Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

This reminds me of an incident a few years back where I was removed as the ring announcer from a pro wrestling promotion I’d worked for for a while.

I know pro wrestling is a performance. So do you. It isn’t fake as the moves/bumps are real and can cause injury so I’d called it “predetermined”.

Without breaking kayfabe (Google it) too much, most moves require cooperation from both wrestlers but if they’re good and professional enough you are unlikely to immediately spot it.

This promotion I worked for also held wrestling training classes and one time they were proud to tell the world how they had a teenage trainee with cerebral palsy whose “dream was to be a professional wrestler” and they would help him realise his “dream”.

I was absolutely sick at hearing this.

I’m not against disadvantaged people given help to realise their dreams in general, in fact I think it’s a great thing.

The very basis of pro wrestling is it’s meant to portray a legitimate physical fight and that the guys (or women) taking part are legitimately intimidating and would likely kick your behind if you got on the wrong side of them in the street.

Any deviation from this basis makes it harder to suspend your disbelief in wrestling and makes even more of a mockery of it. I don’t know the cerebral palsy kid but with the best will in the world, he was not going to look reasonably intimidating in a “fight”.

Anyway the promotion (which also has a number of transgender wrestlers on its general roster, good on them for that) made a big thing about training this kid, I commented on the FB post saying it would make the wrestling business even harder to take seriously (I’m a Jim Cornette guy, for those who catch my drift) and within a few minutes the post was removed, an hour later the promoter called me to say he was no longer going to use me as a ring announcer or referee.

I’m not saying physically disabled people should automatically have doors closed to them. But limitations must always be respected.

I don’t know Rosie Jones but if she’s a crap comedian or her limitations affect her ability to communicate humour then I’m not going to enjoy her work.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Ofcom only require channels who can afford it to carry subtitles, their reasoning being that to force the poorer channels the added expense of having to have added assessibility services could make them financially unviable and they could close altogether.

Some do more subtitling than they are required to, like Channel 4 (let's see if this continues after privatisation) and some not required to do them at all do so, like Talkimg Puctures TV.

You're right though, there ought to be a way found so that those with hearing impairments can enjoy television in the same way as everybody else does.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The point is you have a choice about whether to watch her or not watch her.Her choice is that she gets to be heard and seen just like any able bodied comic.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Yeah it’s not a like-for-like analogy. One ‘bad’ comedian is unlikely to damage a person’s whole perception of stand-up.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

You are wrong, and that statement is your basic problem.
You seem to think you can tell people what they are allowed to like now.
Anyone is entitled to dislike someone for any reason whatever, including any "disablity" - I suggest you get a dictionary and look up 'discrimination', you wont find thought control mentioned.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

And, in your world, I suppose that they are entitled to tell the disabled person this and to exclude them?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Paul didn’t say that, Richard.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Funny you mention transgender as that is another clusterfluck in sports. It might not matter so much in pro wrestling but in mixed martial arts for example a transgender woman can have a huge advantage due to muscle mass and the general differences between men and woman.

Its not fair to allow someone who has transitioned and who can potentially do so much more damage to a woman because of this. But some are arguing for it due to inclusivity and the usual arguments. We don't pair up men and women in boxing, martial arts or other sports because of physiology reasons and doing so with someone who has transitioned is not right.

An opinion to some, offensive to others, illegal troll comments if certain laws got through? :P

I have no issue of people transitioning or getting in the body they genuinely feel they should have been born in. Or them doing any job they want, as long as it makes sense, unlike the martial arts stuff. Incidentally, I find the voice of a transitioned guy on tv really jarring. Does stuff like abandoned megastructures and stuff. No matter how much I hear him I can't get used to it. But I don't particularly think he shouldn't do the job. Some womens voice overs on wildlife documentaries are much worse in comparison :P

As for disabled fighters, there was a UFC fighter who was deaf. No massive issues from him except the ref had to keep in mind he couldn't use verbal commands to him. I remember a fighter who was an arm amputee and he was allowed to fight but the obvious happened. As he got better opponents he got battered because of the major disadvantage he had. Not seen him for ages so assume he doesn't fight any more.

This is Rosie Jones on one of the times she is more understandable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKkMZz1Uxgk

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Well I must admit I was no fan of Peter Sutcliffe and that was because his illness made him an evil man, so I suppose the reason I didn't like him was because of his disability. I never met him (unlike my late father in-law who worked with him and didn't like him because "he wasn't normal"), but if I'd been offered the chance I would have declined because I didn't like him. So yes I would have told him and would have excluded him.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

He didn't, that's why i'm asking.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:34 ----------

The transgender issue is a very complicated minefield; it's caused lots of arguments, partly for the reasons that you give.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:38 ----------

Sounds like you didn't dislike him because he was disabled, but because of the terrible crimes that arose as a result of his disability.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

So you admit that its ok to say to someone that they can't or shouldn't do something because their physical attributes mean its not totally feasible? If so, why should mental attributes not be treated the same?

Or would you pick and choose depending on what particular thing makes them difference from everyone else?

Rather than blanket trying to tell anyone they can do whatever they want even if it makes no sense whatsoever because they should have the right to do so.

Nothing is ever black or white but some want to ignore this when fighting for blanket equality. The fact some want to stop discussion of such topics with laws to censor opinions which might not match theirs is no different from what i said about not wishing to see No voice guy do a comedy show....

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

My world ? LOL. Do you mean the real world ?
You know, that one where everyone doesnt actually like everyone else ?

Exclude them from what ?

Tell them they dont like them ?
Of course they can, why would you think they cant ?
Are you perhaps suggesting everyone should lie now ?

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

You said that you think it's ok not to like someone because they're disabled, my question is, if this was the case, would you actually say this to the person and exclude them from anything eg your company, a social activity etc as a result of your dislike of their disability?

There is never any need to actually lie, this is where tact, subtlety, consideration and kindness comes in.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

The effects of grooming & sexual assault on a child are devastating for them for the rest of their life and the internet has served to make it even easier for paedophiles & hebophiles to gain access to children to do this.

These testimonies from survivors on a radio programme broadcast earlier today may help anyone who underestimates the effects that grooming & sexual assault has on those targeted at an early age:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019lgw

This must be dealt with.

Re: Police to get tough on internet trolls.
 

Paedophiles and trolls are different things and there are already laws against this and statuary rape charges.

is there something under this new proposed law which is going to make it illegal for adults to speak to kids online? That would be yet another OTT law and nightmare for discussion board operators and potentially exclude kids from boards which could give them education because sites would make them 16 or 18+.....which kids would sign up to anyway and lie about their age