Wanderlust Thread

I was talking to a colleague just yesterday about the pc-gone-wrong world we now live in.
Incredibly people now think calling a black man 'black' is racist. Its not, its a descriptor, the same as we are white.
Years ago, when the first of the pc brigade arrived, they decided to call black people 'coloureds'. The African and West Indian people were soon pointing out that they were not 'coloureds' but were black. the 'coloureds' were the Asians they said. (I believe this was also the way apartheid classified people, but that's another story)
I have no doubt some misguided soul will see my reference to black people and actually wonder if I should be saying it. Unfortunately, if so, then they are part of the problem. Lets talk about things, not hide them, disguise them, or ignore them altogether.

Pretty soon we'll be calling dead people 'living impaired', and the homeless 'residentially flexible'.

gloswhite wrote:I was talking to a colleague just yesterday about the pc-gone-wrong world we now live in.
Incredibly people now think calling a black man 'black' is racist. Its not, its a descriptor, the same as we are white.
Years ago, when the first of the pc brigade arrived, they decided to call black people 'coloureds'. The African and West Indian people were soon pointing out that they were not 'coloureds' but were black. the 'coloureds' were the Asians they said. (I believe this was also the way apartheid classified people, but that's another story)
I have no doubt some misguided soul will see my reference to black people and actually wonder if I should be saying it. Unfortunately, if so, then they are part of the problem. Lets talk about things, not hide them, disguise them, or ignore them altogether.

South Africa during apartheid was a very strange place. Everything was segregated between blanks and nie blanks ( White and non-White ). Public transport, public toilets, even beaches. Disgusting and abhorrent.

Time for a song!

Jimmy Hill looks well.

boltonbonce wrote:Jimmy Hill looks well.

I could swear it was bloody Brucie!

Reebok Trotter wrote:

boltonbonce wrote:Jimmy Hill looks well.

I could swear it was bloody Brucie!

You're right RT, and when I was in South Africa a couple of years ago, I went to Robben Island, outside Cape Town, the prison where Mandela was kept, and it brings it home to you, just how wrong it was.

gloswhite wrote:Lets talk about things, not hide them, disguise them, or ignore them altogether.

Isn't that what's happening though? Instead of keeping it to themselves, people are saying when they're offended?

bwfc1874 wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Lets talk about things, not hide them, disguise them, or ignore them altogether.

Isn't that what's happening though? Instead of keeping it to themselves, people are saying when they're offended?

True.... but the ones who are offended should have the good grace to accept that there are always two sides to the story.

Very true in general RT, but not for everything.

bwfc1874 wrote:Very true in general RT, but not for everything.

I agree 1874. Here is just one example. A woman employed by BA as a check-in assistant for many years was held to task for wearing a cross on a small chain around her neck because a non Christian passenger had the temerity to complain to BA that the cross was unacceptable as part of the BA uniform.

The woman who happened to be a practising Christian was hauled over the coals by BA management and told that wearing the cross was unacceptable as it wasn't part of the official uniform. She rebelled by refusing their request and the matter ended up before a tribunal.

I have flown with United Arab Emirates and I have noticed that all female cabin crew have their hair covered up in a hat with a wrap around attached to it. Saudi women are not allowed to show their hair in public. The same goes for Qatar airways and a number of other middle eastern carriers all of whom fly umpteen sorties into the UK on a daily basis.

The UK is a Christian country and by and large we are a tolerant bunch where other religions are concerned. If we were not then there wouldn't be as many Mosques.

So a Christian woman employed by a British company can be pilloried for expressing her faith in her own backyard and be made to feel somehow inferior all for the sake of appeasement to the minority religions who just might be offended at the sign of a cross worn on a necklace? It's bollox is what it is.

Something is wrong and if the silent majority do not discuss these issues for fear of being branded racist then the PC brigade will have won.

I remember that case, what a load of bollock's.
Religion is now a fecking farce.

Sorry I don't really see the relevance of the UAE comparison, I'm assuming you're talking about Emirates airlines? In which case BA and Emirates have different uniform policies. 

As Emirates is owned by the government of Dubai choosing a uniform in keeping with Middle Eastern culture seems obvious to me. Sorry I just really don't see what could annoy you about that? They own the company so they have every right to select such a uniform, it's not like their rolling round in Hijabs - even if they were, it's their airline to do as they please.

As for BA, how do you know it was a religious person who requested the woman take off the cross? Could it not have been an atheist? Or any jobsworth who knows that their uniform policy involves no religious symbols on show? Why not just take it off or wear it under your top if that's BA's policy?