Tv Members And Political Correctness

[Geekfreaklover]

Congratulations to GH for starting this thread.

By definition PC is not a subject that can be argued against. For a poster to say that they are anti PC means that they are not PC which is against PC, which is wrong in our PC world.

How this topic relates to Thailand (and the people that live in Thailand) I have no idea.

It is a one way street, baby. GH you win. Your prize; a year in the sand.

Don't take the bait.

GFL.

[Ulysses G.]

As for a deffinition of Political Correctness, I'm in complete agreement with Garro.

Now I would point out that me agreeing with Garro is a rare thing, oddly not so rare in this discussion since I also agree with another post of his in this thread (yet again a point proven by the rants here).

The problem is that the anti-PC brigade miss 'the good old days' when you could openly call black people 'darkies' or 'coons' and call the disabled 'spastics'. They resent the fact that society wants to try and control the worst aspects of the darker side of their natures. They fondly remember the days when you could openly spit on your neighbor (or worse) because they looked or spoke different or because they went to a different church. They miss the days when being an ignorant bigot or racist wasn't frowned upon so much. Poor them. The world has gone PC mad.

I see very few examples of "ignorant racists" posting on this thread. Maybe you could point out some of these despicable posts so that we can share your moral outrage.

I think that you wish that those that disagree with you fell in this category, but since they pretty much don't, you are quite willing to blatantly lie about it.

This definition is a lot closer to the truth than garro's self-serving one will ever be:

A trend that wants to make everything fair, equal and just to all by suppressing thought, speech and practice in order to achieve that goal.

www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html

[GuestHouse]

Greekfreaklover,

you state....

How this topic relates to Thailand (and the people that live in Thailand) I have no idea.

May I refer you to my Opening Post.

It's a frequent enough complaint here in TV. When in full flow of a rant against back home and/or their former life, many a TV member will bring up the rise of "Political Correctness" as one of the issues that forced him to move to Thailand.

It would seem that the response of TV members to this thread backs up the view that attitudes to Political Correctness are very relevant.

[Ulysses G.]

As for a deffinition of Political Correctness, I'm in complete agreement with Garro.

Now I would point out that me agreeing with Garro is a rare thing, oddly not so rare in this discussion since I also agree with another post of his in this thread (yet again a point proven by the rants here).

The problem is that the anti-PC brigade miss 'the good old days' when you could openly call black people 'darkies' or 'coons' and call the disabled 'spastics'. They resent the fact that society wants to try and control the worst aspects of the darker side of their natures. They fondly remember the days when you could openly spit on your neighbor (or worse) because they looked or spoke different or because they went to a different church. They miss the days when being an ignorant bigot or racist wasn't frowned upon so much. Poor them. The world has gone PC mad.

I see very few examples of "ignorant racists" posting on this thread. Maybe you could point out some of these despicable posts so that we can share your moral outrage.

I think that you wish that those that disagree with you fell in this category, but since they pretty much don't, you are quite willing to blatantly lie about it.

Where are all those posts from ignorant racists that miss calling black people "coons" and white people "wasps"?

PC posters are falling all over each other agreeing that is what this thread is really about.

[Geekfreaklover]

Greekfreaklover,

you state....

How this topic relates to Thailand (and the people that live in Thailand) I have no idea.

May I refer you to my Opening Post.

It's a frequent enough complaint here in TV. When in full flow of a rant against back home and/or their former life, many a TV member will bring up the rise of "Political Correctness" as one of the issues that forced him to move to Thailand.

It would seem that the response of TV members to this thread backs up the view that attitudes to Political Correctness are very relevant.

I agree with probably each and every posts that you have submitted on this thread. But we both know that this is probably the most open ended topic to be aired on an internet forum. So I, again, congratulate you on starting the thread.

It is a topic that can not be resolved. A topic that invites conflict.

Moreover, if you try and explain PC to the average Thai person you will have difficulties in getting the point across.

This is a Thailand forum.

Thai's would have no idea about PC. The concept would not compute.

So why worry about it?

When in Rome, etc...

[GuestHouse]

UG, take a look at the responses here and you will find that the first instance of mentioning race and imigration with respect to Political Correctness came from the Anti-PC side of the debate. Likewise the association of Political Correctness and Feminism.... and there is no shortage of referenced to Islam.

A common theme among those arguing against Political Correctness is 'defending [our] culture/religion against that of imigrants'. We even have the absurd suggestion that that Political Correctness robs us of the ability to address issues of integration.

And let's not miss Bonobo's home goal where is gives us an example of a teacher who brings lessons in Political Correctness to her classroom, only to have her and her family suffer vile racist abuse.

The mods have quite rightly deleted a number offensive posts, while the very language of this debate is shaped by Political Correctness, many terms and words that I can certainly say I hear in 'private' discussion would result, again quite rightly, in the removal of a post and likely the removal of the person posting.

We can debate this, and any other issue, without recourse to abusive language, that some are unable to argue a point without resorting to personal attacks on the person holding the view tells us we have a way to go.

[baht&sold]

Some want red, some want yellow but MOST probably want GREEN as in go forward already

[JetsetBkk]

Some want red, some want yellow but MOST probably want GREEN as in go forward already

Some want red, some want yellow but MOST probably want GREEN to go forward

Are you sure you're in the right thread, B&S?

[mahtin]

GH, I would have liked to see a definition of pc, and this thread as a poll.

I am fairly sure that most who are reluctant to post would have voted that there is an excess of pc-ism.

Just my HO and Happy New Year to all (yes, all).

[Ulysses G.]

We can debate this, and any other issue, without recourse to abusive language, that some are unable to argue a point without resorting to personal attacks on the person holding the view tells us we have a way to go.

I would suggest that anyone who writes - or supports - posts strongly implying that those who don't share his views are mostly "ignorant racists" shouldn't be up on his high horse about personal attacks.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Ulysses G.

[sbk]

Might I make yet another very strong suggestion to members that forum rules are being enforced and to resort to name calling, tit for tat "but he said" childish retorts and insults are not acceptable. And I don't care who the poster is, next one will result in a formal warning. I do hope that is clear enough to all members involved in this thread.

[PhilHarries]

I'm assuming that the comment about being stopped for questioning at the airport is in response to my story, if not please disregard the following. If it is in response to mine, how many times do I have to say that I was not stopped at a Thai airport! I was stopped in a "western" country. As I believe Thailand is hardly a PC country, I'd be most surprised if anyone were to be stopped re being a s_x tourist.

So far it's happened in 2 different "western" countries. Furthermore, it's not a question of fear, rather being PO that I am assumed to be a criminal, without a shred of evidence to suppose that I am.

I don't think the comparison of drugs to indecent material is relevant. You can hardly send drugs by digital media! However, I'd agree that the stupidity of some is remarkable.

I apologise for that misunderstanding. I assumed, dangerous I know, that you were relating an incident at Suvarnabhumi but you didn't actually name the location leaving it to a cryptic hint in the last sentence:-

since when did they ever stop and question anyone entering Thailand? Never seen it myself.

that I missed. I think I am suffering from reader's blink.

As GH says it is unfortunate that your appearance and/or profile fitted that day's target. This can happen to anyone of us at any time. But this brings us to a subject where I would come down on the anti-PC side of the fence and that is profiling.

A fifty something, overweight, caucasian man travelling alone to or from Bangkok will fit the perceived profile of a sex tourist or worse. Thus, as he fits the profile, he can be singled out for questioning and have his baggage searched.

Such profiling applied to a coloured youth driving a new BMW through the streets of Manchester late at night is considered an infringement of his rights and covertly racist.

As I am fifty something, a little overweight and caucasian travelling many times alone to Thailand I resent this predudicial profiling. Not only is it done by the authorities but by the general public whipped up by the gutter press and is also very evident here on ThaiVisa. But who defends my case, what recourse do I have against this defamation?

Don't bother with answers on a postcard, they'll fit on the back of the postage stamp.

None, Zippo, Nada etc jump to mind.

But do I complain about it? I know I just did but generally I just get on with things and write it down as all part of life's rich tapestry .

I can see both sides of the story here. We all would like to live our lives free from all external interferance but unfortunately there are those who would, and do, seek to exploit this freedom for their own sometimes not so innocent agenda. Thus we have to live in a world of controls, the degree of those controls is open to opinion and debate.

But that is all it, and this whole thread, is. Opinions.

There is no right and no wrong, no black and no white (no pun intended). It is a grey subject on which, clearly, we all agree and disagree to varying lengths. In the final analysis we all have to live together and get on with life to our own satisfaction.

For the vast majority of us the degree to which PC is taken has little or no effect in our personal lives. Okay maybe your children will not get the intense bible study you would like but maybe they'll benefit more from learning a little about the other religions. One small example but if it is one small step towards a greater understanding PC aint all that bad is it?

This thread has, by and large, been a good clean open debate about the subject matter. Like all debates it will not necessarily change anyone's way of thinking but it might just make people appreciate the other side's view. It should not be treated as a battle to be won at all costs. There should be no conception of winners and losers, for that leads to the polarisation of society and conflict, but it should be viewed as an interchange of ideas - part of the learning curve we call life.

[garro]

I wonder how many of the people who say that PC is out of control also believe that immigrants should be encouraged to fit in better within their home countries. I wonder how many of these people see the conflict in these two beliefs.

[Ulysses G.]

Most American realize that our country needs immigrants and lots of us come from families that were immigrants, so very few of us are against it, but I would guess that you are mostly talking about Brits. Are you insinuating that it is racist to want to limit immigrants?

[Boo]

Such profiling applied to a coloured youth driving a new BMW through the streets of Manchester late at night is considered an infringement of his rights and covertly racist.

I don't believe this is entirely true, my sister is in the met & they can & do stop young black males driving high spec cars in certain areas for specific reasons. The person being stopped can claim racism but it would be hard pressed to prove it as they also stop young males of all racial origin driving high spec cars too. It is mainly because young males in certain areas will be more prone to joy riding & car theft, there is no proof or recourse for the people being stopped to make a legal claim against the police based on their rights being affected (unless of course they have been physically or verbally abused based on their race) as the authorities can stop anyone they like if the officer believes there is good reason to do so.

SO just as a white, middle aged, overweight man traveling to Thailand will be profiled, pc is no more at work & his rights are no more infringed than a young black man driving a bmw being stopped by the police, is. And if youa re innocent then you will be left to go on your way as are those young men if they can prove ownership of the vehicle they are driving.

If you were blatantly called a pervert or pedo then yes, you would be in your rights to complain based on PC principles but being stopped in itself is not an example of pc gone mad.

[bonobo]

But just what media that supposedly promotes an anti-PC message "are also those that pump out the message that Pedophiles are hiding around every corner?" You keep asking for links, so now I am asking you for some.

'Daily Mail, UK'.

'Express Newspaper, UK'

'The Sun, UK'

Like I wrote, how about some examples?  Naming a newspaper is hardly an example.

It is undeniable that the UK red tops love a regular paedo chase - no need for examples. This led to a very well known case where a Paediatrician had her house firebombed in Portsmouth, I think.

Hyping fear like this has led to the situation described by thaibeachlovers.

I am not from the UK, and I have never read any of the papers to which you refer. So no, I don't know, or could I know, if your statement is correct or not.  So I asked for some examples, just as you ask every other poster on this board. So for you to say it is "undeniable" has very little meaning to mae as I have zero reference for that.

You had me digging for any reference to a case of which I refered to a television show, and you press others to show concrete examples, so I do think my request is appropriate.

[bonobo]

Many of the people on this thread attacking PC assume, like I have at times, that the movement is trying to stop you having free thought and free speech. It is not an attempt to control those independant functions, as if it could. If you want to go around thinking of johnny foriegner as n****rs, c**ns, pakis or of women as broads, tarts, slags or feminazies you can. If you want to articulate those views vocally and publicly you can but if you do so via the various media channels those who you wish to denigrate have a right to recourse. You also might find that your circle of friends is drying up rapidly as people are becoming less endeared with that version of free speech.

The law does not prevent the act of murder, it merely provides a route of recourse to justice. If you want to call a black man a n****r go ahead but don't complain if he beats you to a pulp, either physically or through the courts.

There's also been claims that PC is stifling debate on such issues as immigration and integration. Utter bovine scatology! There is plenty of debate on those subjects but they tend to avoid using inflammatory terms like deigo's, wop's, gyppo's etc. If you wish to discuss these subjects using those terms you will find many an intellectual debating chamber in the public bars of back street pubs where you will find solace amongst kindred spirits.

Personally, I find all these terms rather offensive, and I have never used any of them in conversation unless we were discussing racism and the various associated terms.

However, I am somewhat curious as to your choice of what words had to be starred ("n*****r") and which ones were OK spelled out ("wop's"). Is there some sort of PC going on inside of PC here? As someone who is 1/4 Italian (English, German and Irish make up the rest), should I take offense or pride that "wop" is allowed to written out in full?

[bonobo]

Khun Guesthouse,

perhaps the wisdom of Solomon was shown in post number 659, and post 660 (what a gem of a post) after 20 plus pages someone actually had the common sense to do (what some of us were already aware of, eg what is pc? ) what the op should have set out in his original post (instead of assuming all the people think the same way all of the time), please enlighten us , what is pc?

If you look back at my Openning Post, I point out that many people have no understanding of what Political Correctness is, a point proven by many of the totally off topic rants here.

As for a deffinition of Political Correctness, I'm in complete agreement with Garro.

So all those definitions provided by bkkjames are wrong? Just because you don't agree with them?

[marshbags]

Teachers banned from using red ink.. because it upsets pupils

Mirror.co.uk

By Andrew Gregory 27/12/2008

Hundreds of schools have banned teachers marking in red ink because it is felt to be too distressing for pupils.

They are replacing teachers' traditional colour for correcting homework with more soothing shades of green, blue and yellow.

Traditionalists have condemned the ban as barmy and insist red ink makes it easier for children to spot errors and improve.

But headteacher Richard Sammonds said: "Red pen can be quite demotivating for children.

"It has negative, old school connotations of 'See me' and 'Not good enough'."

Shirley Clarke, of the Institute of Education, added: "When children see every single spelling mistake covered in red they can feel useless and give up."

Unquote

Yet another gem from the incredible PC correct brigade

marshbags

I seem to read about so many PC related articles courtesy of the educational departments.

Some of the most ridiculous that is....................

How i ever got through my school years without these pearls of wisdom, i just do not know ??????

Edited December 28, 2008 by marshbags

[bonobo]

 

And let's not miss Bonobo's home goal where is gives us an example of a teacher who brings lessons in Political Correctness to her classroom, only to have her and her family suffer vile racist abuse.

Still clinging to that contention? Rather like a soi dog refusing to let go a stripped chicken bone.

How many times do I have to write that yes, the teacher suffered from racist-driven reaction. But once again, just because one things exists does not meant that that precludes another thing from existing as well. I am really not sure why this seems to be such a difficult concept for you to grasp. The teacher was in fact criticized in terms of what we now call political correctness. She suffered from both sides of the spectrum, at least from the spectrum as being formed in this thread.

But, I tell you what, if you really want to ignore anything I write about this and cling to your righteous superiority, well, have at it. You have a pretty pronounced tendency to ignore quite a bit of what is posted, so why should this be any different?  So call it a home goal. Call it whatever you wish. The truth is the truth, but if you feel better seing it through your unique set of glassses, then who am I to interfere with your pleasure?

Edited December 28, 2008 by bonobo

[GuestHouse]

So all those definitions provided by bkkjames are wrong? Just because you don't agree with them?

The many examples provided by bkkjames where all in varying degrees different, (ie they are not the same), I can not therefore agree with all of them. Nothing to do with my own deffinition being correct, rather everything to do with the logical argument that if two defintions do not agree with each other.... they do not agree with each other.

Bonobo, if you can't find an internet link to the UK Red-Tops, switch on to Talk Radio. OK there is a quite a diversity of opinion to be found there, but certainly more than enough peddling of fear and small mindedness to demonstrate my point that those putting out the Anti PC message are also the same media putting out the message of intollerance - All the while claiming to be bastions of free speech.

[GuestHouse]

I see that educational psychology is now to be bundled with Political Correctness.. Brought to us by non other than The Daily Mirror.

[bonobo]

So all those definitions provided by bkkjames are wrong? Just because you don't agree with them?

The many examples provided by bkkjames where all in varying degrees different, (ie they are not the same), I can not therefore agree with all of them. Nothing to do with my own deffinition being correct, rather everything to do with the logical argument that if two defintions do not agree with each other.... they do not agree with each other.

So for you to say that everyone else is wrong is your opinion, or is it a fact as you wrote it?

Bonobo, if you can't find an internet link to the UK Red-Tops, switch on to Talk Radio. OK there is a quite a diversity of opinion to be found there, but certainly more than enough peddling of fear and small mindedness to demonstrate my point that those putting out the Anti PC message are also the same media putting out the message of intollerance - All the while claiming to be bastions of free speech.

OK, I think I understand the rules now. I have to get you links to back up anything I might write, and I also have to get links to back up anything you might write.  

As long as I have it straight there!  

[thaibeachlovers]

here is an example of ( IMO ) PC gone mad. From today's Mail on Sunday

Home for retired missionaries loses grant - because it won't ask residents if they are lesbians

By Jonathan Petre

Last updated at 2:22 AM on 28th December 2008

• Comments (48)
  
• Add to My Stories
  

A care home where elderly Christian residents refused to answer ‘intrusive’ questions about their sexuality is at the centre of a bitter legal battle after its council grant was axed.

Brighton & Hove Council told the home to ask pensioners four times a year about their sexual orientation under its ‘fair access and diversity’ policies, which stem from New Labour equality laws.

Council chiefs also accused the charity that runs the home of ‘institutional discrimination’, before cutting a £13,000 grant towards warden services.

Upset: Pensioners at the care home found the questionnaire intrusive

Pilgrim Homes, which operates ten schemes for elderly Christians across the UK, says it has never breached the law and is now suing the council, accusing it of religious discrimination.

Andrew Jessop, the charity’s chief executive, said: ‘The council has taken overzealousness to the extreme. People in their 90s are very vulnerable and shouldn’t be treated in this way.’

Tensions began last year when the council imposed stricter criteria on organisations it supported to ‘comply’ with the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

It circulated a questionnaire to the Pilgrim Home in Egremont Place, Brighton, which houses 39 single Christians aged over 80, including former missionaries and a minister.

Phil Wainwright, director of human resources for Pilgrim Homes, said he was told by the council the home had to ask residents if they were lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual or ‘unsure’, even if they objected. Many of the elderly rebelled, however, and the home wrote to the council saying residents did not want to participate.

Mr Wainwright said: ‘There was a strong feeling among people in the home that the questions were inappropriate and intrusive. They felt they had come to Pilgrim Homes because of its Christian ethos and were upset they were not protected from such intrusions.’

But Brighton & Hove Council complained about the home’s ‘negative response’ and argued that because the home had a Christian ethos, gay people might be deterred from applying.

Criticised: A Pilgrim Homes leaflet

It cited the ‘resistance’ to using images of elderly gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people in the home’s leaflets, saying this meant gays and lesbians ‘would not feel comfortable’ applying for a place.

The council then announced it was axeing the grant because there had been ‘limited progress’ in making the home accessible to the homosexual community.

Mr Wainwright said the charity was open to anyone with orthodox beliefs.

He said: ‘We have every reason to believe that we have given places to gay Christians, and no questions were ever asked. The council hasn’t demonstrated any discrimination on our part. We believe it is Brighton Council that is institutionally discriminatory.’

MPs last night backed the charity, which fears other councils that provide it with grants totalling more than £100,000, could follow Brighton’s lead.

Ann Widdecombe, former Tory Home Office Minister, said: ‘The equality law does not oblige anyone to ask intrusive questions. This sort of thing needs to be nipped in the bud.’

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, said: ‘It is absolutely disgraceful that the council has tried to get 90-year-olds, from a generation that wasn’t obsessed with sex, to put intimate information on to one of its forms.’

But Brighton & Hove Council said: ‘We have never expected any residents to answer questions about their sexuality if they preferred not to do so.

‘The Government specifically states the home must be open to the gay and lesbian community and that it must demonstrate this to qualify for funding. In the absence of any willingness to do this, funding has been withdrawn.’

[Ulysses G.]

Many of the people on this thread attacking PC assume, like I have at times, that the movement is trying to stop you having free thought and free speech. It is not an attempt to control those independant functions, as if it could. If you want to go around thinking of johnny foriegner as n****rs, c**ns, pakis or of women as broads, tarts, slags or feminazies you can. If you want to articulate those views vocally and publicly you can but if you do so via the various media channels those who you wish to denigrate have a right to recourse. You also might find that your circle of friends is drying up rapidly as people are becoming less endeared with that version of free speech.

The law does not prevent the act of murder, it merely provides a route of recourse to justice. If you want to call a black man a n****r go ahead but don't complain if he beats you to a pulp, either physically or through the courts.

There's also been claims that PC is stifling debate on such issues as immigration and integration. Utter bovine scatology! There is plenty of debate on those subjects but they tend to avoid using inflammatory terms like deigo's, wop's, gyppo's etc. If you wish to discuss these subjects using those terms you will find many an intellectual debating chamber in the public bars of back street pubs where you will find solace amongst kindred spirits.

Personally, I find all these terms rather offensive, and I have never used any of them in conversation unless we were discussing racism and the various associated terms.

However, I am somewhat curious as to your choice of what words had to be starred ("n*****r") and which ones were OK spelled out ("wop's"). Is there some sort of PC going on inside of PC here? As someone who is 1/4 Italian (English, German and Irish make up the rest), should I take offense or pride that "wop" is allowed to written out in full?

I never use any of these terms either - I never have - and I don't see anyone else posting here that seems to want to use them, but certain PC advocates keep implying that we are not PC because we are "ignorant racists" who delight in calling a black man a nig and miss the good old days when we used to lynch other races with impunity.

They don't seem to be able to come up with any decent examples from this thread, but they keep on slinging mud anyway.

I have no interest in calling anyone a "nigger". I just don't want to be forced into calling a 3 year old girl a

"womyn" as one poster has avocated on this very forum.

[thaibeachlovers]

Such profiling applied to a coloured youth driving a new BMW through the streets of Manchester late at night is considered an infringement of his rights and covertly racist.

I don't believe this is entirely true, my sister is in the met & they can & do stop young black males driving high spec cars in certain areas for specific reasons. The person being stopped can claim racism but it would be hard pressed to prove it as they also stop young males of all racial origin driving high spec cars too. It is mainly because young males in certain areas will be more prone to joy riding & car theft, there is no proof or recourse for the people being stopped to make a legal claim against the police based on their rights being affected (unless of course they have been physically or verbally abused based on their race) as the authorities can stop anyone they like if the officer believes there is good reason to do so.

SO just as a white, middle aged, overweight man traveling to Thailand will be profiled, pc is no more at work & his rights are no more infringed than a young black man driving a bmw being stopped by the police, is. And if youa re innocent then you will be left to go on your way as are those young men if they can prove ownership of the vehicle they are driving.

If you were blatantly called a pervert or pedo then yes, you would be in your rights to complain based on PC principles but being stopped in itself is not an example of pc gone mad.

I am not complaining that I was stopped and questioned, but to be delayed for 2 1/2 hours while some lickspittle attempts to find ( non existent ) proof of some crime is beyond reasonable use of powers. If the black man in a car that he could prove was his was then held while his car was stripped out to search for evidence of some crime that he MIGHT have commited, I'm sure there would be an uproar ( rightly ).

[GuestHouse]

Bonobo, please tell me where I have said that I am entirely right and everyone else is entirely wrong.

And please, if you wish to provide links that are a home goal to your argument don't blame me (That teacher of yours was not dismissed over Political Correctness, nor was that hate crime you quoted anything to do with Political Correctness).

[bonobo]

Bonobo, please tell me where I have said that I am entirely right and everyone else is entirely wrong.

Khun Guesthouse,

perhaps the wisdom of Solomon was shown in post number 659, and post 660 (what a gem of a post) after 20 plus pages someone actually had the common sense to do (what some of us were already aware of, eg what is pc? ) what the op should have set out in his original post (instead of assuming all the people think the same way all of the time), please enlighten us , what is pc?

If you look back at my Openning Post, I point out that many people have no understanding of what Political Correctness is, a point proven by many of the totally off topic rants here.

Seems pretty black-and-white to me. You state flat out that others do not understand what PC is and are implying that you do (and I assume anyone who agrees with your point-of-view.)

So if I happen to feel that PC is a little more encompassing that you do, and that I have room for several of the definitions posted by bkkjames, well then, I guess I have yet to embrace the righteousness the Gospel According to Guesthouse, so please excuse my heathen views

[PhilHarries]

Well it's 23:00 here in Seoul and Im just about to hit the sack so I'll just say goodnight from him.

btw bonobo I only spelt out some of the words that I thought some people may not recognise such as w**s. No insult intended but I notice you didn't object to feminazies.

Goodnight.

[Super Hans]

I see that educational psychology is now to be bundled with Political Correctness.. Brought to us by non other than The Daily Mirror.

Of course 'educational psychology' (more psychobabble to confuse the issue) is part of political correctness; along with the elimination of competitive sports, no winners and losers, no contact sports and the like.

Politicising our schools is perhaps the most worrying facet of political correctness. The vast majority of teachers in primary/junior education are female. Anecdotally, I hear it's next to impossible for males to gain work in the sector. Add in the rampant hysteria about paedos and we've a sex ratio that is highly skewed. Not good at all. Even my sister in law won't send my nephews to the school she teaches at because its teachers are all female.

Why can't we let our children be children? They must learn through their mistakes. Mollycoddling them does no one any good - other than, perhaps, those trying to make a name for themselves in their chosen field.