Were you offended?

AB..... ' only concerned with self', really? that must be why so many people enjoy living here, and why others flock here then.
good post Helmacd by the way.

I still don't think you should use "swarmed" about people. It's for insects. (a swarm of locusts)

Oh God. I've got that wrong!

work it out

late

not that strange word that appeared by magic

You're a bit late with the lasyt sentence helmacd. We've already brought our "next generation" up.

helmacd I agree.

Where's the 'like' button when you need one?

It's time we changed the law again to stop people being able to get redress because they say they have been offended by someone/somehting.
I'm not denying that some people have reason to be offended, but there are an awful lot more who have joined the bandwagon to build a whole range of mountains out of a speck of dust!!
Life is about being ecstatic, sad, disappointed,envious, angry , pleased, and sometimes offended. So what?

Swarm, as someone said, is an innocuous word that describes a large number, and even if not innocuous are we going to reduce the English language to plain, unvarnished dry facts? We should glory in our language which allows us to paint pictures with words, metaphors, similes, alliteration, omanatopeia etc!

I'M offended by people being offended over absolutely nothing! What are they going to do about that??

As for the comment about the prostitute being murdered..well what is wrong with that? For a start, a prostitute can be of either sex, and secondly it's apposite to the story in that it's possible that the job puts someone at greater risk. Seems to me the writer is the one making the inference. Would they object to a report saying that a steeplejack had fallen off a building?
And finally, please don't bring up the next generation of children with the view that if they don't like what someoen says thay have a right to seek reparation for the fact that they have been offended. What a sorry world we would soon live in.

There was a time we turned Jews away yet we profess to be to the fore on human rights, we are only concerned with self

The semantics discussion was initiated by the rejection of a word, not by those who thought that it was a perfectly good term to describe a swarm of people trying to get over or throgh barriers.

It is possible, you know, to think about semantics AND the humanitarian crisis. They are not mutually exclusive.

Not in the least, it's the media stirring things again. Anyway you shouldn't try to hide the truth, what else would you call it?!

The latest idea is to fine or imprison landlords who do not get the correct documentation from the people they rent to. That is supposed to mean no illegal immigrants. On the other hand, some illegals are the very people who know how to get false documentation.

It is all so bloody depressing.

"We can dismantle, if we wish, all that is good about our country, in order to discourage desperate people from coming here. We can make it violently unfair and cruel, a place where there are no chances of a better life, no kindnesses to be expected and no freedom in which to start again.

Or we can recognise that we are facing a specific moment in history with specific obligations to rich countries. That requires European collaboration of the sort which the UK has persistently sabotaged, with fair, humane and efficient asylum claim mechanisms in place at ports of entry and a processing system which, unlike the detained fast-track, is not considered unfair to the point of being unlawful.

Perhaps such a strategy would attract more asylum seekers. Good. If we can save more people from the hell of Syria and Libya then all the better. An organised system across Europe would share out the burden equally and tolerably. It would be a small price to pay for Britain's reputation, its own sense of inner decency and the long-term security advantages of preventing regional instability in the Middle East and Europe.

As things stand, we will look back on this period with shame at Britain's refusal to participate in world affairs and its brute indifference towards those who seek its aid."

The final four paragraphs of the above link, for those who cannot be bothered to read the whole article.

Britain had 25,000+ asylum seekers wanting to come here at the last count by OECD figures, and we rejected 15,000+.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08/03/cameron-s-asylum-policy-turns-us-all-into-pound-shop-gestapo

Thanks, Gracesgran. I thought the same about POGS' naming of Harriet Harman.

I have just been sent an update on a petition about a stamp for Nicholas Winterton.

www.change.org/p/a-stamp-for-british-hero-sir-nicholas-winton?source_location=trending_petitions_home_page&algorithm=curated_trending

We wouldn't even been thinking about a stamp for him if he had just thought about semantics and not a humanitarian crisis.

GG

No.

Pointing out hypocrisy is however a valid comment considering it was her comment that set the 'crazy ball' rolling.

As for your last sentence which considers I do not give reasoned response of course you think that way because that is what a person feels when somebody says something that they don't like and they want to make a personal comment which has the one intention of belittling , feel free !

So are you saying that DC does and says everything in good faith POGS but that HH never does. For the reasons Jen put in the post before yours I think she had every reason to call our PM to account.

I think the very fact that you call her Harriet Harperson shows your comment is made from innate prejudice rather than reasoned thoughts.

I think it is nothing more than politics for Harriet Harperson to have made the comment.

I will give her 10 out of 10 for deflecting the media and conversation away from the Labour Party Leadership election which is causing problems and of course hardly a word has been mentioned by the stand in Leader of the Labour Party , Harperson, over the Lords debacle, left that to Betty Boothroyd.

I find it amusing that she feels it inappropriate for Cameron to use the word 'swarm' and intellectually she chose to dismiss dictionary variants which imply the word 'swarm' can and 'is applicable' to humans in terms of 'volume'. She wanted to make his comment about insects and twist the comment for polical gain and the media loved it, how pathetic.

Yet this is the woman who did actually use a member of the animal kingdom to make a personal attack on an opposition Minister didn't she! Harriet Harman famously said

"But there is one 'ginger rodent' who we never want to see again, Danny Alexander". Charming.

Where were the voices of those who were 'offended' on his behalf then, some who think Cameron is being offensive found her comment witty/appropriate , such is life.

Are those who are 'choosing' to dismiss the fact the term 'swarm' can apply to insects but not humans sincerely saying they have never heard or would think to take to task and be offended by comments such as :-

'The crowd 'swarmed' and invaded the pitch'.

'There was a 'swarm' of shoppers on Black Friday who pushed their way into the store'.

'There was a 'swarm' of marchers and the police were outnumbered'

Sorry but I found no offence in his interview and I would say that about anybody, from any political persuasion. I am astonished that some people find the word 'swarm' is only applicable to insects to be honest.

An offence is something that provokes a sense of moral outrage. To take offence means to be offended. Therefore I am offended by the idea that Cameron thinks of migrants as an amorphous group, when they are all individuals with their own reasons for wanting to come here.

A letter from a German in Saturday's i summed up my sense of outrage and disgust when he said he was shocked by British racism and appalled by the way migration is discussed in Britain, with the Prime Minister setting the tone, with the media eagerly following suit, both treating the Calais migrant crisis as if it was the Calais lorry crisis.

The crisis is humanitarian. Britain cannot fuel conflicts and get involved in wars without people starting to leave those countries. So the idea of setting up migration camps in Africa, which some politicians and some people on here think is a good idea, so migrants can be sent on to Europe to live, or back to their own country to die offends me greatly.

Cameron is my prime minister, whether I like it or not, as many of you keep reminding me. He therefore speaks for me, and what he says offends me.

Was it wise for Cameron to refuse to join with other European countries to discuss accepting quotas of refugees from Syria? With the governments latest tough stance - eviction ,prosecution of anyone letting accommodation, stopping the £36 payment etc will this ease the number who come here? Or will we find these poor people in an even more desperate position, in this country, no accommodation , no money , some have children , are we content to have children sleeping under hedges and hungry

Haha, yes, we have been playing with words all along, swarm on this thread and offended on the other thread.perhaps we should all just agree with the dictionary.

Perhaps we are, but my recent thoughts have helped me understand why people keep saying they are offended. It has baffled me for a while because I have rarely felt offended. I can't remember a single instance in fact, but I often feel annoyed and sometimes very angry about something, even someone once in a while. I express it, if it needs expressing, as annoyance or anger, not offence.

Maybe it's the way different people see things. I see "offended" as drawing back with some horror at what has been said. I think your sensibilities can be offended, whether you feel the horror on your own behalf or someone else's.

Perhaps we are just playing with words now.

Your sense of decency would be outraged. No-one would have said anything to or about your sense of decency to offend it.

I think councils would check anyway petra.