[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

Your claim to be able to tell what someone is thinking or believing (whether consciously or subconsciously) based on the words they choose is flawed, and your post here shows the reason.
.

No I don't claim any such thing, that is your inturpretation of my posts.

Originally Posted by towny

This is a discussion forum. It is a tradition of good debate to start off a discussion with a question that is framed in such a manner that it provokes an animated exchange of views. As you yourself say, the thread title may simply have been phrased to get a reaction. In the context of a discussion forum surely this is a good thing?

So my accusation of being 'inflammatory' would stand??

Originally Posted by towny

It is true that the way someone chooses to phrase something might shed some light on what they actually think about the subject, but for you to speak with such certainty about Russ' private, un-shared opinions based purely on five words in a thread title is arrogance in the extreme on your part?

Again your inturpritation of my posts. I see the phrasing as biased and predudicial, not the same as saying Russ had that intent. Nor does a person have to intentionally be homophobic to do something homophobic. In a similar way Ron Atkinson didnt mean to be racist when he called that player a N***.

Originally Posted by towny

With respect, it might be what's at issue for you, but it is not the issue for the people who have instigated this ban. What they have said is that they are concerned with the possible loss of respect/trustworthiness that may be caused among a section of the population if male police officers wear ear rings.

Yes, its an issue for me, thats why Im discussing it here.
That's a poor excuse for allowing discrimination. Women wearing earrings can look just as disrepectfull.

Originally Posted by towny

Discrimination is not an absolute crime in UK Law. It is illegal in certain circumstances only, so throwing the word at people you disagree with, as if it were some medieval curse, really proves nothing. In fact, the right to set differing dress codes is specifically enshrined in Law, so there is no ambiguity here at all. It is not discrimination, except in the narrow, dictionary-definition sense of the word, which merely means to differentiate (without any necessary positive or negative bias) between one thing and another..

I'm talking about moral discrimination, the law is an arse at the best of times, so it's not suprising that it would allow discrimination on an ad hock basis.

Originally Posted by towny

Police men and women are public servants, in uniform and under oath. They accept that in the line of duty, their own perceived rights are often secondary to the needs of the job and the good of the community they serve. If by removing their ear rings they make relations with a section of the community easier, then the ear rings must come off..

Again, this is only a reason why BOTH sexes shouldnt wear earrings, not a reason for discriminating against one gender in favour of another.