Funerals - Wait Times For Cremation
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Does Austin Mitchell Have A Point Here?
20 Answers
http://
Not about the Pfizer/AZ fiasco I mean this comment:
"There is a kind of aura of political correctness creeping over everything, and therefore anybody who uses colourful language is going to have to keep their mouth shut." - Not Often I agree with a Labour MP.
Not about the Pfizer/AZ fiasco I mean this comment:
"There is a kind of aura of political correctness creeping over everything, and therefore anybody who uses colourful language is going to have to keep their mouth shut." - Not Often I agree with a Labour MP.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not sure this is an example of political correctness, but it is certainly a particular interest group trying to claim a monopoly on a word which they are not entitled to.
The origin of 'rape' is the Latin 'rapere' /to seize, plunder, carry off by force/
The application of that to sexual violence might be its most common usage these days but it is also used to describe various forms despoiling or violation e.g the "rape of the countryside".
Mr Mitchell should tell them to go away and learn how to speak English properly.
The origin of 'rape' is the Latin 'rapere' /to seize, plunder, carry off by force/
The application of that to sexual violence might be its most common usage these days but it is also used to describe various forms despoiling or violation e.g the "rape of the countryside".
Mr Mitchell should tell them to go away and learn how to speak English properly.
I just lost a bet with myself. I was sure the Minister for Women, Nicky Morgan was going to be a LibDem. I was wrong, she is a Tory.
She obviously does not have enough to do if she takes offence at a perfectly acceptable use of the word.
It's just another reminder of the low calibre of the Coalition Cabinet. She is trivialising a very serious situation where an hostile takeover will be bad for British jobs, and bad for the British taxpayer.
She obviously does not have enough to do if she takes offence at a perfectly acceptable use of the word.
It's just another reminder of the low calibre of the Coalition Cabinet. She is trivialising a very serious situation where an hostile takeover will be bad for British jobs, and bad for the British taxpayer.
This illustrates perfectly why the public has such a low regard for politicians and why it is probably best that they have been granted an extra few days holiday because they had nothing to do. If this is the quality of their debates then the sooner the House of Commons is abolished and what little powers it has left transferred to Brussels the better.
There seems to be no end of people queuing up to take offence on behalf of others whether they are offended or not. I cannot imagine there are too many rape victims who are offended by Mr Mitchell's choice of words (which seem perfectly appropriate to me). I suspect they have other things on their mind (like, perhaps, why their assailant has not been apprehended, or if he was why he was not convicted, or if he was why he was given such a pathetically light sentence of which he will serve less than half inside). These are the things the "Minister for Women" would do better to address.
I notice that at PMQs Mr Milibean said "...there was nothing to stop UK drugs company AstraZeneca being "carved up"
Step forward those taking offence on behalf of the victims of knife crime.
On a wider note why are politicians continually being castigated for "Tweeting" their thoughts. As grown-ups (allegedly) would they not be better off if they refrained from farting about with childish toys?
There seems to be no end of people queuing up to take offence on behalf of others whether they are offended or not. I cannot imagine there are too many rape victims who are offended by Mr Mitchell's choice of words (which seem perfectly appropriate to me). I suspect they have other things on their mind (like, perhaps, why their assailant has not been apprehended, or if he was why he was not convicted, or if he was why he was given such a pathetically light sentence of which he will serve less than half inside). These are the things the "Minister for Women" would do better to address.
I notice that at PMQs Mr Milibean said "...there was nothing to stop UK drugs company AstraZeneca being "carved up"
Step forward those taking offence on behalf of the victims of knife crime.
On a wider note why are politicians continually being castigated for "Tweeting" their thoughts. As grown-ups (allegedly) would they not be better off if they refrained from farting about with childish toys?
Mr Mitchell is technically correct in his use of the term 'rape' in this context, but that does not automatically make his useage of the word appropriate.
As a very experienced politician, Mr Mitchell should long ago have learned to choose his words carefully in order not to have a valid point derailed by a pointless PC tirade and fallout.
So as a long-term student of politics and the methods of communication used by politician, Mr Mitchell should have anticipated that his use of an emotive word like 'rape' was more likely to receive a PC knee-jerk reaction, and gain him attention for entirely the wrong reasons.
Having thought in advance, he should have substituted his use of the word with another equally appropriate word in the context - 'pillage' would have served equally well.
So it's no use Mr Mitchell crying in his beer about being caught up in a PC media storm - the fault is entirely his for inappropriate use of language, based not on sematics, but on human nature - which a politician of his age and experience, should understand far better than he appears to have done here.
As a very experienced politician, Mr Mitchell should long ago have learned to choose his words carefully in order not to have a valid point derailed by a pointless PC tirade and fallout.
So as a long-term student of politics and the methods of communication used by politician, Mr Mitchell should have anticipated that his use of an emotive word like 'rape' was more likely to receive a PC knee-jerk reaction, and gain him attention for entirely the wrong reasons.
Having thought in advance, he should have substituted his use of the word with another equally appropriate word in the context - 'pillage' would have served equally well.
So it's no use Mr Mitchell crying in his beer about being caught up in a PC media storm - the fault is entirely his for inappropriate use of language, based not on sematics, but on human nature - which a politician of his age and experience, should understand far better than he appears to have done here.
New Judge - I take your point, but it precisely the overwrought reaction this use of the word has caused that makes it inappropriate.
Should Mr Mitchell be able to use the word 'rape' in this context, given that the word conveys what he means to say accurately? Of course he should.
But that is in an ideal word, and as Mr Mitchell should be well aware, the world is far from perfect. On that basis, he should have chosen his language with greater care and avoided the distraction storm that has resulted from his careless choice of words.
Mr Mitchell, like the rest of us, has to deal not with how he'd like people to react to the finer points of our fine language, but how they do react - and that is the lesson to be taken from this experience.
Should Mr Mitchell be able to use the word 'rape' in this context, given that the word conveys what he means to say accurately? Of course he should.
But that is in an ideal word, and as Mr Mitchell should be well aware, the world is far from perfect. On that basis, he should have chosen his language with greater care and avoided the distraction storm that has resulted from his careless choice of words.
Mr Mitchell, like the rest of us, has to deal not with how he'd like people to react to the finer points of our fine language, but how they do react - and that is the lesson to be taken from this experience.
andy
my point is that saying AM 'should be able' to use a particular word 'in an ideal world' but it might be wiser not to in certain circumstances
is the same as saying women should be able to wear what they like in an ideal world but it might be wiser not to in certain circumstance
it's pragmatic - but giving in to those who are in the wrong
my point is that saying AM 'should be able' to use a particular word 'in an ideal world' but it might be wiser not to in certain circumstances
is the same as saying women should be able to wear what they like in an ideal world but it might be wiser not to in certain circumstance
it's pragmatic - but giving in to those who are in the wrong
Youngmafbog - "Why should he avoid a legitimate use of a word to appease the right on pc brigade?"
He shouldn't - and whether the PC brigade are on the right or the left in this instance has no bearing on that.
The point I have made is that Mr Mitchell should absolutely be able to express himself using appropriate language for the point he is making - but ....
we do not live in that proverbial 'ideal world', and on the basis that using an inflammatory term runs the risk of misinterperetation - in some cases deliberately so, Mr Mitchell should have chosen his words more carefully un order to make sure his message was not diluted by some, and inded hi-jacked by others, so that it gets lost along the way as people pursue other avenues of debate.
To my mind, part of the art of the politician, and a very big part, is communication, and making sure that people listen to what you say, and don't waste valuable time getting off the point by arguing about how you say it.
He shouldn't - and whether the PC brigade are on the right or the left in this instance has no bearing on that.
The point I have made is that Mr Mitchell should absolutely be able to express himself using appropriate language for the point he is making - but ....
we do not live in that proverbial 'ideal world', and on the basis that using an inflammatory term runs the risk of misinterperetation - in some cases deliberately so, Mr Mitchell should have chosen his words more carefully un order to make sure his message was not diluted by some, and inded hi-jacked by others, so that it gets lost along the way as people pursue other avenues of debate.
To my mind, part of the art of the politician, and a very big part, is communication, and making sure that people listen to what you say, and don't waste valuable time getting off the point by arguing about how you say it.
Conservative MP Claire Perry said she had phoned Mr Mitchell and told him it was "fine to have political debate about Pfizer-AstraZeneca but never acceptable to use rape as a corporate analogy".
Political point scoring.
It would be interesting to know if Conservative MP Claire Perry got on the old dog and bone to talk to Solihull planning chief and Conservative Councillor Stuart Davis.
http://
Political point scoring.
It would be interesting to know if Conservative MP Claire Perry got on the old dog and bone to talk to Solihull planning chief and Conservative Councillor Stuart Davis.
http://
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.