US Ambassador killed in Libya
Brits, Yanks, Ozzies, Pohms, Frogs, Paki's, Gyppo's, all used commonly in ordinary conversation......it is the context that determines whether it is offensive. Usually if it is said "about" someone....and not in an offensive tone "to" someone....no harm done. No harm....no foul.
You Huggy Fluffs look for insult and victim status for others way too much.
You Huggy Fluffs look for insult and victim status for others way too much.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
From the fluffy huggy one
There is no doubt that, as the examiner already argued and as further sources prove, the term ‘PAKI', in the English language, is a pejorative, offensive designation of a Pakistani, or generally speaking, a person from the Indian subcontinent, who lives in the United Kingdom (see, inter alia , Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 2001, The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary , Volume 2, 1993). The word ‘PAKI' is a prevalent and known term in England and Ireland.
When assessing whether a term is racist or offensive, it is irrelevant whether it is used with the intention of offending, harming or discriminating against another person or group of persons. Rather, it is decisive how the person or group of persons concerned and third parties could understand the term. Consequently, contrary to the view of the applicant, even a use of the term ‘PAKI', which is not intended to vilify people of Pakistani origin, can have an offensive effect.
When assessing whether a term is racist or offensive, it is irrelevant whether it is used with the intention of offending, harming or discriminating against another person or group of persons. Rather, it is decisive how the person or group of persons concerned and third parties could understand the term. Consequently, contrary to the view of the applicant, even a use of the term ‘PAKI', which is not intended to vilify people of Pakistani origin, can have an offensive effect.
From the fluffy huggy one
Is there a shift towards Political Correctness in the UK? Can one be taken to Court over charges of language considered merely insulting but yet convey no threat of physical harm, assault, or battery?
If so....is that law applied equally, fairly, and with consistency to all UK citizens or is there bias within the administration of that law?
Does the EU now see mere speech being a criminal offense?
If so.....the Huggy Fluffs are going to be the end of a good thing....called Freedom.
Quoting from your link.....
No more use of the words...."Yank", "Spam", "Septic", "Redneck", "Colonial", or "Cousins"....please. I am mightily offended by such terms when applied to Americans in general....and me in particular.
So....you willing to comply with the finding of the Appeals Board? You willing to clearly challenge any further use of those terms here at the Military Aircrew Forum?
Just using your logic, basis, and statement on this.....now that I am enlightened and informed about the EU/UK strictures on such language.
Do I understand your position correctly?
If so....is that law applied equally, fairly, and with consistency to all UK citizens or is there bias within the administration of that law?
Does the EU now see mere speech being a criminal offense?
If so.....the Huggy Fluffs are going to be the end of a good thing....called Freedom.
Quoting from your link.....
When assessing whether a term is racist or offensive, it is irrelevant whether it is used with the intention of offending, harming or discriminating against another person or group of persons. Rather, it is decisive how the person or group of persons concerned and third parties could understand the term. Consequently, contrary to the view of the applicant, even a use of the term ‘PAKI', which is not intended to vilify people of Pakistani origin, can have an offensive effect.
No more use of the words...."Yank", "Spam", "Septic", "Redneck", "Colonial", or "Cousins"....please. I am mightily offended by such terms when applied to Americans in general....and me in particular.
So....you willing to comply with the finding of the Appeals Board? You willing to clearly challenge any further use of those terms here at the Military Aircrew Forum?
Just using your logic, basis, and statement on this.....now that I am enlightened and informed about the EU/UK strictures on such language.
Do I understand your position correctly?
Last edited by SASless; 24th Sep 2012 at 16:26.
Pakistan distances itself from anti-Islam film maker bounty minister - Telegraph
To go back slightly, the Pakistan government has distanced itself from the minister responsible. At present Pakistan has still not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This may change in the future which would have severe financial penalties for Pakistan. I would imagine though that the consequences for ISAF could be even more severe should Pakistan, a nuclear power and important ally in this region, take umbrage at such a move. Despite some people wishing to take the bull by the horns, the actual reality is that we can ill afford, at this time, to take such a move when we will need Pakistan and its support over the next 2-3 years. After this who know what will happen.
To go back slightly, the Pakistan government has distanced itself from the minister responsible. At present Pakistan has still not been designated a state sponsor of terrorism. This may change in the future which would have severe financial penalties for Pakistan. I would imagine though that the consequences for ISAF could be even more severe should Pakistan, a nuclear power and important ally in this region, take umbrage at such a move. Despite some people wishing to take the bull by the horns, the actual reality is that we can ill afford, at this time, to take such a move when we will need Pakistan and its support over the next 2-3 years. After this who know what will happen.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
I dont think i have used any of those words to describe an American. If I had and in turn offended anyone I would apologise. You may not like the law of a foreign country, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists.
I dont think i have used any of those words to describe an American. If I had and in turn offended anyone I would apologise. You may not like the law of a foreign country, but it doesn't change the fact that it exists.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SASLESS
Is there a shift towards Political Correctness in the UK? Can one be taken to
Court over charges of language considered merely insulting but yet convey no
threat of physical harm, assault, or battery?
If so....is that law
applied equally, fairly, and with consistency to all UK citizens or is there
bias within the administration of that law?
Does the EU now see mere
speech being a criminal offense?
If so.....the Huggy Fluffs are going to
be the end of a good thing....called Freedom.
Quoting from your
link.....
Quote:
When assessing
whether a term is racist or offensive, it is irrelevant whether it is used with
the intention of offending, harming or discriminating against another person or
group of persons. Rather, it is decisive how the person or group of persons
concerned and third parties could understand the term. Consequently, contrary to
the view of the applicant, even a use of the term ‘PAKI', which is not intended
to vilify people of Pakistani origin, can have an offensive
effect.
No more use of the words...."Yank", "Spam", "Septic", "Redneck",
"Colonial", or "Cousins"....please. I am mightily offended by such terms when
applied to Americans in general....and me in particular.
So....you
willing to comply with the finding of the Appeals Board? You willing to clearly
challenge any further use of those terms here at the Military Aircrew
Forum?
Just using your logic, basis, and statement on this.....now that
I am enlightened and informed about the EU/UK strictures on such
language.
Do I understand your position correctly?
and we have allowed the lunatics to rule the asylum.. How dare ANYONE have a sense of humour I am quite a tall person and if I were to walk into a shop I would see children tug at the arms of their parents and you can here them shouting, 'Look, look at that giant!'
If they were to do the same thing but point at someone of a different colour and perhaps describe their colour then that child can be called a racsist??
To better describe this.. If I played rugby and perhaps accidentally hurt someone and they called me a long streak of gnats urine then no harm done as they are describing me by my height.
If I were a coloured person and they called me a black piece of urine, then they would DEFINITELY get arrested if ANYONE complained.. Is there any difference? They are describing the offender but instead of height, they use colour to make that identity. Our country has gone to the dogs and hopefully I am not being disrespectful to any dogs. There is NO place for rasicsm but we appear to have NO idea what racism is??
I do know that black folk can insult each other by using the 'n' word but woe betide a white person that dares to simply use the same words.
Going back to perhaps being more on topic.. I have no idea really what a 'radical' muslim is but if it is someone that has very strict muslim beliefs then the Taliban might be all considered to fit within that definition and if so, am I correct to suggest the US is negotiating with these folks regarding our withdrawal from Afghanistan?
Do you think this will be another Vietnam?
I think you are wrong to label the demonstraters in the way you have but to me the demonstraters loose ALL credibility when they burn a National flag or an effigy of a Western leader but that is me a Western person applying my standards of acceptability which bear no relationship to folks from a different continent. We cannot compare.....
When in Singapore I once told off an old lady who blew her nose...the contents just missing my feet. I suggested she might in future consider using a handerkerchief, by crikey did I get a telling off. We Western folks have disgusting habits, do you know we blow our noses into a piece of cloth, wrap up the contents and stuff them in our pockets??
Not the same as MURDERING anyone but we do have to understand different cultures and possibly their values. Incidentally straight after that killing happened the Taliban stated it was in connection with something completely different from this film.
The law does not apply to those of us who live outside the UK and the EU now does it? You cannot extradite us for using the word "Paki" can you?
As those who have had to suffer the nonsense of 'Equal Opportunities' training will know, 'harassment' is as seen by the recipient of the alleged insult....
A while ago, there was much angst about how 'other than white' folk in the US should be described. 'Negroid' was probably offensive, but was 'black' OK? Or 'red' for 'native Americans'? Not that 'red' and 'redneck' were the same thing. Or was 'Hispanic' more correct than 'Latino'. What about 'Americans of colo(u)r'?
Until someone said "Why don't you just say 'Americans'?"
I think it was the last UK census which revealed that a fair number of people had answered the 'ethnic origin' question.....as 'klingon'!
A while ago, there was much angst about how 'other than white' folk in the US should be described. 'Negroid' was probably offensive, but was 'black' OK? Or 'red' for 'native Americans'? Not that 'red' and 'redneck' were the same thing. Or was 'Hispanic' more correct than 'Latino'. What about 'Americans of colo(u)r'?
Until someone said "Why don't you just say 'Americans'?"
I think it was the last UK census which revealed that a fair number of people had answered the 'ethnic origin' question.....as 'klingon'!
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Sep 2012 at 21:31.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think it was the last UK census which revealed that a fair number of people had answered the 'ethnic origin' question.....as 'klingon'!"
In Australia I thought it was "Jedi"
In Australia I thought it was "Jedi"
I'm sure that 'Jedi' was stated as a religion on the GB census - making it possibly the UK's fifth or sixth largest. And why not, it makes just about as much sense as the rest of the superstitious twaddle.
And as for the colour nonsense - well, as I've often observed in the past when someone gets on their colour high-horse "that's the pot calling the kettle Afro-American!"
And as for the colour nonsense - well, as I've often observed in the past when someone gets on their colour high-horse "that's the pot calling the kettle Afro-American!"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"but Abo is a bit fraught no???"
I wouldn't use "Abo", especially in front of them.
You should here what they call each other and whites !
They are very racist when describing others, especially when
it comes to Full blood versus anything but full blood ie half castes.
And White / Whitey I have heard a few times but "White fella"
is common.
I wouldn't use "Abo", especially in front of them.
You should here what they call each other and whites !
They are very racist when describing others, especially when
it comes to Full blood versus anything but full blood ie half castes.
And White / Whitey I have heard a few times but "White fella"
is common.
It was very problematic for the PC police at work when a pilot from Jamaica objected to being called African American. Never dawned on him someone might still be black.
The Daily Beast first reported that the intelligence behind the initial public assessment that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islam film was based in part on a single intercept between one of the attackers and a middle manager in al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the group’s North African affiliate. In the call, the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But that intercept was one of many that suggested an al Qaeda link to the attack, none of which were mentioned in the initial eight days.
In addition to the intercept, the Central Intelligence Agency based its first assessment on open press reports and statements from Libyan politicians with jihadist sympathies. A U.S. intelligence official said there was also information from one of the Libyan nationals saying there was a protest that evening.
Analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known databases of jihadists.
At the same time, there was evidence that countered this assessment. An initial investigation by congressional Republicans alleged that the families of local Libyans serving for a contractor to provide security at the consulate were urged in the days before the attack to have the guards not show up to work on Sept. 11. U.S. intelligence officers also knew of four suspects within 24 hours of the attack that had links to Ansar al-Sharia, a local jihadist organization with some ties to al Qaeda’s regional affiliate for north Africa.
The video footage also supports the accounts of four diplomatic-security officers who were at the Benghazi compound and who initially responded to the attack. On Sept. 17, these officers told State Department investigators in formal briefings that there was no spontaneous protest the night of the attack, U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast. This information was what led the State Department to conclude there was no protest at the consulate on the day of the attacks, according to these officials.
Nonetheless, White House spokesman Jay Carney continued to say until Sept. 20 that the Benghazi assault resulted from a protest over the Internet film.
In addition to the intercept, the Central Intelligence Agency based its first assessment on open press reports and statements from Libyan politicians with jihadist sympathies. A U.S. intelligence official said there was also information from one of the Libyan nationals saying there was a protest that evening.
Analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known databases of jihadists.
At the same time, there was evidence that countered this assessment. An initial investigation by congressional Republicans alleged that the families of local Libyans serving for a contractor to provide security at the consulate were urged in the days before the attack to have the guards not show up to work on Sept. 11. U.S. intelligence officers also knew of four suspects within 24 hours of the attack that had links to Ansar al-Sharia, a local jihadist organization with some ties to al Qaeda’s regional affiliate for north Africa.
The video footage also supports the accounts of four diplomatic-security officers who were at the Benghazi compound and who initially responded to the attack. On Sept. 17, these officers told State Department investigators in formal briefings that there was no spontaneous protest the night of the attack, U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast. This information was what led the State Department to conclude there was no protest at the consulate on the day of the attacks, according to these officials.
Nonetheless, White House spokesman Jay Carney continued to say until Sept. 20 that the Benghazi assault resulted from a protest over the Internet film.
VP Biden added fuel to the fire about a "Botched Cover Up" by the Obama Administration during last nights VP Debate. Testimony before Congress directly contradicts the public position being taken by Obama, Clinton, Carney, and Rice.
Video comparisons of statements denying such public comments to video made of earlier statements have shown direct contradictions.
This Cover Up will be a major issue in the remaining weeks before the November 6th Election.
Obama's Foreign Policy is in shambles....Americans have been killed....and the Administration and Campaign are lying about it.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The U.S. State Department has released on its website a transcript of a background briefing on Libya that two high-ranking department officials gave to a number of reporters via conference call on October 9 (Tuesday). It is the most detailed description I have seen of the events in Benghazi on September 11.
The transcript leaves no doubt that Hillary Clinton and the State Department unequivocally reject the account that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have given. It is hard to imagine what “intelligence” reports Obama could have received that blamed the YouTube video.
Bob C
The transcript leaves no doubt that Hillary Clinton and the State Department unequivocally reject the account that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have given. It is hard to imagine what “intelligence” reports Obama could have received that blamed the YouTube video.
Bob C
But did not Hillary herself run out the Video as being the cause....or am I imagining that?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The transcript is at:
Background Briefing on Libya
Very detailed account of what happened in the Benghazi Consulate and worth a read. It certainly shows that there was no demonstration, it was a planned attack.
Bob C
Background Briefing on Libya
Very detailed account of what happened in the Benghazi Consulate and worth a read. It certainly shows that there was no demonstration, it was a planned attack.
Bob C
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No more use of the words...."Yank", "Spam", "Septic", "Redneck", "Colonial", or "Cousins"....please. I am mightily offended by such terms when applied to Americans in general....and me in particular.
