Any relation to Tim?
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
You mean like the thousands upon thousands of Catholic Priests who have been convicted?
If they’ve been convicted that’s a bad example of the police turning a blind eye, surely?
But yeah, if priests are less likely than their non-priest peers to be investigated/prosecuted for CSA then that’s also a problem but not really relevant to what’s being discussed here.
It's more that the few that have been convicted is a good example of the police turning a blind eye.
Every church conviction has been seen as individual, whereas the Rotherham gang have been seen as a gang. None of the higher ups in the church have been convicted of facilitating child grooming and child abuse.
If you include the hiding of details, moving priests to different parishes, and the police turning a blind eye to priest child abuse, you could say the Catholic Church is is magnitudes larger as a child grooming gang.
The BBC is facing more complaints, with Tim Westwood, that they've turned a bling eye to child abuse on, after Saville et al. They aren't being told that they facilitated child grooming.
Away from that, I used to work as a bouncer and I've been pressured by management to not ID girls if the club isn't full. How these guys aren't being prosecuted for child grooming, I don't know, they are fully aware that under 18s, under 16s go into their clubs, are plied with drink, and then taken advantage of.
Its more likely that child abuse, like rape in general, is just not prosecuted enough. Especially when it involves vulnerable people, like those in care for example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-62552706
Crown Paints: Hannah & Dave ad prompts dozens of complaints
The advertising watchdog has received dozens of complaints about a paint advert which a comedian called "massively offensive".
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) said it was considering investigating Crown Paints' "Hannah & Dave" advert.
Comic Jenny Eclair said it must be taken off air over its implication that a woman "conned a man into fatherhood".
Crown Paints: Hannah & Dave ad prompts dozens of complaints
The advertising watchdog has received dozens of complaints about a paint advert which a comedian called "massively offensive".
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) said it was considering investigating Crown Paints' "Hannah & Dave" advert.
Comic Jenny Eclair said it must be taken off air over its implication that a woman "conned a man into fatherhood".
This is a good example of it going to far for me. It's a fecking joke, relax.
Yeah I don’t get that. Nor do I get how it’s apparently misogynistic, if anything it’s making more of a mug out of the bloke.
2 gems this morning
The first one is a classic of the genre.Can someone explain the second one to me? Is this because it’s hard to get plus sized clothes second hand, so fat folk have no choice but to buy new clothes (which is worse for the environment)? Which seems reasonable, I guess? Although no reason for people who aren’t fat to not do better.
And isn’t ethical fashion also about getting more use out of the clothes you already own?
Regarding clothes for the portly, I’d imagine it’s hard to get anything at the extreme end of the scale - like someone with size 16 feet is going to struggle getting shoes. They probably have to order them in. But that’s just the way it goes, same as if you’re 6 foot 7, 5 foot 1 or just massively over weight.
You’d think at the point where you can’t reliably find clothes that fit, you’d have a look at yourself rather than the companies making the clothes.
You’d think at the point where you can’t reliably find clothes that fit, you’d have a look at yourself rather than the companies making the clothes.
Would certainly be a more efficient use of her time to just list the authors she deems acceptable instead.
congrats on being fatphobic and generalizing about fat people.
Meh. I’ll live.
Considering the average size of an American or Britton, it's only smart business to carry larger sizes than XL or even XXL. Businesses are there to serve a market, though obviously not everyone is going for the same segment, not all clothing businesses need to make sizes for all people.
why even be fatphobic?
Original tweet now deleted. So this discussion is not going to make much sense…
Is what I said even fatphobic? I didn’t say anything hateful. I mean, clothes usually go up to what, XXXL? And then you’re looking at special orders? If you still can’t fit into those then surely it’s not on the manufacturer to accommodate you. Be whatever size you like, just don’t moan if they don’t make Levi’s in a 72 waist.
yeah, this is fatphobic. the issue isn't just that they don't make clothes in different sizes. but they also charge a shitload when they do have large-size clothing available.
I guess I’m fatphobic then. I don’t think what I posted is an unreasonable opinion to have.
Edit: as for the bit you added, why wouldn’t they? It’s a specialist item, and there’s more of it. If you go into a chippy and order large chips, it costs more than if you ordered small.
Last edited:
it's just the nature of the clothing industry and fast fashion. they heavily cater to slim body sizes and make it ridiculously hard to find clothing for fat people. if they had it their way they wouldn't even manufacture clothing for fat people.
Did you read the tweet that started this discussion? It implied that being fat makes it harder to shop ethically (I think? Was hard to interpret). Surely the most ethical way of dressing at all is to skip fast fashion altogether?
Pretty much how I see it. I get it, it sucks if you can’t find anything in your size. But if your size is so big even XXXL stuff doesn’t fit you then I don’t think the problem is the manufacturer.
she's likely a bot designed to post shit like this and have it amplified to generate engagement among the outraged types.
if reasonably priced clothing is made widely available for fat people, then yes.
you also said this
which is what I was reacting to.
I mean I'm happy with the idea of judging people on their words and actions and making an active decision not to buy their books or whatever because I don't want to reward them financially. I'm also happy acknowledging when a piece of 'art' I've engaged with espouses sexism/racism or whatever and incorporating that into my overall view of it, as opposed to ignoring it for the sake of ease. I don't see any issue with content warnings and all that stuff, sometimes it's a bit precious but it's not really hurting anyone.
I think that's very different to say, refusing to engage with Shakespeare, or telling others not to, because his plays contain themes which don't line up with 21st century morality. I'd say that's pointless and counterproductive. One of the most fascinating things about reading Shakespeare for me as someone interested in history is what it says about the society it was written for and how it influenced later thought.
I think that's very different to say, refusing to engage with Shakespeare, or telling others not to, because his plays contain themes which don't line up with 21st century morality. I'd say that's pointless and counterproductive. One of the most fascinating things about reading Shakespeare for me as someone interested in history is what it says about the society it was written for and how it influenced later thought.
That applies to any novel not written in the present day, right? You don’t have to go back that far to learn about the society a novel was written for.
Yeah well you would, surely? Nobody who is so big that they can’t clothe themselves believes that they’re in tip top shape. They’re just shifting the issue onto someone else.
Yeah I just went to Shakespeare because I saw it on the list in the tweet and it seemed an obvious example. To be clear though, I'm not saying the only valid reason for reading or watching Shakespeare is to study how it reflects on attitudes of the time. I was just giving an example of what I think I'd have lost if I'd avoided it altogether on political grounds. For someone else it might be an understanding of love or something.
Not exactly Shakespeare, but the five or so Agatha Christie novels I've read primarily for nostalgic reasons, have provided a stark reminder of social attitudes of the 1930s and it is fascinating. Anyone lower class or 'swarthy foreigners' immediately jump to the top of the suspects list, women are generally seen as flighty and frivolous, and maids etc...are considered automatons, mere extras defined by their uniform, not personality.
I see that Sky have now changed their “Man of the Match” award to “Person of the Match” 
Is this after the Souness thing?
Is this after the Souness thing?
I see that Sky have now changed their “Man of the Match” award to “Person of the Match”
Is this after the Souness thing?
I think it was change a while ago. It's been done in a most sports which have a women's game. Cricket did it back in 2018 or something. There's one name for the award across the men's and women's games.
Ridiculous, they're not people, they're MEN.I see that Sky have now changed their “Man of the Match” award to “Person of the Match”
Is this after the Souness thing?
Person will be ok for a while.
Then someone will moan that they don't identify as a person, so it's discriminatory.
Then someone will moan that they don't identify as a person, so it's discriminatory.
I've heard the Manchester Evening News is having to change their name because of the acronym MEN too.
It's it not player of the match? I didn't notice that's what they'd written in their post. I agree person sounds crap, it's usually called player of the match.
It is player of the match.