'They' Is Irritating Me Immensely
ChatterBank0 min ago
We All Know That These Days One Must Be Most Careful What One Says, But Was There Any Need For Him To Apologise?
102 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
/Get real you lot, the language the man on the street would use is swamped, get used it/
ymb
are you suggesting that a government minister has no more responsibilities in what he says and does than 'the man on the street'?
Government by 'the man on the clapham omnibus'?
I think it's a good while since Michael Fallon caught a bus:
/Fallon, the son of surgeon Martin Fallon OBE, was educated at Craigflower School in Dunfermline and at Epsom College, an independent boys' school in Surrey. He then went up to the University of St Andrews, where he read Classics and Ancient History, graduating in 1974 with a Master of Arts (MA) degree./
ymb
are you suggesting that a government minister has no more responsibilities in what he says and does than 'the man on the street'?
Government by 'the man on the clapham omnibus'?
I think it's a good while since Michael Fallon caught a bus:
/Fallon, the son of surgeon Martin Fallon OBE, was educated at Craigflower School in Dunfermline and at Epsom College, an independent boys' school in Surrey. He then went up to the University of St Andrews, where he read Classics and Ancient History, graduating in 1974 with a Master of Arts (MA) degree./
To be swamped by something means to be inundated and overwhelmed by the volume of it. The metaphor being simply that ground will become a swamp when the volume of water put on it exceeds its ability to drain the water away.
Trying to build some kind of racist subtext into it is stupid, (but entirely predictable of course) - on a par with claiming we shouldn't say things like 'this is a black day for democracy' as it equates bad things happening with black people.
QM, defending the use of the phrase by Blunkett, but criticising it from a tory, with respect makes you look a bit daft. You should at least show some consistency.
Trying to build some kind of racist subtext into it is stupid, (but entirely predictable of course) - on a par with claiming we shouldn't say things like 'this is a black day for democracy' as it equates bad things happening with black people.
QM, defending the use of the phrase by Blunkett, but criticising it from a tory, with respect makes you look a bit daft. You should at least show some consistency.
///Half of the worlds wealth is owned by 1% of the population but immigration is the issue that has us frothing daily///
Yes, and the free movement of cheap labour adds to their wealth daily, and of course, further beggars the poor.
I never thought I'd see the loony left and the CBI so united in their support of something.
Yes, and the free movement of cheap labour adds to their wealth daily, and of course, further beggars the poor.
I never thought I'd see the loony left and the CBI so united in their support of something.
-- answer removed --
Ludwig, I said in my earlier response to Jackthehat, “It is certainly possible for immigrant children to 'swamp' a SCHOOL…however, that is a very different matter from claiming that towns are being swamped.”
And here’s a lift from the article JTH linked to, “Downing Street has given its full support to David Blunkett despite his refusal to apologise for saying asylum seekers were "swamping" some British SCHOOLS. Mr Blunkett stressed he was not talking about Britain being swamped by immigrants. He said he was referring to the extra work that could be created by asylum seekers for particular SCHOOLS or doctors.
I imagine that there may very well be primary SCHOOLS in North Portsmouth which are swamped by ‘Navy’ children, just as there may well be similar establishments in Grimsby which are swamped by ‘fish-trade’ children.
However ‘daft’ you may think me to be, I firmly believe – since it is utterly obvious – that there is a vast difference between a SCHOOL and a town! Consequently, there was no inconsistency at all in my response, since Fallon and Blunkett were talking about totally different things. Perhaps a consideration of the oft-quoted apples/pears contrast will help.
And here’s a lift from the article JTH linked to, “Downing Street has given its full support to David Blunkett despite his refusal to apologise for saying asylum seekers were "swamping" some British SCHOOLS. Mr Blunkett stressed he was not talking about Britain being swamped by immigrants. He said he was referring to the extra work that could be created by asylum seekers for particular SCHOOLS or doctors.
I imagine that there may very well be primary SCHOOLS in North Portsmouth which are swamped by ‘Navy’ children, just as there may well be similar establishments in Grimsby which are swamped by ‘fish-trade’ children.
However ‘daft’ you may think me to be, I firmly believe – since it is utterly obvious – that there is a vast difference between a SCHOOL and a town! Consequently, there was no inconsistency at all in my response, since Fallon and Blunkett were talking about totally different things. Perhaps a consideration of the oft-quoted apples/pears contrast will help.
QM, I'd simply repeat what I said before, as nothing you've said changes it.
// ..defending the use of the phrase by Blunkett, but criticising it from a tory, with respect makes you look a bit daft. You should at least show some consistency. //
You're just spinning again for your home team and against the opposition. There's nothing wrong with a bit of objectivity once in a while - it won't make you a traitor to the cause. Blunkett had nothing to apologise for and neither does this bloke in my opinion.
// ..defending the use of the phrase by Blunkett, but criticising it from a tory, with respect makes you look a bit daft. You should at least show some consistency. //
You're just spinning again for your home team and against the opposition. There's nothing wrong with a bit of objectivity once in a while - it won't make you a traitor to the cause. Blunkett had nothing to apologise for and neither does this bloke in my opinion.
All I can say in response, L, is that your failure to differentiate between a school and a town again merely repeats your earlier error. Sorry, but there it is.
Every now and then we read of a teenager - whose parents are away - arranging a party at the family home. He/she lets friends know but - because of the way social media work now - the information becomes much more widely spread. On the night, the house is invaded by loads of uninvited guests who trash the place!
This is a good illustration of 'swamping', since 50 drunk youths simply overwhelm the 5 'nice' kids who were supposed to be there. You see, just as with schools, it's a matter of quantity...in a house, 50/5 is a swamping.
As far as I've been able to get anyone on AB to illustrate this kind of proportion as regards British towns, the best I've managed to hear of is TWO towns/boroughs and these were simple non-native majorities...say 7/5...rather than swampings, as illustrated by the party-story above.
Whether you like it or not, schools and towns just ain't the same thing, which they would have to be if your conflation of Fallon and Blunkett were valid!
But it seems we have reached our perennial stalemate, so I'll leave it there. Cheers
Every now and then we read of a teenager - whose parents are away - arranging a party at the family home. He/she lets friends know but - because of the way social media work now - the information becomes much more widely spread. On the night, the house is invaded by loads of uninvited guests who trash the place!
This is a good illustration of 'swamping', since 50 drunk youths simply overwhelm the 5 'nice' kids who were supposed to be there. You see, just as with schools, it's a matter of quantity...in a house, 50/5 is a swamping.
As far as I've been able to get anyone on AB to illustrate this kind of proportion as regards British towns, the best I've managed to hear of is TWO towns/boroughs and these were simple non-native majorities...say 7/5...rather than swampings, as illustrated by the party-story above.
Whether you like it or not, schools and towns just ain't the same thing, which they would have to be if your conflation of Fallon and Blunkett were valid!
But it seems we have reached our perennial stalemate, so I'll leave it there. Cheers
Keep on spinning mate. You're focusing on the difference between the relative sizes and swampage capacities of towns and schools as a way of avoiding the real issue under discussion, which is whether the word 'swamping' has derogatory overtones or not, and therefore whether it warrants an apology on that basis.
If it was derogatory when a tory used it, it was derogatory when Blunkett used it, or it was not derogatory in either case. Neither of those fit with your 'Tories can do no right, Labour can do no wrong' worldview though, so you've concocted some flimsy 3rd option that does.
If it was derogatory when a tory used it, it was derogatory when Blunkett used it, or it was not derogatory in either case. Neither of those fit with your 'Tories can do no right, Labour can do no wrong' worldview though, so you've concocted some flimsy 3rd option that does.
I really have to respond to this, because you are being silly now.
It is obviously perfectly possible for a British SCHOOL to be 'swamped' by a particular sort of pupil. There is evidence of it in a variety of places...eg inner-city areas where immigrants have tended to congregate and natives have tended to move elsewhere.
What your case lacks is any shred of evidence that - anywhere in Britain - there is a single TOWN where the immigrant population has not only risen to over 50% but gone on to reach 'swamping' levels...ie to the extent that the natives have been 'overwhelmed', which is what swamped means. The reason you have no evidence is the absurdly simple fact that no such evidence exists.
Accordingly, Blunkett was right to draw attention to what was an evident truth, whereas Fallon was simply scare-mongering in an attempt to out-UKIP UKIP in the hope of saving Rochester presumably.
A notable point, according to JTH's link, is the fact that a Labour Downing Street supported Blunkett whilst a Tory Downing Street ordered their man to withdraw what he'd said. Even THEY knew he had overstepped the mark.
So, here's the key question for you...
Can you name any town in Britain where the immigrant population is very considerably greater than the native one?
A one-word answer will obviously suffice.
It is obviously perfectly possible for a British SCHOOL to be 'swamped' by a particular sort of pupil. There is evidence of it in a variety of places...eg inner-city areas where immigrants have tended to congregate and natives have tended to move elsewhere.
What your case lacks is any shred of evidence that - anywhere in Britain - there is a single TOWN where the immigrant population has not only risen to over 50% but gone on to reach 'swamping' levels...ie to the extent that the natives have been 'overwhelmed', which is what swamped means. The reason you have no evidence is the absurdly simple fact that no such evidence exists.
Accordingly, Blunkett was right to draw attention to what was an evident truth, whereas Fallon was simply scare-mongering in an attempt to out-UKIP UKIP in the hope of saving Rochester presumably.
A notable point, according to JTH's link, is the fact that a Labour Downing Street supported Blunkett whilst a Tory Downing Street ordered their man to withdraw what he'd said. Even THEY knew he had overstepped the mark.
So, here's the key question for you...
Can you name any town in Britain where the immigrant population is very considerably greater than the native one?
A one-word answer will obviously suffice.
I repeat..
// You're focusing on the difference between the relative sizes and swampage capacities of towns and schools as a way of avoiding the real issue under discussion , which is whether the word 'swamping' has derogatory overtones or not, and therefore whether it warrants an apology on that basis. //
..anyway, I agree we've arrived at stalemate having both now repeated the same move 3 times. I think that's how it works.
// You're focusing on the difference between the relative sizes and swampage capacities of towns and schools as a way of avoiding the real issue under discussion , which is whether the word 'swamping' has derogatory overtones or not, and therefore whether it warrants an apology on that basis. //
..anyway, I agree we've arrived at stalemate having both now repeated the same move 3 times. I think that's how it works.
If independent arbitration is helpful gentlemen...
I appear to be the only one 'oversensitive' enough to think it inappropriate to apply the term 'swamping' to people; their numbers may be overwhelming but drawing the analogy with dirty, smelly water seems unnecesarily derogatory to me.
Therefore, comparing children with dirty smelly water in the context of a school is no different (no better, no worse) to comparing immigrants with dirty, smelly water in the context of a town.
Both derogatory. Blunkett and Fallon equally careless in their language.
Arbitration rules in favour of Ludwig :-)
I appear to be the only one 'oversensitive' enough to think it inappropriate to apply the term 'swamping' to people; their numbers may be overwhelming but drawing the analogy with dirty, smelly water seems unnecesarily derogatory to me.
Therefore, comparing children with dirty smelly water in the context of a school is no different (no better, no worse) to comparing immigrants with dirty, smelly water in the context of a town.
Both derogatory. Blunkett and Fallon equally careless in their language.
Arbitration rules in favour of Ludwig :-)
Zeuhl, I'm not at all sure where you get the idea that swamping in this context has anything at all to do with "dirty smelly water". Certainly, the NOUN swamp may have such connotations, given the stagnant, muddy nature of swamps. However, the VERB swamp means to cause a boat to fill with water, to inundate or - nowadays - be overwhelmed. (The whelm part comes from Middle English meaning overturn or submerge.)
My use of the verb swamping had nothing whatsoever to do with comparing schoolchildren and mucky water, but only to do with English lexical reality as indicated above. (I have pointed out on AB many a time that I hold a Master's degree in English awarded over half a century ago.) Consequently, I do think you are being 'oversensitive' at best and simply 'wrong' at worst. Your arbitration - or rather arbitrary decision - is not accepted, I'm afraid.
My use of the verb swamping had nothing whatsoever to do with comparing schoolchildren and mucky water, but only to do with English lexical reality as indicated above. (I have pointed out on AB many a time that I hold a Master's degree in English awarded over half a century ago.) Consequently, I do think you are being 'oversensitive' at best and simply 'wrong' at worst. Your arbitration - or rather arbitrary decision - is not accepted, I'm afraid.
Latest Posts
Other Sports1 min ago
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Football7 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
News20 mins ago
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.