# Politically Correct Madness



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

UTTER PISH.

I shouldn't give this lot publicity, but they really have to be stopped. 

http://www.reflag.co.uk


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

There are some fucking idiots out there.

The Union Jack is not a reflection of skin colour in this country ??? How many fucking blue people do we know?

Tossers the lot of them


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)




----------



## moley (May 14, 2002)

>


Ditto

Moley


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

What a load of bollox


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

Absolute utter madness 

Don't these people have anything better to do?


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

where on earth did you find that

tossers - bet their screwed for ideas for the welsh flag


----------



## kingcutter (Aug 1, 2003)

political bollocks more like.
bunch of twat faced wankers,mind you i have never seen a person wanking with a face like a twat. ;D 
maybe they would look like gazz or jan


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Another bunch of sap-draining inadequate PC prats with nothing better to do than to expect the country to Â jerk them off about the silly chip on their shoulders.

Right on. Â Crush the oppressers. etc. Yawn.

I wonder if any of them, in there narrow minds, have considered the 100s of thousands who fought and died in 2 world wars (proper fucking Wars BTW) for that flag?

It certainly wasn't so that the various ethnic groups invited into this country could start oppressing the majorities and force their notions of political correctness down the benign masses' throats...


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

> Another bunch of sap-draining inadequate PC prats with nothing better to do than to expect the country to Â jerk them off about the silly chip on their shoulders.
> 
> Right on. Â Crush the oppressers. etc. Yawn.
> 
> ...


Well said!!


----------



## andy761 (Jul 27, 2003)

was going to write a reply but i think you lot just about covered my opinions! : ;D keep it up fellas


----------



## SaulTTR (Apr 30, 2003)

What a load of bollocks, some poeple haven't got a fucking clue. FUCKOFF


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

** _looks at sight, shakes head and makes sure it is not in favourites_ **


----------



## neil_h (May 8, 2002)

why do people start political correctness threads.... Â what is it about PC that gets to you so much? Â Why not start racist / sexist (add your preferred ..ist here) madness threads and post intelligent comments about that problem, with suitable links?

Racists countrywide don't chant "there ain't no black in the Union Jack" because it is a cute rhyme (well they think it is....).

This is the quote from the site - 
"We haven't conquered racism, nor many other forms of prejudice, but by changing the nation's main emblem, we can reclaim the union flag from those who have hijacked it for their own ends, so that our flag reflects the diversity of the people of the UK."

So all they are saying is that when they see racists wondering down high streets protesting the very presence of ethnic minorities in this country, they feel ever so slightly offended that the flag being waved in their face is the Union Flag - which bit of that do you find offensive? Â If you don't think changing the flag will help fine (I personally agree, it wouldn't solve the problem), but instead of posting on a TT website bemoaning the madness, why don't you go to racist websites and post there telling them they are racist idiots?

The Union Flag is reviled in many parts of Scotland ,(despite the blue element), many parts of Ireland and many parts of Wales as a symbol of English repression... so lets not get too carried away. Â And then on the world tour of nations who love the Union Jack I am guessing that it doesn't get that warm a reception in Palestine, in Iraq, in India or Pakistan, from Aborigines in Australia, or when we were shipping slaves from Africa in boats that had the Union Flag fluttrering from the flag pole, I bet they were thinking, what a cracking flag... the list goes on and on.

I appreciate the arguement about the 2 WW's, but people don't fight for a flag - they might fight for the principles a country believes in (or simply because they were ordered to) which are associated with the flag, but they are not fighting for the flag itself. Â

Anyway, just my opinion, I am not accusing anyone who has replied here of being racist, or any other 'ist' for that matter. Â But when you complain about PC madness you seem to forget that the people who are proposing ideas like this are fed up not making progress in any other way - if there was no racism, no sexism, no whatever.... there would be no need for PC madness


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Typical of me, but then I am a true fence-sitter if ever there was one.

I agree with some of Gary's comments and I also agree with some of Neil's.

From my own point of view and from my limited knowledge of how the Union Flag (it should only be called the Union Jack when flown at sea btw) was created echoes what Neil said.

The Scots especially felt aggreived at the presence given to the cross of St George over that of St Andrew and St Patrick (whose cross was the last to be added). The St Gearge's cross is the only cross to appear on the flag unbroken.

The reason the Welsh Dragon does not appear is because Wales was already united with England and therefore not a separate Principality.

So, in conclusion,

Firstly the flag does not represent the colours of the people - otherwise it would be a white design on a white background.

Secondly, it represents the union between the countries, so for another colour to be added we'd need to form another union.

Thirdly, it seems like it's been proposed to explicitly prevent people from singing "there ain;t no black in the Union Jack" - which, incidentally, doesn't work if they sing Union Flag...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Typical of me, but then I am a true fence-sitter if ever there was one.
> 
> I agree with some of Gary's comments and I also agree with some of Neil's.
> 
> ...


That all makes perfect sense Kell.

I can't see why one ethnic minority thinks that by changing the flag, that another minority (young braying racist men) will behave any differently, except maybe to sing a different song. What an odd justification.

That's hardly getting to the root of the problem.....it would just manifest itself elsewhere.

ps I presume that 'Jack' refers to Jolly Jack Tar?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Third point was tongue in cheek.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> why do people start political correctness threads.... Â what is it about PC that gets to you so much? Â Why not start racist / sexist (add your preferred ..ist here) madness threads and post intelligent comments about that problem, with suitable links?
> 
> Racists countrywide don't chant "there ain't no black in the Union Jack" because it is a cute rhyme (well they think it is....).
> 
> ...


Your post interests me Neil. Not because it is well put together (which it is) or because it takes a different stance (which it does).

No. It is because yours is the _only_ post on the thread up to that point to mention racists and ethnic minorities.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Third point was tongue in cheek.


Ah, wasn't sure given your recent chav confession.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

How much black is there in the "Stars & Stripes"?


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Oops just realised should have used the words "totally non light reflective tone" so not to make a racially motivated comment.

(Ah but may that phrase is insulting to Tony's around the world???)

Fuckin' Political Correctness people - MUPPETS


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> How much black is there in the "Stars & Stripes"?


Vexillology.

"What is the most popular colour in all the world's flags?

I did an analysis of national flags (proportions, colours, designs etc) for a paper which I presented at the Intentional Congress of Vexillology in August 1999. *Red *is the *most popular *colour being found on 74% of all the national flags of the world today, followed by *white *on 71% of flags and *blue *on 50%. 
Bruce Berry, 10 Nov 1999 "

Oddly 30 out of the 35 African nation flags have *no* black on them whatsoever.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/index.html


----------



## neil_h (May 8, 2002)

I genuinely wasn't trying to accuse any poster of ism..ism...

Gary C said;



> No. It is because yours is the only post on the thread up to that point to mention racists and ethnic minorities. Â


but Gary C also said;



> It certainly wasn't so that the various ethnic groups invited into this country could start oppressing the majorities and force their notions of political correctness down the benign masses' throats...


I mentioned racists because the Reflag issue is really about speaking out against racism...

I mentioned ethnic minorities groups because.... well because you did!

the mighTy Tee said;



> Fuckin' Political Correctness people - MUPPETS


or alternatively people who are fed up that the benign masses do nothing when idiots take over their languauge (or in this case symbols) for their own ends, and these idiots take silence as approval.

I would agree that things get taken too far, but so what - we just ignore them when that is the case. Â When the politically correct "muppets" come out with something that the majority of people think is riddiculous, we get significant press coverage saying how terrible this is, how things aren't what they used to be (I am pretty sure that the first person who said "hang on, isn't ****** a bit offensive" was called a politically correct muppet, yet not sure how many people would think that is acceptable today, but I am pretty certain that we all still talk about manhole covers without offending anyone?).... yet when racists or whatever ist you like are out in the community spreading their messages...nothing! and then we wonder why certain political parties make significant gains in council elections?

Anyway just my two pennies worth - I just don't understand why people get upset about political correctness, which at its worst is misguided but harmless, but don't appear to get upset at things that are genuinely harmful?

(And I have just found out that the site finds racial epithets offensive - the "black person" in the hang on quote didn't say "black person" when I typed it!)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> - I just don't understand why people get upset about political correctness, which at its worst is misguided but harmless, but don't appear to get upset at things that are genuinely harmful?


Garyc actually said

" ......first to have used used racists *and* ethnic minorites in a post....." Â Subtly different. 

OK I'll tell you exactly why Political correctness and it's protaganists can just FUCK OFF and are harmful:

Our legistlators don't give a shit about public opinion, just about that of the chattering classes. Â The public wants law and order, our leaders give us traffic wardens and speed cameras and leave the country virtually unpoliced. Â The country does want stricter immigration curbs, our furhers call us racists and allow the numbers to swell disproportionately to _any_ other country in the Western world, including the oh-so-caring US. Â The proposed EU constitution is one big con drawn by a conman and will do away with the nation state, but our chieftains will say anyone opposing it is a nazi. Â Afircan and Arab people live in utter poverty and endemic disease and the PC busie bodies among us go after Kilroy instead of those responsible.

It's Â a bit like the allies prosecuting German traffic wardens instead of those responsible for the death camps, as they are the symbols of evil facists personified. (hmmm )

Worse is the link with PC and gov't foreign aid. Â Money illegally obtained by Afro-Arab chiefs has corrupted those we elected to lead us. Â PC is a persistent form of misrepresentative untruthfullness, which suits most politicians trained to lie and obfuscate. Â It is about pretending things are different from what they actually are - about making mountains out of mole hills whilst failing to tackle the real causal issues. Â We the people are not racists any more those who cry racism are. Â The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and I wish that some of those who cry wolf non-stop about these pathetic persecutions of the flag etc, actually run into a group of thugs looking for cash late one rainy evening in St Pauls Bristol....

PC addresses petty symptoms and not the real causes. Â It also represses the majority from saying anything that could be perceived as vaguely negative or not wholly positive about any of the PC favourite causes, for fear of being branded a xxxist. Â It stifles more debate than it fosters. Â It is repressive and prevents free speech from the silent decent majorities.

And all because of the antics very few shaven-headed braying ignorant young men that we are already equipped to deal with. "'Cos that's how Nazi germany started."

Unfortunatley the PC prats think that symbol changes and legistlation can actually make people like each other more. Â That is so naive as as we can see it actually does the reverse in practice by both alienating and frustrating the majority who abhor political correctness.

So there.


----------



## SteveS (Oct 20, 2003)

(Arrghh, must not agree with garyc, must not agree with garyc.... ). 
Ok, I agree with garyc :. Mostly anyway.

Particularly this part which IMO gets to the nub of the issue. (damn, this must stop)



> PC addresses petty symptoms and not the real causes. Â It also represses the majority from saying anything that could be perceived as vaguely negative or not wholly positive about any of the PC favourite causes, for fear of being branded a xxxist. Â It stifles more debate than it fosters. Â It is repressive and prevents free speech from the silent decent majorities.


Many of those who are most vocal in these minorities know all too well that most decent folk are in almost pathological fear of being labelled xxxist and many of them abuse this knowledge from their PC ivory towers, little knowing that in many instances they are probably damaging their cause rather than furthering it (IMO). :-/


----------



## mussy2577 (Feb 3, 2003)

> why do people start political correctness threads.... Â what is it about PC that gets to you so much? Â Why not start racist / sexist (add your preferred ..ist here) madness threads and post intelligent comments about that problem, with suitable links?
> 
> Racists countrywide don't chant "there ain't no black in the Union Jack" because it is a cute rhyme (well they think it is....).
> 
> ...


I agree and disagree !

I am also in agreement with Kell !


----------



## PaulS (Jun 15, 2002)

> Garyc actually said
> 
> " ......first to have used used racists *and* ethnic minorites in a post....." Â Subtly different.
> 
> ...


[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Surely I'm not the only one who, day by day, is getting increasingly fed up with the way things are going in this country. I think this country needs a 'common sense' party to take on the current bunch of PC buffoons on all sides of the commons. You should be a politician Gary Â 

Despite all their grand plans, what have Labour actually delivered - FA apart from higher taxation Â 

Today Red Ken Livingstone announced his latest blitzkrieg on motorists - "a speed camera for every road in London" & traffic wardens to issue tickets for motoring offences!!! How did these idiots end up in power?

The university top up fee vote hasn't sunk U turn Dictator Blair, lets hope the Hutton enquiry does.


----------



## neil_h (May 8, 2002)

Sorry Gary C, the subtleness of the comment beat me :-[

I would agree with a lot of what you say, but you won't be surprised to know that I disagree with a lot of it as well!

My own view is that PC is a direct response to the fact that the silent majority are exactly that, silent - so the only voices we hear are extremists - extremists on the ist side, extremists on the PC side. If the silent majority are scared to take part in the debate, they can hardly complain when the debate they hear is so far away from their own point of view (or perhaps they should complain, at least it is a start - my arguement is more that I would rather they complain about the extremist 'ists' than the extremist PC's).

The problem we then get is that extremists start to flavor the arguement and sadly much of what they say starts to get taken up as fact - on both sides of the fence - again my arguement is that someone who is politically correct is more likely to stand up for your right to free speech however much they dislike you point of view, than an ....ist - but you are welcome to disagree (I have just never seen a racist stand up for someones right to oppose them?)



> PC addresses petty symptoms and not the real causes.


I am not disagreeing at the extremist edge, but at its most sensible it forces people to think about how they think and how they express themselves - it also relates to how much "PC prats" can achieve - I can't make people like each other more, but I can get them to think, even if it is just to think that is stupid - doesn't it at least force people to think, why would those PC prats think that? we can't go after despotic African leaders, but we can say to Kilroy, if you want paid out of public money, you can't say things that a large number of people find offensive (and c'mon if ever there was an arguement in favour of PC madness, it got Kilroy off the telly!!!!!).

Anyway - a lot of the other points are more political and I wouldn't want to go there - but I really do respect what you are saying even if I (obviously) disagree.

(I might be wrong on this, but I think my profile is misleading people - I work and live in NY, but only since March - as another thread contributor might recognise, Ehm feh Dundee - which is why my spelling drifts between Queen's English and the made up variety here)

And can I just say once more.... Kilroy is off the telly!!!!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Sorry Gary C, the subtleness of the comment beat me Â :-[
> 
> I would agree with a lot of what you say, but you won't be surprised to know that I disagree with a lot of it as well!
> 
> ...


Well I guess people in the middle start to make their little noises on places such as this one. 

I don't actually think we are actually that polarised in our views Neil. It is the silent majority that is wedged in the middle by smaller but louder factions at either end of the extremes to which we refer. That is the majority who are starting to see PC as repressive - it is self evident by the reactions on threads such as this one. But the masses do, in the main, also reject most extreme beliefs of others, particularly on race issues. We are a generally tolerant nation for all our other faults. I can't prove it but I'd suggest that PC is more palettable to most than racism (or ageism etc) - but that does not mean that PC is not now really getting up Middle England's noses.

Paradoxically the views of the masses in the middle, do not sell tabloid newspapers - PC behaviour perceived as madness and extremism does - although the masses buy the papers to read about the extremes. :

Ironically although Kilroy is off the telly in person, apparently his popularity ratings have never been higher. The program stays on air with 'guest presenters'. Kilroy also owns the production company and the contract stays in place (its a big viewship draw) for the Kilroy Show, so I don't suppose he's too worried.

Finally you are correct: I have not heard any racist thugs standing up for Free Speech. They aren't generally that bright and would be equally vocal about some pathetic football club as they would their political stance (if they could spell it, that is ) Most are uneducated and highly ignorant. It is the few educated and intelligent individuals in the background behind this lot that are the real problem - but I don't imagine that any of these are in the flag-designing business.

Good debate.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

To Gary and Neil,



> Good debate.


Gary it was great to see someone else debating this kind of thing with Neil. As his best man and he mine it is fair to say we go back a bit. He is great at taking a point of view and being very convincing then changing tact and making you think. Fun to be an observer this time.

Round two gents - GM Babies as doners? Discuss


----------



## neil_h (May 8, 2002)

no I'm not....

;D

what kind of car is a GM baby? Is that something that isn't for sale in NY?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

No it was engineered to do more that 4 mpg so clearly no market for it.


----------



## neil_h (May 8, 2002)

why would you want more than 4 mpg.... the last fill up of the tank (and I don't mean petrol tank) car was only $32!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

> Round two gents - GM Babies as doners? Â Discuss Â


Cheers Jac - I was thinking more about, ' Ethics of using GM babies as a substitute for primates in medical research.'


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

> Cheers Jac - I was thinking more about, ' Ethics of using GM babies as a substitute for primates in medical Â research.'


What do you mean substitute? Keep killing the monkeys AND start on all the other animals I say!

Ah the masses speak - what the hell - PC Schmee C


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

All I can say is STFU Jac u baldy fat b'stard - now how PC is that?


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

> baldy


Yip, give you that one



> fat


Pot, kettle, black ;D


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Doh - oh aye - I forgot sorry


----------



## cw955 (Apr 8, 2003)

> ps I presume that 'Jack' refers to Jolly Jack Tar?


When the 'Union Jack' was first introduced, in 1606, it was known simply as 'the British flag' or 'the flag of Britain', and was ordered to be flown at the main masthead of all ships, warships and merchant ships, of both England and Scotland.

The first use of the name 'Union' appears in 1625. There are a numberof theories as how it became known as the 'Union Jack', but most of the evidence points to the name being derived from the use of the word 'jack' as a diminutive. This word was in use before 1600 to describe a small flag flown from the small mast mounted on the bowsprit, and by 1627 it appears that a small version of the Union flag was commonly flown in this position. For some years it was called just 'the Jack', or 'Jack flag', or 'the King's Jack', but by 1674, while formally referred to as 'His Majesty's Jack', it was commonly called the Union Jack, and this was officially acknowledged.

In the 18th century the small mast on the bowsprit was replaced by staysails on the stays between the bowsprit and the foremast. By this time the Ensign had become the principal naval distinguishing flag, so it became the practice to fly the Union Jack only in harbour, on a specially rigged staff in the bows of the ships, the *jackstaff*. It should thus be noted that the jack flag had existed for over a hundred and fifty years before the jack staff came into being, and its name was related to its size rather than to the position in which it was flown.

It is often stated that the Union Flag should only be described as the Union Jack when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From early in its life the Admiralty itself frequently referred to the flag as the Union Jack, whatever its use, and in 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that Their Lordships had decided that either name could be used officially. Such use was given Parliamentary approval in 1908 when it was stated that "the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag".

Well you did ask.


----------

