"It's the Thing that counts..."

That was to the post before the last

Oh good. Thanks, jings

"However, my real concerns—I raised them with the Secretary of State in, I think, November, which is why I think that progress has been swift—related to staffing at the school. There are good teachers there who will find it difficult to secure alternative employment, and I am sorry for that. However, as a former senior education officer in the north-east, I was aware that there were very high levels of teachers working at Durham free school that I knew had already undergone competency procedures with other local authorities. A head teacher in the region told me that the school had become a haven for every crap teacher in the north-east. I am sorry if that is unparliamentary language, but that was what he said.

I am concerned about the £4 million that the school has cost in 15 months. I am concerned about the negative impact that the school has had not only on its own intake, but on all the other schools in the City of Durham. I remind Members that it was judged to be inadequate in every respect. Those children have lost 15 months of their education that they will never get back, and for that reason I am extremely grateful for the actions that the Minister has taken. This has gone on for too long, and I am pleased that he has pulled the funding agreement to ensure that it goes on no longer."

From Hansard, janea.
The reason I said that was because Nick Cohen's article said about using crap instead of gay the way youngsters use it. I think she would have been in more trouble if she'd used the word gay in that context.

By the way, I still have my husband's card from the local council. He was registered as disabled, not a man with disabilities. He had six different disabilities, so he would have had a lot of explaining to do every time it was mentioned. Disabled covered the lot and allowed him to get on with the conversation.

A stick can be used to attack people. It can also be used as a crutch, as a support for a climbing plant, as fuel for a fire, for a lot of other uses. It is a stick in all these uses.

If it has not occurred to someone to use a stick to beat the living daylights out of someone, they will not lift one with aggression. To be arrested for carrying a weapon, when taking home a support for your runner beans would be unfair.

Words are the same. They can be used to attack, to describe, to joke, to poke fun, to provoke emotions, good and bad. The word itself is only as bad or good as the way it is used by someone.

To be accused of aggression and racial abuse when it is not intended is as hurtful as to have aggression intentionally used against you.

Has anyone informed the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People that this civil rights organisation has had an insulting name for over 100 years?

I was listening to the black singer Jamelia who was asked if she thought Cumberbatch's comments were offensive. She said she was certainly not offended and felt sorry for people these days trying to keep up with what is and isn't permissible to say. She said it is easy to spot when someone is being racist and he clearly wasn't. She also said she can't keep up herself. She has a nephew who she described as 'mixed race'. She said her nephew told her that term was no longer acceptable. We now have to say 'of dual heritage'. I for one didn't know that.

Years ago I arrived at a small Kenyan airport and an African I walked past pointed to me and said he'd never seen such a white person. Was I being racially abused?

It would help some of us if these terms of ethnic identification were flagged up more when they change so we don't say the wrong thing. Here in rural Cornwall we are not always aware of the current requirement.

As the world has more people of mixed heritage, labelling people by their skin tone must become more absurd I would have thought.

But surely the point that Cummberpatch (I'm not sure of his first name – is he called Benedict?) was making was that black actors have far more professional opportunities in the USA than in the UK. It would have been very difficult to say that if he didn't refer to skin colour.

True.

I am probably looking too far into the future.

I'm with Elegran really, it's ok to show an interest and surely the first question to someone with a plastered leg would be 'oh, no, what happened to you?' However, you wouldn't say to a Downs child 'what's wrong with you, then?' because it's obvious and insensitive. I wonder if the difference is in whether a condition is perceived to be temporary or permanent? And, of course, there are other variables, such as age, gender, situation, environment that would influence what you said or did not say.

(PS No-one's yet told me how to describe the next citizen of warmer climes who comes my way. Perhaps I could refer to her/him as 'a benedict'?)

When I worked in Hongkong I was referred to by the patients as the Gweipo Nga-yi.
The female foreign-devil dentist

I shall always think of you that way now janeainsworth.

Fantastic, janesainworth. You should be proud of that.

My Irish dad never objected to being called Paddy, Mick, Bogtrotter, people coming up to him and saying 'top of the morning' and 'begorrah' 'seen any leprechauns today Seamus' etc. In fact he thought it was funny. He used to tell Irish jokes. Times have moved on.

I've often wondered: who exactly decides what is the latest "acceptable" term, and effectively outlaws the previous one? Does it happen naturally, or is most of it filtered to us down from public bodies who feel they have to change things for the sake of it, in an attempt to justify their existence?

Surely, most of us would not deliberately insult anyone, but perhaps I'm very naïve, because I don't see why the average person would be offended by the use of an "out of fashion" word or expression used in a non-offensive way. I'm very much in the camp that thinks that it is the sentiment that is important, not the word itself.

I don't know how many posters on this thread are personally affected by this issue. I'm always amazed at how often people decide that a particular term is perfectly OK and not at all offensive, when that term is not one that will ever be used to describe them.

I agree that some people actually relish being "offended" but I believe they are in the minority. I think it is reasonable to say that if it appears that the majority of a particular group prefers not to be referred to in a certain way, it is right that their feelings be respected. My husband and all the non-white people I know do not like to be referred to as coloured because of its associations.

We already know that for people in the US, the term "colored" is associated with a time when black people, under the ridiculous facade of "separate but equal development", were denied any semblance of dignity and basic human rights.

In apartheid South Africa, people were sorted into different categories - white, coloured, Indian and black. "Coloured" and "Indian" people had more rights than "Black" people. Perhaps therefore the term "coloured" is also unconsciously associated with a system that "sorted" people by degrees of colour and encouraged them to see themselves as either superior or inferior, dependent on what particular shade they happened to be.

It does, on the face of it, seem a bit contrary to object to the term "coloured woman" and yet find the term "woman of colour" acceptable. But how language is used changes all the time and similar precedents had already been set (e.g. when it became more acceptable to refer to "people with disabilities" than "disabled people"). I do see the reasoning behind it but feel that it takes some time for everybody to get used to the changes, and I don't think that using an old fashioned term necessarily indicates disrespect.

I am, like many others, surprised that a person of Cumberbatch's age is not aware that the term "coloured" has not been in favour for many years.

On the point of making personal comments about a person's disability, would it be acceptable to ask a stranger or casual acquaintance what caused the serious scar on her face?

Thatbags - your post of 16.28 is, to coin a word, crap. In respect of asking people about their disability, I qualified my comments with the words appropriate/relevant. Thus I would expect someone to ask me if I were taking part in a physical activity or if I were seeking medical attention - but not at a bloody social occasion or sitting on a train or whatever ir at a concert

Mamacaz - there are plenty fb people who use offensive words in a totally offensive way and then pretend to be shocked when you say you have found it offensive. It's not my responsibility to sort out who is being deliberately offensive or otherwise but it's their responsibility to know how to behave in society. I would only make exceptions for really old people - over 80(?) and the very young who would be naturally curious. Then I have a simple explanation for them.

I think there is a difference of attitude and usage about the word colored in the US and coloured in the UK. I should still like someone to respond to my question about the civil rights group The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, founded, I think, in 1909, and still going strong. (Mind you, I still find it gently ironic that one of the founder members was called [Elizabeth?] White and was, I think, a white person. Just an unfortunate coincidence of name.)

White people were among the first to challenge racism so I don't think an apology is required for the founding 'white' Elizabeth of the Nat Assoc for the Advancement of Colored People. She presumably saw that something was wrong and tried to do something about it, just like Cumberbatch.

Just in case anyone wants to get angry about me defending a white person's role in the association absent has mentioned, the most important word in my first sentence above is "among". I'm puzzled that you thought her skin colour was worthy of remark, absent. She was a woman who tried to do something useful. Why do we need to know her skin colour? I compare her in my mind to prison reformers. Same kind of social conscience at work, I think. The sort of conscience that just regards people as people.

Sorry I misunderstood you, GT. It happens.

The fictional character, Eugenia 'Skeeter' Phelan is another such woman. I expect there were quite a few such in the fight against slavery and racism.

bags I just thought her surname was ironic. I think she was an extraordinary and rather wonderful woman from what I know about her, although that isn't much. It was very brave to set up a civil rights group for coloured people (and that is the term that was chosen and it included both back and white peoples initiators) to oppose the Jim Crow laws and other disgusting racist abuses. I am full of admiration for their foresight and courage.

All very well but that's history. We're talking about today, the 21st century.