devil."

Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's Diversity
Coordinator hear you saying that
sir. You'll be up on a disciplinary."

Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who
speaks ill of your King."

Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in
this multicultural age.
Now put on your Kevlar vest. It's the rules. It
could save your life."

Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety.
Whatever happened to rum, sodomy
and the lash?"

Hardy: "As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu!
And there's a ban on
corporal punishment."

Nelson: "What about sodomy?"

Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."

Nelson: "In that case --- KISS ME, HARDY.!"

 

[Dyer'ere]

That's genius.

 

[evo]

Enjoyed that.

 

[Michael]

Like this Mike? (I had to be careful with the link)

http://www.japanfortheuninvited.com/articles/body-sushi.html

Brilliant
that'd be an excellent challenge for Ramsay
Could be hilarious

 

[Six Pack]

I was reading of an incident during the French Revolution where a French general was exhorting his soldiers to go over the top against the Austrians who were coming to try and save the French monarchy.

The whole battle got held up because the soldiers insisted on putting the general's orders through a debate and then a vote.

I think they might have been routed.

 

[kb7882]

I think they might have been routed.

Are you sure that's the right spelling ? ;D

 

[Six Pack]

Are you sure that's the right spelling ? ;D

close enough!

 

[ssstone]

:clap :clap :clap :clap thanks for the laugh heartbalme..............just goes to show how far we've REALLY come...thanks again still pissin my pants

 

[Liverpool]

And people say there is "equal opportunity" between the sex..... :hihi


Man-boobs ruling sparks debate
May 16, 2008 10:39pm
A BRITISH ruling that it is legal to ogle a man's chest but not a woman's breasts triggered a lively online debate about censorship today.
The case emerged after a court last year found Kevin Bassett, 44, guilty under the 2003 Sexual Offences Act after he secretly filmed a man in his swimming trunks at a swimming pool.
But lawyers for the care home worker argued that the man's chest did not constitute "private parts" under the act, which referred only to women's breasts in such terms.
This was the case even if the man in question was obese, and had "man breasts" or "moobs", they said, according to a reports in London's Daily Telegraph newspaper.
A judge this week agreed, quashing the ruling because the judge in the initial case had failed properly to explain to the jury the difference between breasts and chest.
"The intention of parliament was to mean female breasts and not an exposed male chest," said Lord Justice Anthony Hughes. "The former are still private - amongst 21st century bathers - the second is not.
"This act didn't mean to refer to the male chest but only to female breasts, it follows that the judge's directions on the meaning of breasts was erroneous," he said.
The Daily Telegraph report of the ruling drew varying views on the broadsheet's website.
"So it is OK for women to shamelessly flaunt their bodies, but illegal for men to look at them? Stupid," said one commentator, identified as Tom.
"Photographing another man in a swimming pool with a camera hidden in a plastic bag can now be considered 'normal' behaviour. Where will it all end - think I'll emigrate!" added another, Douglas Tuck.
"Mom-o-3" had a more detailed take on the subject: "If a woman is flat chested can she go topless? It seems to me the ruling is about the amount of fatty tissue OVER the pectoral muscles not the muscles themselves."
John P was dismissive of the whole debate. "There is so much immature twaddle about sex in England I don't wonder that both sexes get psychologically twisted."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23711834-5005961,00.html

 

[Six Pack]

Another key issue for the times!

 

[Liverpool]

Another key issue for the times!

That's why it is in the thread titled "Political correctness and otjer nonsensical rubbish".

 

[Tiger74]

Its rubbish like this that makes me question the adversarial method of law we use. Garbage base brought up because of literal interpretations of the content of an Act rather than its intent.

 

[Liverpool]

There shouldn't be "recruitment quotas"...simple as that.....or do you support discrimination in recruiting people, where the best person for the role is overlooked in favour of someone of gender, race, or religion?
If you are lowering testing and lowering standards, then you simply are going to recruit a lower standard of candidate.....leading to the police becoming more mediocre as time goes by.
There is a difference between women COMPETING for jobs on their own merits......and either having standards lowered to accommodate them or males being knocked back to suit an agenda or quota.
All you are doing with this Sixpack is lowering your standards of women and saying that they can't compete on an even playing-field with men....so what was that about 'sexism' again?
Big male criminal runs out of a milk-bar he just held up.
Standing in his way is....
a) a 5-foot female officer with a baton
b) a 6'6" male officer with a baton
Which one is the criminal most scared of...a) or b)?
Now maybe I am getting soft in my old age...but maybe this was a one-off incident...and I do think that the BEST PERSON FOR THE ROLE should be hired. If that is a woman, then that is great.I wonder how many good male candidates the police are losing because they want to fit an agenda of hiring women and people from minority groups?

you poor bugger, Livers, u still cant make head nor tail of this can u.
policing is more than chasing bad guys down the street. its a much more complex job than that.
yr living in some 1960s fantasy land with the benny hill music playing in yr head!

Well, well, well....after copping grief from some posters for my views on police recruiting, now we see this...welcome to the 1960s fantasy land REALITY, SixPack :

Cops call for more brawn on the beat
By Robyn Ironside
May 19, 2008 12:55am
"PHYSICALLY challenged" police are putting themselves and their colleagues at greater risk of assault, say some officers.

A number of police have even called for height and weight restrictions to be re-introduced to the Queensland Police Service to improve the physical presence of officers on the beat.
Prior to the Fitzgerald Inquiry into police corruption, officers were required to be at least 172cm tall with a minimum weight of 65kg.

In late 1990 those restrictions were abolished, although police were still required to pass a physical competency test.
The test was eased in 1993 because of the high failure rate of female recruits and in 1998 a review recommended the physical competency test be phased out in favour of a health-screening process.

As a result, Queensland now has the least demanding physical fitness requirements of any Australian state, with applicants required only to run 2.4km in under 12 minutes and swim an un-timed 100m clothed.

Police sources told The Courier Mail that the decline in physical fitness and height requirements was contributing to the high rate of assaults on police.
"Coppers are no longer physically intimidating and if you get into any strife you cannot necessarily count on your partner to help you out if they're five foot nothing and 45kg," an officer said.

Ex-Police Union president John O'Gorman, who once called for a review of the abandoned height and weight restrictions, said the size of police was no longer as important.
"The introduction of capsicum spray and Tasers means police don't have to rely as much on sheer physical force in a brawl situation," he said.
He said the main reason police were increasingly victims of assault was because they were reluctant to use force given the legal consequences.

In one of the worst cases of assault last year, Logan Constable Grant Sampson had a bottle smashed over his head after being called to an out-of-control party at Alberton, near Beenleigh.
Constable Matt Burchard carried his unconscious partner to the safety of a garden shed which partygs pelted with bottles as the officer called for back-up.
Police said: "It was not worth thinking about" what could have happened to Constable Sampson if his partner had been unable to get him to a safe place.
Queensland Police Union president Cameron Pope said he supported the recruitment criteria.
"It's been shown to me innumerable times it's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog," he said.

A Queensland Police Service spokesman said there was absolutely no evidence suggesting the size of officers had anything to do with assaults.
"A very small percentage of interaction with the general public results in physical confrontation," he said.
"The QPS expends considerable energy training recruits in communication and non-violent dispute resolution techniques."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23720833-2,00.html?from=public_rss

 

[Freezer]

Sex swap para given £250k for hurt feelings
By Lewis Panther

A SEX-CHANGE soldier has caused uproar by winning £250,000 damages...because the Army ordered her to wear a male uniform for a medical.

The payout to ex-paratrooper Jan Hamilton for what she called her "humiliation" DWARFS the paltry payments made to heroes who have LOST LIMBS fighting for Britain.

In fact a frontline soldier would have to have BOTH LEGS and BOTH ARMS blown off to qualify for a payout larger than the 43-year-old gender bender's.

An Army source last night stormed "This has caused huge ructions at all levels. How will it go down with the families of guys who've been killed or horribly injured? Not very well."

And Paul Ormrod—the father of hero Royal Marine Mark, 24 who was offered £36,000 LESS than Hamilton for losing his LEGS AND RIGHT ARM in a land mine blast in Afghanistan—said: "It's typical of Britain.

"People injured serving their country get treated like dirt. But if you're someone like this they'll look after you."

The 6ft, 16-stone transexual —formerly Capt Ian Hamilton—claimed she was already "living as a woman" when she was told to report for a medical in the uniform of a male soldier in April last year.

She had not then had any sex change operations—but repeatedly failed to turn up.

She parted company with the Army and went on to sue the Ministry of Defence for unfair dismissal and sexual discrimination.

Hamilton—now divorced from wife of 10 years Morag—said: "It would have been humiliating and demeaning for me to turn up for my medical examination in a man's uniform. It is not that I refused to go to the medical, it's that I wouldn't go as a man. They used that as an excuse to fire me."

Military chiefs wanted to fight the claim but were ordered by the government to make an out-of-court settlement because lawyers feared it could cost as much as £1 MILLION if they lost.

Hamilton's settlement level is so high because damages in sex discrimination cases are UNCAPPED while claims for battlefield injuries are governed by a strict set of rules. The award has caused fierce resentment towards the former Iraq and Afghanistan veteran, who went on to have a 14-hour gender re-assigment operation including breast implants filmed for a Channel 4 documentary.

Our Army source said: "We were very fair towards her and we've been shafted. If she'd just got on with her sex change, and worked with the Army, it would have been fine. She's exploited political correctness to try to turn herself into a media star."

Last night families of soldiers seriously wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan hit out at the latest "kick in the teeth" for our frontline troops faced with a scandalously low tariff of payouts for injuries that affect the rest of their lives.

Servicemen and women can expect just £28,750 for blindness in one eye, £57,500 for loss of a leg and £8,250 for injuries sustained surviving a gunshot wound to the torso. A soldier who comes home from war suffering "permanent severely impaired grip in both hands" will get £16,500.

To qualify for the highest MoD payout of £285,000, a soldier would need to lose both arms and legs.

Hamilton's payout stands in stark contrast to the sum awarded to brave Ben Parkinson, who lost both legs and suffered brain damage when he was blown up by a Taliban landmine.

Lance Bombardier Ben, 23, described by doctors as the worst-injured soldier ever to survive, was only originally offered £152,000 compensation.

That was only upped to the £285,000 MoD maximum after families campaigned for better payout levels.

Ben's mum Diane Dernie, of Doncaster—a prime mover in the campaign for better compensation—said: "Why does this person deserve so much when our boys have lost everything?

"These seemingly trivial matters are awarded such huge amounts of money and yet people with terrible injuries get nothing. You just despair."

Tory MP Patrick Mercer—who completed nine tours of duty as a soldier in Northern Ireland—said: "I can't understand how the MoD can justify paying these amounts when soldiers are suffering very serious injuries in action but are getting less than £10,000."

Last night a Ministry of Defence statement said: "Jan Hamilton has decided to bring her service with the Armed Forces to an end. We wish her all the best."

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2505_sex_swap_para.shtml

:rofl

If only it was a joke.

 

[Liverpool]

Sex swap para given £250k for hurt feelings
By Lewis Panther

A SEX-CHANGE soldier has caused uproar by winning £250,000 damages...because the Army ordered her to wear a male uniform for a medical.

In fact a frontline soldier would have to have BOTH LEGS and BOTH ARMS blown off to qualify for a payout larger than the 43-year-old gender bender's.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2505_sex_swap_para.shtml

:rofl

If only it was a joke.

Freezer,
I'm afraid not.
You only need to look at the garbage from the other day regarding the 12 year old being allowed to get a sex change...at the tax-payers expense of course:

Family's fury as girl, 12, allowed to have sex-change operation against father's wishes
By Richard Shears
Last updated at 3:47 PM on 25th May 2008
A huge ethical row has erupted over a judge's decision to allow a 12- year-old girl to have a sex change that will turn her into a teenage boy.
The child's father, who is separated from her mother, is outraged at the prospect but despite his objections the taxpayer-funded sex swap has already got under way.
His daughter, who cannot be named because of her age, is already having hormone treatment in Australia in what is one of the first such cases involving a child so young.
The girl has also been given permission to apply for a new birth certificate, passport and medical card in a boy's name.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1021747/Familys-fury-girl-12-allowed-sex-change-operation-fathers-wishes.html


As it is in your story and the one I have just posted above, it is again the judicial system that has failed...

 

[Tiger74]

As it is in your story and the one I have just posted above, it is again the judicial system that has failed...

Read this in the HUN yesterday, and its not as black and white as they tried to make it out from the front page (my reaction was initially disgust). Initially its just hormone therapies, designed to stop her developing. Later (off memory 15/16) they will look at the male hormone treatments. All of this is apparently very reversible. Only after 18 will she be able to get the sex change surgery.

Also a complication was that the girl has been threatening a level of self harm if she is not allowed to proceed that has her psychologist very concerned. I would normally take this with a grain of salt, but she has seen a number of professionals, and they seem to have a similar view.

Personally I hate issues like this, no clear "win-win".

Curious about the Dad though. As the main opponent to the procedure, I thought he would have been in person at the hearing (understand he could not afford a lawyer, but you can still rock up yourself).

 

[jb03]

Freezer,
I'm afraid not.
You only need to look at the garbage from the other day regarding the 12 year old being allowed to get a sex change...at the tax-payers expense of course:

Family's fury as girl, 12, allowed to have sex-change operation against father's wishes
By Richard Shears
Last updated at 3:47 PM on 25th May 2008
A huge ethical row has erupted over a judge's decision to allow a 12- year-old girl to have a sex change that will turn her into a teenage boy.
The child's father, who is separated from her mother, is outraged at the prospect but despite his objections the taxpayer-funded sex swap has already got under way.
His daughter, who cannot be named because of her age, is already having hormone treatment in Australia in what is one of the first such cases involving a child so young.
The girl has also been given permission to apply for a new birth certificate, passport and medical card in a boy's name.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1021747/Familys-fury-girl-12-allowed-sex-change-operation-fathers-wishes.html


As it is in your story and the one I have just posted above, it is again the judicial system that has failed...

That explains a lot. It is the Tax payer that is allowing Inbredford to continue with all those sex change operations.

 

[Liverpool]

Read this in the HUN yesterday, and its not as black and white as they tried to make it out from the front page (my reaction was initially disgust). Initially its just hormone therapies, designed to stop her developing. Later (off memory 15/16) they will look at the male hormone treatments. All of this is apparently very reversible. Only after 18 will she be able to get the sex change surgery.
Also a complication was that the girl has been threatening a level of self harm if she is not allowed to proceed that has her psychologist very concerned. I would normally take this with a grain of salt, but she has seen a number of professionals, and they seem to have a similar view.
Personally I hate issues like this, no clear "win-win".
Curious about the Dad though. As the main opponent to the procedure, I thought he would have been in person at the hearing (understand he could not afford a lawyer, but you can still rock up yourself).

Apparently, the cousin reckons the 12 year old has been brain-washed by her mother:

Sex-change 'brainwash'
Submit comment Annalise Walliker
May 26, 2008 12:00am
THE cousin of a 12-year-old Victorian girl who is undergoing a sex change claims the child's mother brainwashed her daughter.
The adult cousin, nephew of the girl's father, said the woman had wanted the girl to be born a boy so desperately that she groomed her from birth to want to be a boy.
The man, who cannot be named, lived with the family between 1999 and 2001 and said the girl had been brought up in a troubled home.
Her mother had developed post-natal depression and bought her boys' underwear and clothing, the student said.
"Her mother brainwashed her from a very young age," he alleged.
"The girl had very tomboyish tendencies and the mother fostered that and told her, 'I always wanted a boy and I'm glad you're acting like a boy'," the man said.
The cousin is appealing to the legal fraternity for free help to appeal, as the girl's father believes medical evidence presented to the Family Court in December was influenced by evidence from the girl's mother.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23757758-661,00.html

It seems that this 12 year old is in the middle of family problems as a whole....but I think the legal fraternity need to make a decision based on what they think is right, not just what the 12 year old THINKS she wants.
I doubt many 12 year olds have the maturity to make informed decisions and the repercussions of such decisions and it is disappointing that the judges again have wilted when forced to make a real decision.



I guess the other interesting case at the moment is the art-gallery showing photographs of kids in the nude.....where is the line between art and pedophilia drawn?

This is why we are seeing the following emerge:

"I think the use of photographs and billboards, and the way in which children are portrayed in so many different parts of our society these days, is wrong," she said.
"I certainly expect that as part of the discussion around our national child protection framework we get some clear indications of where national policy should go on this issue."
The Sunday Herald Sun yesterday reported that even nappy commercials showing semi-naked babies could encourage pedophiles.
"I saw that article . . . and I do think we have to be careful in the way that children are portrayed on television, on billboards," Ms Macklin said.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23756430-2862,00.html


My take on it is I don't care whether it is a billboard, a TV commercial, a piece of 'art', or a photo on some perverts computer......if it breaks what the law says, then the law has to act.
Having said that, what if it isn't a photo but a painting...and if you look at some of the great pieces of art throughout history, then many of them are portraits of naked or semi-naked kids, adolescents, and adults....should these be banned to?

It really comes down to what the law states and not what people's personal agendas are.

 

[Tiger74]

On the kid, this is why we need the experts to make this decision and not Today Tonight/ACA. Too much counter allegation, and you need people who can see below the rubbish to get the truth.

On the artist row at the moment, I actually agree. If it falls under the definition of porn, take it off the shelf. If the law is wrong, change the law, but at the end of the day, if the law is deemed a good one, the law is the law.