Racist 'Banter'

[hampshireman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/

Go down half way and there's a piece titled "Big Jock" about Jock Stein. I'm so offended at this clearly racist comment, and from the BBC too. You really must be so devastated at this blatant racism, so keep arguing the toss Fishy if it makes you feel all liberal and warm inside. I'd rather keep a sense of perspective than look for problems, but there you go....

Very good.

And the sense of perspective is what? Where are your boundaries?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/

Go down half way and there's a piece titled "Big Jock" about Jock Stein. I'm so offended at this clearly racist comment, and from the BBC too. You really must be so devastated at this blatant racism, so keep arguing the toss Fishy if it makes you feel all liberal and warm inside. I'd rather keep a sense of perspective than look for problems, but there you go....

Jock Stein was called Jock, not because he was Scottish but because his first name was John.

Jock is widely used as a nickname for John, and represents an everyman - literally a John or Jane Doe,

and that a BBC quote as well http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8094716.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mind you a lot of unintentional irony has crept into this thread since you started posting TMan.

[fishtank]

Go down half way and there's a piece titled "Big Jock" about Jock Stein.

He was big and his name was Jock.
If a piece about Jock Stein had been titled "Little Frank" it would have been slightly confusing to the reader..

[brothermagrew]

Employers have both a legal and moral responsibility to make clear that making racial slurs and insults is not part of the working environment and that such behaviour is unacceptable both to the recipients and the wider workforce. Such harassment in the workplace may constitute unlawful racial discrimination with serious consequences for both the person doing the harassing and his/her employer.

There is no hard and fast definition of racial harassment. It is a general term covering a wide range of unacceptable and often unlawful behaviour. But there are other, subtler forms of harassment that are equally distressing and that can create an intimidating and unpleasant atmosphere at work: racist ’jokes‘, banter, insults, taunts, gibes, literature and graffiti; shunning people because of their race, colour, nationality or ethnic background; excluding them from conversations; making racist insinuations; being condescending or deprecating about the way they dress or speak; picking on them unnecessarily; and so on.

• Racial harassment is unwanted conduct of a racial nature, or other conduct based on race affecting the dignity of women and men at work.

• There are no excuses for racial banter and abuse at work. There can be no degree of acceptability.

• All staff should receive training in what employers mean by unacceptable behaviour at work.

Employers have a duty to ensure that all staff, whatever their ethnic origin, can expect equal conditions of work in an environment that is free from humiliation and intimidation and in which their performance, career prospects and job satisfaction are not affected by racial
prejudice, discrimination and harassment.

Employers who ignore this duty have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Productivity levels will drop as good employees are unable to give their best to the organisation. Some employees will vote with their feet and take their skills elsewhere. Others will stand up for their rights and
make complaints, going as far as taking poor employers to industrial tribunals, with all the negative publicity this can bring.

[Tman]

He was big and his name was Jock.
If a piece about Jock Stein had been titled "Little Frank" it would have been slightly confusing to the reader..

Good enough, so as long as the nickname is physically accurate, it's OK? Are you sure about that?

Jock Stein was called Jock, not because he was Scottish but because his first name was John.

And of course, he'd still be called "Jock" had he been born in Abingdon or Aberdare, wouldn't he? Do you two even know the point you're attempting to make any more, or or will it be the usual ever-increasing obfuscation routine again..?

[hampshireman]

He was big and his name was Jock.
If a piece about Jock Stein had been titled "Little Frank" it would have been slightly confusing to the reader..

Good enough, so as long as the nickname is physically accurate, it's OK? Are you sure about that?

Jock Stein was called Jock, not because he was Scottish but because his first name was John.

And of course, he'd still be called "Jock" had he been born in Abingdon or Aberdare, wouldn't he? Do you two even know the point you're attempting to make any more, or or will it be the usual ever-increasing obfuscation routine again..?

Can you answer me?

[fishtank]

He was big and his name was Jock.
If a piece about Jock Stein had been titled "Little Frank" it would have been slightly confusing to the reader..

Good enough, so as long as the nickname is physically accurate, it's OK? Are you sure about that?

I'm interested although a little confused as to where you're going with this but do carry on.
Is Wee Willie Winkie next?
He was wee although i'm not sure if Willie Winkie was his name or a physically accurate description.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Jock Stein was called Jock, not because he was Scottish but because his first name was John.

And of course, he'd still be called "Jock" had he been born in Abingdon or Aberdare, wouldn't he? Do you two even know the point you're attempting to make any more, or or will it be the usual ever-increasing obfuscation routine again..?

You were quoting me but as you snipped the main point of my post you misrepresented what I posted, that is disingenuous, pathetic and argumentative, it was certainly not debating.

I used your BBC quote and mine to point out why he was called Jock and that in THAT instance it was not racist, nothing more or less than that.

So what's your point for being so antagonistic or have you as always dismissed my posts because you dislike me or my role so much.

To be honest because your posts are so dismissive of any views you don't agree with, and your debate style so turgid your posts are fast becoming irrelevant to any discussion which is why I haven't responded to any of your traps recently. The reason I broke my self imposed exclusion is this time I thought you were up for a discussion but I was wrong.

I do have one question why make it so personal, can't you debate without a put down. I would rather have a discussion with a EDL/BNP supporter than engage in a thread with you. Is it really debate or an exchange of views when I feel the need to self censor what I post because of the way you make twist it.

I think I know how you'll respond "what me, your are too......", if so, it'll just confirm all my preconceptions of you.

Actually I wish Postman would let me use 1 rule, I'll let you work out which one.

[Stella102]

this racist banter seems prominent in most offices. We had a similar issue recently however the one being racist was the manager.

[scoobydo79]

is john terry a postie now then

Well He aint a football player

[Tman]

You were quoting me but as you snipped the main point of my post you misrepresented what I posted, that is disingenuous, pathetic and argumentative, it was certainly not debating.

Still using the "you snipped me" ploy, I see?
I highlighted the part I was replying to; the ridiculous statement that he was called "Jock" only because his name was "John". Clearly cobblers, as it isn't a Welsh, Irish or English thing to do. Nothing misrepresented there.

I used your BBC quote and mine to point out why he was called Jock and that in THAT instance it was not racist, nothing more or less than that.

Other than it was continuing the point that one of Fishy's innocent and unknown listening bystanders may have had their delicate sensibilities compromised by hearing someone referred to in a way which highlighted their ethnicity? So which way should it be then?
No "racist" terms to be used at all, or a more measured and individual approach to this on-going problem?

So what's your point for being so antagonistic or have you as always dismissed my posts because you dislike me or my role so much.

And there's the other of your usual well-worn drums. Move on, eh?

To be honest because your posts are so dismissive of any views you don't agree with, and your debate style so turgid your posts are fast becoming irrelevant to any discussion which is why I haven't responded to any of your traps recently. The reason I broke my self imposed exclusion is this time I thought you were up for a discussion but I was wrong.
I think I know how you'll respond "what me, your are too......", if so, it'll just confirm all my preconceptions of you.

So then I can't point out that's actually you (in the above post of yours) who's personalised the thread? Confirmed, then.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Ah well I was hoping for a mature debate even though I did get angry. TMan with your style of Debate you ruin discussions, you wont change and I wont change. Perhaps we can both reflect on that, but then reflection is a tactic you use very well.

You were quoting me but as you snipped the main point of my post you misrepresented what I posted, that is disingenuous, pathetic and argumentative, it was certainly not debating.

Still using the "you snipped me" ploy, I see?

I highlighted the part I was replying to; the ridiculous statement that he was called "Jock" only because his name was "John". Clearly cobblers, as it isn't a Welsh, Irish or English thing to do. Nothing misrepresented there.

Yes I am using the snipped ploy because my statement on its own is ridiculous, with the whole quote it shows that he was called Jock because he was Scottish and called John, Jock being the Scottish version of John. If you snip anyones post you still have to apply the original context - you didn't and I therefore stand by the other part you and I quoted.

Back into obscurity and irrelevancy for both of us I think.