Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why? It's a valid question.
Or are we no longer allowed to ask questions about "contraversial" topics?
Do you think that gay policemen are overreacting/looking for trouble or not?
Yes or no? Simple as that.

Oh Xaccers, were that things were so simple, unfortunately this looks like just another "irregular verb"...

I stand up for my rights.

You over-react.

He is looking for trouble.

A statement is a formulation of an opinion, and as such that opinion can be deemed prejudiced, but a question is a request for an opinion, and therefore although the answers can be prejudice, the question itself cannot.

Nonsense! Questions can be loaded either through deliberate intent or through ignorance.

"Tell me, are you still beating your wife...?!"

As I've said, no patrolling officers should wear jewelery for their own safety.

And I agree. And had the decision of the Police been that *NO* officer should wear jewellery I wouldn't have a problem.

Since, however it is only the *male* officers who have been singled out, this is discrimination as I pointed out in my first post on this subject.

Now, if some homosexual men in the force feel that they are being descriminated against because they can't wear their earings, then why claim it's gays being descriminated against when hetrosexual earing wearing male officers are also being denied the ability to wear them too?

Because this is targetted towards *only* male officers and, apparently, the only male officers who wear earrings/ studs are gay, so there does seem to be just a *hint* of anti-gay bias to the decision.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Im talking about people in general. As far as Im concerned the thread title is written in predudicial(sp?) language and is biased against gays.

It certainly was not meant in that way and I'm sure you'd be hard pushed to find a thread where I show any classic homophobic tendancies.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by zendawn

Unfortunatly people cant see that the way they phrase things shows an underlaying predudice, be it conscious(sp?) or sub conscious.
If your against something your gonna use negative language, and if your for something your gonna use more positive language.

for example 'gays angered' rather than 'gay rights abused'.

That doesn't mean people can't have a sensible discussion where person A says, my view is this, and person B says, mine differs from yours for the following reasons. Perhaps we can discuss the reasons for our differing views, and learn something from each other.

I'm naive I know, but frankly I can't believe how this thread has developed

[Russ]

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm naive I know, but frankly I can't believe how this thread has developed

Amen bruvvah.....

Originally Posted by Russ D

You've got a point.

Thank you. Also thank you for your comment above about personal remarks.

Althought you could have just directly asked what i was talking about....

True, although you could have just said it more clearly in the first place...

My point was I think that what you were suggesting was quite, what's the word...preposterous and I'd consider it to be almost overkill paranoia. I didn't actually think you were serious initially but now I think you were. The idea that there's an underground conspiracy to make life hard for gays is not a theory I could take seriously. Yes of course many will have experienced prejudice in their time but....nah, I can't even begin on this one.

Russ, do you believe that there is racism present in *some* elements of the Police Force (including senior elements), even if not the endemic "institutional racism" reported in the report on the Stephen Lawerence murder?

If so, then you accept there is prejudice against a minority that *some* in the Police "don't like", yes?

So is it *REALLY* such a huge leap of the imagination to think that, just perhaps, there are senior members of the Police Force who are homophobic and who will allow this (albeit only in secret) to colour their thinking and affect their decision making??

[Defiant]

Oh have a guess guys who's throwing the rep points out again like there's no tomorrow. Yep I know everything and you have to agree with me Graham.

I'm an adult Graham so I wont be red repping you dont worry

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm naive I know, but frankly I can't believe how this thread has developed

Well, I have to say I'm entirely unsurprised as to how this thread has developed.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Graham

Because this is targetted towards *only* male officers and, apparently, the only male officers who wear earrings/ studs are gay, so there does seem to be just a *hint* of anti-gay bias to the decision.

Apparently... What do you mean? My understanding of he original link was that the gay rights organisation took exception to the rule that men weren't allowed to wear earrings

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Graham

Russ, do you believe that there is racism present in *some* elements of the Police Force (including senior elements), even if not the endemic "institutional racism" reported in the report on the Stephen Lawerence murder?

If so, then you accept there is prejudice against a minority that *some* in the Police "don't like", yes?

So is it *REALLY* such a huge leap of the imagination to think that, just perhaps, there are senior members of the Police Force who are homophobic and who will allow this (albeit only in secret) to colour their thinking and affect their decision making??

Yes I believe there is racism in today's police. But to suggest there is an underground network of influential people who wish to make life as hard as possible for gays is not a suggestion I can take seriously. Perhaps tomorrow when I have more energy I'll go in to why I don't believe it.

Originally Posted by Defiant

I'm an adult Graham so I wont be red repping you dont worry

I'm not worried about red reps (unlike someone around here...!) but I am worried that you found it necessary to drag this into public when it's completely off topic.

If you want to discuss this matter with me further (in an "adult" way) I suggest you PM me.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Defiant

Oh have a guess guys who's throwing the rep points out again like there's no tomorrow. Yep I know everything and you have to agree with me Graham.

I'm sure I asked politely a few minutes ago.....

Graham has neg-repped me a few times in the past (I believe) and sometimes his views make me hit the roof and annoy the brown stuff out of me but if he and I are to argue, it will be in PM. Please follow suit....

Originally Posted by danielf

Apparently... What do you mean? My understanding of he original link was that the gay rights organisation took exception to the rule that men weren't allowed to wear earrings

Do many/ any straight Policemen wear earings or only gay ones?

Was this ruling against *all* officers wearing earrings or only male ones?

I don't find it a great leap of imagination to see a connection.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Amen bruvvah.....

Oh come off it (good natured) your seriously saying that when your wrote that title you didnt expect some sort of 'reaction' against it??
If people are gonna 'over react' to not being allowed to wear earrings then they're certainly gonna 'react' to being called trouble makers.

[Russ]

I used to wear an earing. So did loads of my mates. Are any of us gay? No. In an environment where appearance and presence is vital, such attire on men is not what I would call appropriate.

Originally Posted by zendawn

Oh come off it (good natured) your seriously saying that when your wrote that title you didnt expect some sort of 'reaction' against it??

Not like this.

[Defiant]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'm sure I asked politely a few minutes ago.....

Graham has neg-repped me a few times in the past (I believe) and sometimes his views make me hit the roof and annoy the brown stuff out of me but if he and I are to argue, it will be in PM. Please follow suit....

Then I suggest you disable something Russ. What people cannot put there views forward without having some ____le repping everything that move's. I dont think so