Golli in the window

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....hbour-black-wife.html

Is it being racist to display a legal toy in one's window?

[anotheoldgit]

Andy-Hughes

/// AOG - as is your custom, ytou have raised a news item for debate - but you have not ventured a personal viewpoint. ///

I don't know whether or not you were referring to me raising a news item for debate or that it is my custom of not venturing a personal viewpoint.

If it is the latter, then that is untrue I almost always make personal view points to my questions, the reason I have not yet done so is because my question was entered just before I came off my computer, and I have now only just come back onto it.

I do hope that clears up your concerns; now please give me time to construct my viewpoint on this subject.

[anotheoldgit]

Yes it seems that there was a dispute between the two parties, who started it is anyone’s guess, or what insults had been issued by both parties, perhaps the black person had said that her white neighbour was a “Fuc**** fat old bag“or even “An Old Cow” or any other highly insulting terms, who knows?

The fact remains however that perhaps the elderly person not knowing how to get her own back on her black neighbour decided to put her Golly in the window, just to vent her frustration.

Mr O’Donnell, said “‘It’s not a children’s toy, you can see it has buttons and other items on it, it was clearly deliberately placed on the windowsill facing out of the window”?????? Who has ever seen a Golly without ‘buttons and things’?

His wife said she was ‘shocked and upset’ we are talking about two high flyers here he an IT executive, and her a business woman, I am sure they have had to face up with much more than a simple toy, (put on display for provocation or not), in their rise to their present status?

[anotheoldgit]

Having now read the full article, what this is really all about is because the O’Donnell’s hired a planning consultant to object to the Mason’s plans to build stables, this must have infuriated Mrs Mason , and that is when the Golly appeared in the window.

But days after the local council granted, the Masons permission to build the stables, that is then, and only then it would appear that Mrs O’Donnell’s took offence to the Golly enough to report it to the police.

[askyourgran]

Having read the story in the link it looks as though the golly was put there deliberately, was it the Grandson's bedroom window.

[nannybooby]

Where did she get a golly in this day and age ? It propably was racist but then a young black woman ranting off at an older woman isnt nice either both of them should be more tolerant

[anotheoldgit]

Now it comes to the racist bit, it has been said “some of what was acceptable back in the 60s and 70s is no longer acceptable in this society”. That maybe is why the more elderly person cannot get their head round all this Racist PC business.

This is because they have lived in a country where once one had the benefit of free speech, and one didn’t have to look over one’s shoulder before one said anything or consulted a PC dictionary before writing anything.

Today laws have been brought out, not only just to protect peoples of a different race or religion, (and quite rightly so when it comes to actual discrimination or physical attacks), but also laws against using certain words or making certain gestures which is going a little too far, since they only apply to certain persons of particular race or colour, after all even on AB you have some posters saying “you've got the guts to say what a lot of us haven't” some people are that scared, which they shouldn’t be.

It is interesting to note however that the politicians who make these ‘Anti-Racist’ laws are not themselves against certain acts of racism themselves when it comes to their foreign policies, so should they be surprised at others attitudes against their enemies?

In comparison it makes the displaying of items such as a Golly or even a Pig so insignificant.

[andy-hughes]

Thanks for your response AOG - like a man in orthopedic shoes - i stand corrected.

[ummmm]

"racism" look it up in the dictionary and you'll know what it means.

Racism works both ways...

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// The good news is that this foolish woman now has the shame of a criminal conviction.///

Er, she hasn't been convicted yet.

/// Are there more elderly people willing to racially abuse their black neighbours outside the big cities, than inside? ///

You mean of course 'White elderly people', don't you?

One could equally ask the same about Black elderly people's abuse to their White neighbours, or doesn't that count?

You said "She could be a nasty old cow" isn't that also classed as abusive, but then her being White, it is not an arrestable offence of course.

/// if racism always seems to be one way...shouldn't you question why? ///

I am questioning "WHY"???????

[Kromovaracun]

"some people are that scared, which they shouldn’t be."

Quite right, they shouldn't be scared. Because, contrary to popular belief, it's actually not true that 'they're coming to get you' for not being PC. You'll just get people challenging it. Unless of course you're scared of somebody challenging you.

I also agree with you that elderly people who never had their attitudes on race or various other minorities challenged during the 1970s may well find the new climate unsettling. Personally, however, I fail to see that this is a bad thing.

[andy-hughes]

"Now it comes to the racist bit, it has been said “some of what was acceptable back in the 60s and 70s is no longer acceptable in this society”. That maybe is why the more elderly person cannot get their head round all this Racist PC business. This is because they have lived in a country where once one had the benefit of free speech, and one didn’t have to look over one’s shoulder before one said anything or consulted a PC dictionary before writing anything."

AOG - you speak of 'this Racist PC business' as though it's some kind of new-fangled nonsense for the 'young people' and that as an older citizen who has grown up in different times, this woman can be exempt from dealing with the changes because of her age.

That is simply not acceptable. Not ackowledging the law because it simply doesn;t fit with what you are used to is no excuse at all - nor should it be. on that basis, I should be able to castigate homosexuals when ever and where ever i find them, because when i was growing up, homosexuality was illegal. It is simply not the way society works. heaven knows, we don't put children in factories to die in machinery, we don't allow husbands to beat their wives with a proscribed thickness of a stick, we don't allow bear-baiting in the streets, and so on and so on. laws are updated as society changes, and imagining that being above a certain age gives you some sort of exemption is derisory - and to its credit, the law is excercising this neighbour's right not to be racially harassed - what ever the background may or may not be.

"Today laws have been brought out, not only just to protect peoples of a different race or religion, (and quite rightly so when it comes to actual discrimination or physical attacks), but also laws against using certain words or making certain gestures which is going a little too far, since they only apply to certain persons of particular race or colour, after all even on AB you have some posters saying “you've got the guts to say what a lot of us haven't” some people are that scared, which they shouldn’t be."

Can you suggest anyo of the regular debators on this section who are 'scared' to write and defend their opinions?

Myself/ Jackthehat? triggerhappy? i think you are on a loser with that point.

[anotheoldgit]

ludwig

/// What they should have done is just put a big sign in the window saying 'My neigbours are ***', or hired a gang of yobs to stand outside the house all night every night shouting (non racist) insults and throwing stones at the house and generally harrassing them and making their life hell. Then there would have been no trouble. They didn't think it through. ///

Actually there would have been trouble.

The Black person could still report them to the police and the first thing the police would have asked is "do you class it a racist matter"?

They would only have to say "yes" and the police would then 'high tail it' round, without further delay.

[anotheoldgit]

Andy-Hughes

/// Can you suggest anyo of the regular debators on this section who are 'scared' to write and defend their opinions? ///

notasyoungasiwas. was the poster who said “you've got the guts to say what a lot of us haven't”

Others more timid, have been so scared that they no longer contribute to some questions regarding race.

You go back to the days of children up chimneys why I do not know totally irrelevant, I would have thought.

I have already said that there should be laws to protect peoples of various religions, race, and as you stated gender, against physical harm etc.

But as I was always taught "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling never hurts me".

So words or gestures should not be illegal to only certain groups, when it is not illegal for others to be called or gestured against.

Why should certain groups have this privileged hold over others?

Otherwise make all calling and gestures illegal to all, thinking of that wouldn't that be a better world, no swearing, no finger salutes etc, etc.

[boxtops]

I can't believe this thread is still going - round in circles now...

[anotheoldgit]

boxtops

Just jump off, when you want.

[boxtops]

I only jumped in to see how far it had got :-)

[anotheoldgit]

boxtops

Now don't you get, getting yourself dizzy. :0)