Christians attempt to ban swearing on TV

[Ashles]

A huge number of complaints, primariliy from Christians and Christian groups has poured in over the planned screening on 'Saturday of Jerry Springer the Musical' by the BBC.

Link to story (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005010636,00.html)

This link has only mention of one Christian complaint but there have been phone-ins on the radio about this and they seem to be the vocal groups.

This link from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4154071.stm) shows a more religious slant to the complaints.


Two questions.
1) What gives Christians the ight to decide what is and isn't permissible for me to watch? I personally resent paying part of my license fee towards a lot of religious programming every Sunday, but I don't complain about it as it is a media sevice that is supposed to represent everybody.

2) Why can't they just, er, not watch it? I personally have no interest in watching it, so, amazingly I will choose not to.

3) Just what is it with people? trying to ban things because of their personal beliefs? It's the rocky road to fundamentalism isn't it?

[geni]

Originally posted by Ashles
Two questions.
1) What gives Christians the ight to decide what is and isn't permissible for me to watch? I personally resent paying part of my license fee towards a lot of religious programming every Sunday, but I don't complain about it as it is a media sevice that is supposed to represent everybody.

Weight of numbers. Anyway I don't think it is legitimate to claim that the complaints are christian based. Certianly not on the evidence you have presented


2) Why can't they just, er, not watch it? I personally have no interest in watching it, so, amazingly I will choose not to.


You will still pay for it though


3) Just what is it with people? trying to ban things because of their personal beliefs? It's the rocky road to fundamentalism isn't it?

Perfectly normal human triant that has nothing to do with relgion. See far right/left political movements if you don't belive me.

[The Don]

I understand their poblems, but the demonstrators are lying in a number of ways.

- They've not seen the programme, merely lurid newspaper reports about it
- They claim 74% support, but this is only the number of declared Xians in the UK, I'm sure some Xians don't have a problem with the programme
- The programme is NOT about Christ

The problem is that not enough of the rest of us feel strongly enough to counter demonstrate to ensure that freedom is maintained.

[Ashles]

Weight of numbers. Anyway I don't think it is legitimate to claim that the complaints are christian based. Certianly not on the evidence you have presented
Well this section from the BBC site seems to indicate a fairly clear division:
Church groups have also called on people to join the protest because of what they see as blasphemous scenes.

The Right Reverend David Parsons of Highfield Road Baptist Church, Dartford, has been urging people to e-mail and call the BBC in an effort to change its mind about screening it.

But the National Secular Society defended the BBC's right to screen it, urging the BBC not to give in to "religious bullies".

And the radio comments I heard this morning were 100% Complainers - Christian

You will still pay for it though
That's fair enough. I don't expect to want to watch all the programming on the BBC and neither should they.

Perfectly normal human triant that has nothing to do with relgion. See far right/left political movements if you don't belive me.
And those are equally guilty of some fairly appalling attitudes and outright crimes.
It may be a natural human trait to want to suppress the opinions and voices of those who disagree with your viewpoint, but those opinions and voices, whether political or entertainment, are legally protected. As they should be.

[Matabiri]

And on the radio this morning, in direct connection (and something similar came up with the Sikh/play thing as well): "People should realise that they don't have the right to offend people."

I disagree. The right to free speech is the right to offend people. If you're saying nothing offensive, no-one's going to try and stop you and you don't need the right.

A lovely letter in Private Eye (about something else) which applies equally well... responding to the accusation that jokes "wouldn't be made about Islam or Muslims", one correspondent wrote, "Why don't Christians have the courage to make their own death threats?"

[geni]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well this section from the BBC site seems to indicate a fairly clear division:

join the protest. So they neither started it or form the main group.


And the radio comments I heard this morning were 100% Complainers - Christian


Well if you are a journalist you could spend time tracking down a cross section of those complaining or you could just ask the usal suspects


That's fair enough. I don't expect to want to watch all the programming on the BBC and neither should they.


So? You are aware that there are a number of long running campains against relgius programing as a whole on the BBC? Everyone has the right to complain. Everyone also has the right to not care that they do.



And those are equally guilty of some fairly appalling attitudes and outright crimes.
It may be a natural human trait to want to suppress the opinions and voices of those who disagree with your viewpoint, but those opinions and voices, whether political or entertainment, are legally protected. As they should be. [/B]

No they are not. See incewment of racial hatetred for a start

[DeVega]

... something which, as a writer (albiet not a very contraversial one!) I have had reason to reflect on. My own feelings are - do not write or broadcast anything which you are not prepared to 'own.' Words are powerful. If a writer, entertainer, says something which they KNOW is going to cause offence then, it had better be something they feel strongly about, have considered deeply, and will not later have cause to regret!

A good example of this is Marylin Manson - I cannot stand the man's music - does nothing for me - and in his early career, he did exactly what I am opposed to, he produced work deliberately for shock value. However, a strange thing happened; the 'monster' grew up - he realised that he was RESPONSIBLE for the things he was saying. That the strength of the ideas he creates cause ripples in the culture. He is actually an erudite and interesting man (although deeply scarred by his early life.) No, I don NOT agree with everything he says/believes but I feel he has come to recognise his responsibilities... (Sadly, a lot of his early fans don't get this and think he has "sold out!")

Onthe other hand - you have bands like (crappy) Cradle of Filth, who blithely offend as many people as possible and just think it is amusing. This is mainly because they are THICK AS MINCE! For example - when interviewed on Irish radio one of them actually said: "I don't get all this sh*** about the potato famine - could they not just eat something else..." (groan - I kid you not!)

The difference is in intelligence and intention.

DeVega
(who honestly is not a MM fan. Just has a ex-goth daughter!)

[Ashles]

join the protest. So they neither started it or form the main group.
Well you are choosing to interpret this in a different way. It seems fairly clear to me.
Mediawatch is based on the work of Mary Whitehouse - a staunch Christian campaigner for many years.
And the protesters:
gathered outside the BBC's Television Centre complex in Shepherd's Bush, west London on Friday afternoon, chanting slogans and bearing "Blasphemy Broadcasting Corporation" placards.
If you wish to believe this isn't primarily a Christian campaign then that's your right. It's a bit hard to see how though.

You are aware that there are a number of long running campains against relgius programing as a whole on the BBC?
No I am not, so clearly they don't get the kind of media coverage or number of supporters that this campaign has got.

No they are not. See incewment of racial hatetred for a start
I don't think you understood my last point. I was saying that we are legally protected from these extreme viewpoints and we are defended from racists and from those who attempt to curb our right to express our opinions (obviously as long as our expressed opinions are not themselves illegal).

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by DeVega
For example - when interviewed on Irish radio one of them actually said: "I don't get all this sh*** about the potato famine - could they not just eat something else..."
Cake!

[Ashles]

when interviewed on Irish radio one of them actually said: "I don't get all this sh*** about the potato famine - could they not just eat something else..." (groan - I kid you not!)
Wow! They actually said that?

Reminds me of an Alan Partridge episode (spoof British chat show host):

Alan: So, how many people were killed in the Irish famine?
Aidan: Erm, two million, and another two million had to leave the country.
Alan: Right. I mean, if it was just the potatoes that were affected, at the end of the day, you’re going to pay the price if you’re a fussy eater. If they could afford to emigrate then they could afford to eat in a modest restaurant.

[TragicMonkey]

I could understand a religious objection to the swearing that is religious in nature (taking deities' names in vain), but what possible religious reason is there to object to a vernacular word for excretory or sexual activities, or a term for a body part? For cultural reasons, such words may be deemed impolite...but they're hardly blasphemous or sinful.

Since there is no theological argument against such words, there can be no religious argument against them. Objectors are trying to push a secular disapproval in the guise of their religion, cloaking their own biases and opinions under the mantle of theology in the hopes of getting their way.

Which is utter ****, of course.

[pmckean]

Jerry Springer The Opera IS widely considered to be blasphemous by Christian groups.

The second half of the play takes place in Hell, with Jerry forced to hold a version of his show for Satan. Guests include Jesus, who confesses to being a little bit... gay!

Oddly enough, some Christians are upset. Hope the BBC sticks it its guns. I don't want religious groups to dictate what I watch, and it sounds like a bit of fun.

[An Infinite Ocean]

If you want to be driven to distraction by the sheer audacity and self-righteous indignation of the British Christian community, click here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4154385.stm

Warning: Don't read it while you're eating, you may choke.

Edited to add: It may be of some (little) interest to some that this musical was co-written by Stewart Lee - formerly half of the Lee and Herring comedy duo, seen on BBC2 in 'Fist of Fun' and 'This Morning with Richard Not Judy'.

From what I can gather, Lee is an avowed atheist and used to cause a bit of a fuss when he was on TV before.

[Ashles]

I didn't know that. I loved Fist of Fun. ("You may now drink your weak lemon drink.")

[iain]

Certain senior members of the BBC are under protection having received threats from Christian groups (an evangelical Christian group tracked down their home addresses and phone numbers & posted them on their website).

Another Christian group is planning to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy. That sounds great to me. If it fails, the blasphemy law is effectively dead. If it succeeds, there'll be huge pressure to reform or repeal the blasphemy laws.

(My wife and I watched and enjoyed it : a big thank you to the Christian campaigners, without whom I probably wouldn't have even realised it was being shown).

[DeVega]

I thought it was vile - deliberately crude - a waste of talented operatic voices - a tastless, self-satisfied, gutter-trash waste of money - much like the original show...

HOWEVER - I would defend anyone's freedom to watch it and form their own opinions. :)

It really was crap though IMHO ;)

DeVega

PS: Those loving, caring christians eh? I wonder how many of them have actually seen it? I would have thought they'd enjoy seeing Jerry Springer in hell... go figger...

[The Don]

I agree, I want to complain to the BBC. Not because of the language, not because of the blasphemy but because it was just a really, really bad piece of musical theatre.

The performances were fine, it's just that the plot, score and lyrics were very poor indeed.

[Cinorjer]

And on the radio this morning, in direct connection (and something similar came up with the Sikh/play thing as well): "People should realise that they don't have the right to offend people."

Here is the entire problem. People have somehow, through some sort of indoctrination, came to believe they have a right not to be offended by other people's behavior. If something someone says or does upsets you, then your rights must have been trampled on. If it might potentially offend you if you turned on the TV or went to see an art show, then the sheer existence of the material for others to see is trampling on your rights.

Before we bash the Christians too much about this, the Liberals on the "other side" are actually to blame for this stupid attitude. We are guilty of convincing people that they somehow have a right to decide what other people can say, all in the name of diversity and tolerence. It's the Political Correctness disease and why I stopped calling myself a liberal many years ago.

[Ashles]

I don't follow your agument Cinorjer. Christian groups are attempting to restrict what we can watch or listen to, yet it isn't their fault but the 'liberals'?
How does that work?

We have the right to freedom of speech and expression in this country (excepting, obviously speech that incites hatred, violence etc.)

The Christian groups are attempting to trample these rights. I don't see where the 'liberals' come into this. I think you have misinterpreted the aganda here.

This isn't a case of "I have the inherent human right to infringe other people's rights" which is nonsensical.
We are guilty of convincing people that they somehow have a right to decide what other people can say, all in the name of diversity and tolerence.
This just doesn't make sense. It is diversity and tolerance that gives people the right to create programming such as Jeery Springer.

Christian groups have the right not to like it, not to watch it and even to protest it. But not to demand it be removed, and certainly not to give death threats and publish people's private details.

'Liberals' have nothing to do with this.

[Cinorjer]

We have the right to freedom of speech and expression in this country (excepting, obviously speech that incites hatred, violence etc.)

I will try to illustrate my point by using your own words. First, though, I must point out that I am certainly not familiar with the laws of the UK. I can only speak to my own experience in the US, and maybe all I can do is warn you about what might happen over there.

You say you have the right to freedom and expression, except "obviously speech that incites hatred, violence, etc." Why obviously? What justification causes you to assume these catagories of speech are worthy of being outlawed? After all, it's just words. It is because this is speech that upsets you. You feel that people don't have the right to say things that go against what you believe to be proper behavior. You could stand up and make a counter argument for tolerence and peace and let the marketplace of ideas work, but it's easier to ban some types of speech, instead.

Over here, we have Political Correctness. That means if any public figure says anything that might be construed as upsetting some minority or special interest group, they are strung up, fired, required to apologize, and branded as bigots and lowlife scum that should be run out of town. OK, so I might be exagerating a bit. But a good idea - outlawing discrimination - has turned into a witch hunt for anyone harboring incorrect thoughts. And if I was a teacher or public official, I might get fired for using the term "witch hunt", since the PC term is Wicca, and I'm showing my prejudiced, bigoted attitude by using the term witch.

It is this same yardstick used by groups like Christians, since they see a program that "makes fun of" their religious group, and if they can't make fun of witches, then how can other people make fun of Jesus? Wouldn't it be better to understand that neither you nor I have the right not to be upset, period?

[Ashles]

We have political correctness here too, but it has never reached the fever pitch it has in the US. Our media is more tolerant of a wide variety of jokes and comments (although they vary quite wildly as to when one subject is in the media more).

What justification causes you to assume these catagories of speech are worthy of being outlawed?
Well this is the classic liberal argument taken to an illogical extreme.

Morally there is no particular objective right or wrong - it has been very flexible throughout history. That's the objective endpoint. But that (thank goodness) is not where we live at the moment.

However society reaches certain acceptable medians of behaviour which allow as many people as possible to live in as protected and free a manner as possible.
It is considered the optimum for all to allow everyone to believe what they like and express these beliefs up to a point at which it infringes the rights of others to believe and act as they like.
Basically it is the impact that your actions have on the wellbeing of others that limits your rights.
Wouldn't it be better to understand that neither you nor I have the right not to be upset, period?
Well as that is obviously impossible it's not exactly practical.

Jerry Springer the Musical will not incite hatred towrds Christians or any other groups. It is not creating bad feeling towards any of these groups so it is acceptable.
The Christian groups actions in protesting annoy me, but they have the right to protest, just as I have the right to go on a message board and moan about them, and the BBC can ignore the Christians and the Christians can ignore me. Everyone's expressing their opinion and being heard and this is a healthy state of affairs.

But those individuals who posted the private details and made death threats crossed the line and should be prosecutable.
That's how the society we live in works and I personally think it works pretty well.

Firing people for using un-PC terms happens very rarely over here. It gets in the paper when it does happen and can be appealed against. Any employer firing someone for this reason ought to have a pretty strong case or they are going to be sued for wrongful dismissal.

But it does sound like it is a little out of control in America, which is just how the lawyers like it.

[richardm]

.. Besides, the politically correct response would be "What's wrong with being gay anyway"? :D

[DeVega]

Jesus was one SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) Possibly the UBER-SNAG! So in touch with his feelings etc...

Hmmm, puts the whole "What Would Jesus Do?" thing in a whole new light!

Just teasing - I have no issue with it - by which I mean, I wouldn't care if Jesus was gay... assuming I beleieved in him of course... which I... oh crap.

Shutting up now! ;)

DeVega

D'you know - I think we can all agree he was a good person. The whole Son of God thing... neh, not so much...

And if I burn in hell for that remark - I'll tell Jerry "hi" for ya'll

[DeVega]

Politcal Correctness may be a pain in the ass but it's merely the side effect of society's good intentions. That gives me reason to hope the UK is not in fact, going down the pan as it sometimes appears...

I think Ashles might have hit the nail on the head by saying that in the US, the whole thing is aggrevated by the litiginous mindset of the society. It IS beginning to happen over here but I think the courts have less patience with it.


DeVega

[Stitch]

My thoughts turn immediately to the recent Sikh protest in Birmingham and the subsequent pulling of the play. I think the onus here should be on religious groups to provide evidence of the existence of their invisible gods first, then they may have a credible argument.
Andrew M, Walsall, UK


Glad to see some non-Xian comments are getting through!!

[Soapy Sam]

Originally posted by Ashles


We have the right to freedom of speech and expression in this country (excepting, obviously speech that incites hatred, violence etc.)




Ashles. Is the above statement true? Is it actually encoded in the legal system? Where?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Ashles. Is the above statement true? Is it actually encoded in the legal system? Where?

The legal system generally tells you what you cannot do rather than what you can.

The limitations in relation to incitement to racial hatred (and possibly soon religious hatred) will be part of the law. The right to free speech itself will not be.

[Azrael 5]

There were 47,000 compalints before it was screened and 900 complaints after screening!! Why do people sit through something they find offensive? Do they think "One more fu*k and Im turning over..."
Fu*k
""Just one more obscenity and Im not watching another second"
Jesus is a bit gay..
"Well it can't get any worse,Ill stick with it.."

The TV viewing public amazes me.There is an OFF switch!!:o

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
The legal system generally tells you what you cannot do rather than what you can.

The limitations in relation to incitement to racial hatred (and possibly soon religious hatred) will be part of the law. The right to free speech itself will not be.

Actually, the right to free speech is in the basis of our law, the U.S. Consititution. So, in theory, it is encoded in law.

However, what is not expalined there is what types of speech are covered, which is (I think) what the issue is here.

Generally, speech is protected under almost all conditions. Speech which directly promotes violence is, IIRC, codified as unprotected. This is typically not encoded but set by precident in the courts, although I beleive there are some general guidlines. The most quoted example is that of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater...such speech can lead directly to injury and/or death of others, and is not considered protected.

Much of the free speech arguments in the U.S. today center around where to draw the line between protected and unprotected.

Inesert obligatory IANAL statement here. I reserve the right to be wrong, and to be corrected by those with more knowledge nad experience, and claim no liability for anyone, public or private, using the contents of this post as any defense, or acting upon this information in any manner.

:)

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Actually, the right to free speech is in the basis of our law, the U.S. Consititution. So, in theory, it is encoded in law.
The U.S. Constitution is the basis for UK law? When did this happen?!

;)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by DeVega
Politcal Correctness may be a pain in the ass but it's merely the side effect of society's good intentions. That gives me reason to hope the UK is not in fact, going down the pan as it sometimes appears...

I think Ashles might have hit the nail on the head by saying that in the US, the whole thing is aggrevated by the litiginous mindset of the society. It IS beginning to happen over here but I think the courts have less patience with it.

In the US, it's not a question of law, it's a question of PR. You can legally say all sorts of things; but your employer would fire you for some of them, because it makes them look bad. The conduct codes for private businesses are the home of PC, because companies want to make sure that they can boast about how modern they are, and keep the workers from giving each other grounds for lawsuits against the company.

This is all civil law, though: citizens suing each other for money, not criminal prosecutions. You can still say practically anything in the US, including inciting violence, provided you make it general enough to not be a criminal threat. But just because it's legal doesn't mean you won't get sued for it.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean
The U.S. Constitution is the basis for UK law? When did this happen?!

;)

Well, I based that on the original question being asked by an American poster (or so I thought). My mistake :)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Well, I based that on the original question being asked by an American poster (or so I thought). My mistake :)

If the British would like the US Constitution, they can borrow it. We're not using it so much ourselves anymore.

[Ashles]

If the British would like the US Constitution, they can borrow it. We're not using it so much ourselves anymore.
Lol!:D

[patnray]

Originally posted by Matabiri
And on the radio this morning, in direct connection (and something similar came up with the Sikh/play thing as well): "People should realise that they don't have the right to offend people."

And what about those of us who are offended by that statement?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by patnray
And what about those of us who are offended by that statement?

The broadcaster airing such contention? The BBC, of course :rolleyes:

[iain]

I've just heard a very amusing interview with the head of a Christian organisation. They published senior BBC executives home addresses and phone numbers on their website; then acted surprised when said people got threatening phone calls.

His excuse was, and I do think this is superb, that it couldn't have been Christians making the phone calls because Christians wouldn't do that sort of thing. Unfortunately, some non-Christians must have visited the website and it must have been them that made the calls..

[Temp3st]

Originally posted by DeVega
...I wouldn't care if Jesus was gay... assuming I beleieved in him of course... which I... oh crap.



He spent most of hisadult life in the company of 12 men.
He never married.
He didn't have kids.
No mention in the bible of intimate relations with a woman.
He openly preached that we should 'love all men'
He wore a dress.


Gay

...and anyway - this article proves it - Jesus was gay, says academic (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/29/1054177665090.html?oneclick=true)

[iain]

Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4's "Today Programme" is becoming unbearable.

After two weeks of listening to people tell us that it really is OK for a loving God to all the tsunami (and the rest of human suffering) to happen, without mentioning why, we now get them banging on about how bad it is to offend religious people.

I know I should just turn off; but the masochist in me feels drawn to it. :xangry

[Cinorjer]

You don't think the UK has as bad a case of Politically Correctness disease as the US? According to the Evening Standard:
...................................
A British social worker is said to have been run out of her job after absent-mindedly referring to an Asian colleague as a piece of flatbread, reports the Evening Standard.

Rebecca Miles was working at a center for victims of racism and domestic violence when she uttered the racist remark. She reportedly had been discussing the case of a Bangladeshi woman with her colleagues when she forgot the name of the interpreter and said, "It was Pamala, Popalam or Pappadam - something like that."

She was told she could keep her job only if she attended anti-racism indoctrination and wrote an essay about police racism. She refused and quit instead.
.......................................

Heh. I don't think any of us across the pond understands what the fuss was about. "Pappadam" happens to translate as flatbread in Hindu, apparently. The article calls this a racist remark. Is this term some sort of known ethnic slur in the UK? Do people go around calling Asians "flatbread" when they want to be insulting?

Jerry

[Ashles]

Well I wouldn't base it on that one example.

It was considered a slur presumably because as she couldn't remember the name she just said the first Indian thing that came to mind i.e. a food.
Now this is very stupid for someone working in a centre for racist abuse - in most companies this probably wouldn't have gone any further than a telling off.
But in such a centre she certainly needed to show some kind of gesture to show she understood the importance of thinking before blurting out stupid comments.

It's nothing to do with the word 'flatbread' merely that someone working in a sensitive centre should think more carefully about what they say than most people.

I can happily use the word 'nutter' or 'lunatic' at work (and often have cause to), but if I were working in a counselling centre or psychiatrist's office then I would have to be more careful about my language.

[DeVega]

context is everything. I think it seemed quite harsh though and leads me to wonder if they were looking for an excuse to get rid of the worker. A friend of mine who spent nearly 30 years in the civil service jokingly said to me lately that it's almost impossible to get fired these days. (This is probably a slight exaggeration btw!) Trouble is, we'll never know if she had an exempelary record or a string of warnings already...
[Erm... the worker that is - not my friend! She's a good girl!]

Actually, I think 'poppodom' (which is almost certainly what she said) has quite a nice sound... "my little poppodom..." could be quite a nice term of endearment! - I'll try it out on my DH tonight!;)

On the subject of context - in this context! - my beautiful daughter is half (American) chinese/half scots. (Her father is from New York)- so she's genetically Born to Shop - Cheaply! I find the word "chinky" to be a deeply upsetting slur & would punch anyone's lights out who insulted my girl - BUT in Scotland, it is common practice to say that you "fancy a chinky when refering to a chinese takeaway meal!" I think it's appaling and ignorant. A few times when I've voiced this opinion people say they don't mean anything derogatory by it - it is "just an expression..." (NOT IN MY BLOODY HOUSE IT ISN'T!:o )

Can ignorance ever be a good enough excuse? My ex-brother-in-law told me recently that Americans of Chinese origin would never refer to themselves as "oriental" - apparently the term is a throwback to British colonialism! However it gets more confusing, because in the UK "Asian" is commonly used to refer to Indian and Pakistani people (since the 1970 Ugandan Asians fleeing to the UK from Idi Amin, I think) NOT Chinese, Thai etc...

There, y'see - I've fallen into the abyss of well intentioned Political Correctness!!!

DeVega

[Ashles]

Actually, I think 'poppodom' (which is almost certainly what she said) has quite a nice sound... "my little poppodom..." could be quite a nice term of endearment! - I'll try it out on my DH tonight!
Actually our little cat is called Poppadom. My girlfriend named him before we met.

It really suits him too.:)

[Cinorjer]

The first symptom of the PC disease is the wild overreaction to casual and sometimes innocent remarks, and this example from the UK is a perfect example. A woman makes a remark that could, at the most, be considered thoughtless. It's something we all do at times. A normal and measured response would be to warn the woman that she needs to watch what she says. Maybe she has to apologize if it's bad enough. Case closed, everyone goes on with their business.

But in a PC world, the woman is told she must go to tolerence indoctrination AND write an essay about tolerence, or lose her job! To me, this hypersensitivity is a symptom of the PC disease, of people thinking that hearing something that upsets them is a crime.

[Ashles]

A normal and measured response would be to warn the woman that she needs to watch what she says. Maybe she has to apologize if it's bad enough. Case closed, everyone goes on with their business.
And this is almost certainly what would happen almost anywhere in England.

But (as mentioned above) it was a centre dealing with racial violence and abuse so they will be far more senitive about these issues and far more strict about them.
I would have thought this would be obvious.

You seem to have an issue with (whatever your perception is of) 'liberals' and Political Correctness, but this case you have mentioned isn't a good example.

There are much better examples. My cousin genuinely had to learn 'Baa Baa Green Sheep' when at primary school in the mid-eighties. But this was due to a local council going a bit barmy about Political Correctness and it didn't last very long.

There will always be extreme examples that are very badly thought out and misjudged by a few individuals, but overall the emotion is in the right place - let's not allow people to feel victimised or threatened because of their race, sex, sexual inclination etc.

The extreme examples (by a small number of people who don't quite get it) damage this good work, which is a shame.

Especially if they give anyone the idea their opinions are widespread (which they aren't).

[Azrael 5]

My cousin genuinely had to learn 'Baa Baa Green Sheep' when at primary school in the mid-eighties.
In schools today you must call a blackboard a chalkboard,yet you can call a whiteboard its correct name ? We all know what happened to gollywogs....:(

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by DeVega
On the subject of context - in this context! - my beautiful daughter is half (American) chinese/half scots. (Her father is from New York)- so she's genetically Born to Shop - Cheaply! I find the word "chinky" to be a deeply upsetting slur & would punch anyone's lights out who insulted my girl - BUT in Scotland, it is common practice to say that you "fancy a chinky when refering to a chinese takeaway meal!" I think it's appaling and ignorant. A few times when I've voiced this opinion people say they don't mean anything derogatory by it - it is "just an expression..." (NOT IN MY BLOODY HOUSE IT ISN'T!:o )

So an abbreviation of the term "chinese meal" to "chinky" is a deeply upsetting slur, but the stereotyping of ethnic groups as "born to shop" or tight-fisted is acceptable enough for you to post it on a message board.

Interesting.

[Ashles]

Come on Jaggy, "Born to shop" is hardly an insult.

And it tends to be okay to make derogatory comments about a group which you are a member of.

[sophia8]

Originally posted by Ashles
There are much better examples. My cousin genuinely had to learn 'Baa Baa Green Sheep' when at primary school in the mid-eighties. But this was due to a local council going a bit barmy about Political Correctness and it didn't last very long.
Not that old chestnut again - where's a groaning smiley when you need one?
The facts about this one are that one primary school teacher thought it would be a good idea to write extra verses for the kiddies' nursery rhymes; so, for "Baa Baa Black Sheep", she wrote verses incorporating some other colours. No child had to learn it - it was just another verse in one of their nursery rhymes.
But, during the 80s, "mad leftie councils" were popular tabloid fodder; so somebody picked up on this and turned it into another "PC lefties indoctrinating our kids!!!" shock-horror.

[Ashles]

No child had to learn it - it was just another verse in one of their nursery rhymes
I just knew someone was going to challenge this.:)

I woud doubt it myself as an urban legend had it not actually happened to my cousin. I was there the day she got back home from school.

I agree there are many tedious and poorly researched horror stories about the loony-left most of which are wildly exaggerated or just plain untrue.

But I can vouch for the baa baa green sheep incident (whether she was taught other verses at school as well I don't know).

[TragicMonkey]

"Baa baa Green Sheep"?

How does the ovine community feel about the matter? Has anyone set up a Tolerance Dialogue with their representatives?

Tread carefully around the Ovine-British community: some of them are actually Lupine-British in disguise!

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Ashles
Come on Jaggy, "Born to shop" is hardly an insult.

And it tends to be okay to make derogatory comments about a group which you are a member of.

You may not consider it an insult, but others may disagree - see the very different reaction DeVega has to the term chinky for chinese meal to the people who are using the phrase in that way.

If I read the original post correctly then it is her husband who is chinese while DeVega is Scottish. So the "born to shop" comment is not about a group she is a member of.

[Cinorjer]

There will always be extreme examples that are very badly thought out and misjudged by a few individuals, but overall the emotion is in the right place - let's not allow people to feel victimised or threatened because of their race, sex, sexual inclination etc.

Do you mean you agree that we should not allow people to feel threatened or victimized, as opposed to actually being victimized or threatened? This is the PC disease. Unless you have a blind spot about equal treatment for everyone, you must then agree with the Christians who want to ban a TV program. They feel they are being victimized. That's all it takes to get someone fired if the group that complains is on the liberal side. I guarantee if the play "made fun of" gays or blacks, the PC police would be screaming for heads.

Either liberals apply the same rules to everyone or they are being hypocritical, that's all I'm saying. Personally, I think the whole problem is this attitude that it's someone's "feelings" that matter. I don't give a damn about your feelings, and you shouldn't give a damn about mine. Some people get their feelings hurt over nothing. Eventually we become afraid to say anything to anyone.

By the way, the remark about "born to shop" would rate being sent to tolerence indoctrination at the least. You're stereotyping someone. Shopping at discount? What ethnic group is commonly stereotyped as never buying retail? Jews, of course. Are you saying New York is filled with Jews? Or are you saying women from New York are too cheap to buy retail? You just made a huge blunder in the PC world with your remark.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
You may not consider it an insult, but others may disagree - see the very different reaction DeVega has to the term chinky for chinese meal to the people who are using the phrase in that way.

If I read the original post correctly then it is her husband who is chinese while DeVega is Scottish. So the "born to shop" comment is not about a group she is a member of.
Sigh.
"Born to shop" is
a) Not offensive in any realistic way
b) Shopping is a voluntary activity. Being Chinese isn't. The tem "Chinky" when used towards someone is deliberately offensive


Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
By the way, the remark about "born to shop" would rate being sent to tolerence indoctrination at the least. You're stereotyping someone. Shopping at discount? What ethnic group is commonly stereotyped as never buying retail? Jews, of course. Are you saying New York is filled with Jews? Or are you saying women from New York are too cheap to buy retail? You just made a huge blunder in the PC world with your remark.
It's clear you have some axe to grind about PC terms and liberals so I'll lay it out very clearly.
"Born to shop" (and I can't believe I'm having to explain this to people who have the intellectual ability to actually use a computer) is not an offensive term.
It's probably possible for someone to construe this as offensive but then this would be possible with almost anything.
Then you assume 'born to shop' = 'born to shop cheaply', which were actually separate in the original example, so your subsequent statements aren't relevant.

Personally, I think the whole problem is this attitude that it's someone's "feelings" that matter. I don't give a damn about your feelings, and you shouldn't give a damn about mine. Some people get their feelings hurt over nothing. Eventually we become afraid to say anything to anyone.
Argument to illogical extreme.
You may not give a damn about someone's feelings but luckily you aren't in charge of policing these policies. Abusive comments can have real impact on people and these 'rules' are there to try and protect people.
It sounds like you have read a couple of extreme examples and assumed it is far more widespread than it actually is. I personally have very little difficulty in getting through life saying pretty much whatever I like.
If you think it is accepable to make racist, homophopic, sexist etc. remarks in a workplace and expect this to be acceptable then you have a bit of a problem.

And everyone has a right to protest if they feel they are being victimised and it is for the laws we have developed in society to decide whether their complaint is acceptable or whether it isn't. It was decided the Christians weren't being victimised (and anyway this wasn't even what they were complaining about - they were complaining it was blasphemy and that there were too many swear words).

I am interested to know why you have such a problem with laws and guidelines designed to protect minorities?

[Ed]

Originally posted by patnray
And what about those of us who are offended by that statement?

Ah! The question is "are you a member of a protected class?". If not, you cannot be offended, or you have to just suck it in.

So, in Sweden, evidentially, if you cite Leviticus

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

You have caused offence. As a Christian (or Jew, or Moslem) however, the curtailment of your right to read aloud your sacred book can be infringed and you have no legal standing when it comes to being offended.

Very sick and dangerous stuff.

[Cinorjer]

I am interested to know why you have such a problem with laws and guidelines designed to protect minorities?

I don't, if the laws and guidelines are crafted to protect minorities against actual discrimination and harassment. You might call me a disgruntled former card-carrying liberal who feels our side was hijacked by the extremists in the exact same way the conservatives have let their nutcases define the agenda.

Any good idea can be taken too far. We talk about the Christian right wing fundamentalists and how they've taken over the conservative Republican movement? Liberals need to recognize that they also have their extremists and that sometimes individual rights are trampled on in the name of tolerence and liberal idealology.

[Ashles]

You might call me a disgruntled former card-carrying liberal who feels our side was hijacked by the extremists in the exact same way the conservatives have let their nutcases define the agenda.

Any good idea can be taken too far. We talk about the Christian right wing fundamentalists and how they've taken over the conservative Republican movement? Liberals need to recognize that they also have their extremists and that sometimes individual rights are trampled on in the name of tolerence and liberal idealology
Well I couldn't agree more with that.

I agree totally (and have mentioned so previously) that those who take it to an extreme do a terrible amount of damage to the good intentions of these laws and rules.

It is utterly wrong when "individual rights are trampled on in the name of tolerence and liberal idealology", but I do think this is relatively rare. It's just a shame that it is these stories that always capture the media's attention and often lead people to believe these laws are generally going haywire, when it is actually just a few very misguided people making ludicrous decisions. Like the Baa Baa Green Sheep example.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Ashles
Shopping is a voluntary activity. Being Chinese isn't. The tem "Chinky" when used towards someone is deliberately offensive


Firstly, in your post only the first quote is from me. I think you have made an error in the editing and attributed the other quotes, which are from Cinorjer, to me.

You seem to misunderstand how the term "chinky" is used in regard to a chinese meal. It is NOT used "toward" anybody. From the context of the original quote that is quite clear:

Originally posted by DeVega
BUT in Scotland, it is common practice to say that you "fancy a chinky when refering to a chinese takeaway meal!"

It is used in the same sense as you would say "fancy a pizza" or "fancy a curry". It is NOT common practice to refer to Chinese people using that term. If it were I agree it would be offensive. However that is not the case in the example given so is irrelevant.

You are correct, shopping is a voluntary activity. So is being tight fisted. So is being lazy or promiscuous or greedy and a thousand and one other activities that are stereotypically associated with one group or another. So what? The problem is not the nature of the stereotype, it is the existence of the stereotype - to assume that someone is predisposed to certain voluntary behaviour (good, bad or neutral) on the basis of there ethnic background, which as you point out is NOT voluntary, is offensive.

(As an aside, is the shopping thing a New York stereotype rather than a Chinese one? I don't think I have come across it before).

[Ed]

You are in serious trouble now. If you are wise you will shut up and hire a PR agency (if you represent a company) or be prepaired to abase yourself if you are anyone else.


Originally posted by Ashles
Sigh.
"Born to shop" is
a) Not offensive in any realistic way

So say you. Are you suggesting that the word "niggardly" is not offensive? It seems to me that you are basically one insensitive SOB.

b) Shopping is a voluntary activity. Being Chinese isn't. The tem "Chinky" when used towards someone is deliberately offensive

So, you think that "illeagal alien" is not offensive too? You are just digging yourself in deeper.



It's clear you have some axe to grind about PC terms and liberals so I'll lay it out very clearly.
"Born to shop" (and I can't believe I'm having to explain this to people who have the intellectual ability to actually use a computer) is not an offensive term.
It's probably possible for someone to construe this as offensive but then this would be possible with almost anything.
Then you assume 'born to shop' = 'born to shop cheaply', which were actually separate in the original example, so your subsequent statements aren't relevant.

As I pointed out, if you are a member of a protected class you may take offence as you wish. And this has nothing to do with assumptions, it has to do with feelings, and I feel violated (as a Jewish Orthodox Woman...non-othodox jews are not protected.)


Argument to illogical extreme.
You may not give a damn about someone's feelings but luckily you aren't in charge of policing these policies. Abusive comments can have real impact on people and these 'rules' are there to try and protect people.

Yes, and you come to the nubbin of the thought police rationale. Certain groups can not be made to feel "bad" because it might have an "impact" on them. Unfortunately, given the slippery definitions employed and feel-good assumptions (WTF is an "impact" for example?) one must be very careful about what they say. I find this offensive.

It sounds like you have read a couple of extreme examples and assumed it is far more widespread than it actually is. I personally have very little difficulty in getting through life saying pretty much whatever I like.

Good on you, mate. Fact is that it is pervasive.

If you think it is accepable to make racist, homophopic, sexist etc. remarks in a workplace and expect this to be acceptable then you have a bit of a problem.

Is complimenting a woman on their attire sexist? Is using the term "niggardly" racist?


And everyone has a right to protest if they feel they are being victimised and it is for the laws we have developed in society to decide whether their complaint is acceptable or whether it isn't. It was decided the Christians weren't being victimised (and anyway this wasn't even what they were complaining about - they were complaining it was blasphemy and that there were too many swear words).

Which they found offensive, made them uncomfortable and violeted basic tenants of their religion, presumably. Here they are unprotected so it is tough titties, except for the political pressure that they can bring to bear.


I am interested to know why you have such a problem with laws and guidelines designed to protect minorities?

There is law and there is pandering. If it does not apply to every single person then it is pandering.[/QUOTE]

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ashles

Can we use the Welsh as an example? Two common stereotypes about the Welsh are their "interest" in sheep and their singing abilities.

I say to assume that because someone is Welsh they are EITHER able to sing well or enjoy intimate relations with farm animals is offensive as it is a stereotype.

You seem to be saying that assuming they can sing well is OK, because assuming someone can sing well is not offensive. Have I understood you correctly?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Ashles

Can we use the Welsh as an example? Two common stereotypes about the Welsh are their "interest" in sheep and their singing abilities.

I say to assume that because someone is Welsh they are EITHER able to sing well or enjoy intimate relations with farm animals is offensive as it is a stereotype.

You seem to be saying that assuming they can sing well is OK, because assuming someone can sing well is not offensive. Have I understood you correctly?

Aren't they short too? I was told that they were bred that way so they could work in the mines.

[Ashles]

You seem to be saying that assuming they can sing well is OK, because assuming someone can sing well is not offensive. Have I understood you correctly?
I'm talking about this in terms of laws and guidelines. Someone Welsh would be far less likely to take offense at being called a good singer than to being 'fond of sheep'.

It is an area where a certain amount of common sense is to be encouraged. I have made jokes about the Welsh and have had them made to me in return (it doesn't work so well as I am only half-Welsh).
Someone certainly could be offended by a sheep reference and they would have the right to complain about it, as they would if they were offended about being called stereotypically a good singer.

The complaints should be judged by the amount of offense caused and the amount of offense intended.

Any comment or assumption about people as part of stereotyping runs the risk of offending someone - we can just hope that, if the complaint is taken further, there is a measure of common sense in the legal arbiters or employers who judge the complaint.

[Cinorjer]

Ashles: I agree that saying someone is "born to shop" because they're female and came from NYC is harmless and inoffensive to most people. But here's where the problem in using someone's "feelings" as a yardstick come in.

If you make this remark at work and a complaint gets lodged, you can argue the nature of the remark all you want, and it's irrelevent. Your crime is that you upset someone. The fact that someone got upset enough to complain means you're guilty. Period. After all, according to liberal idealogy we have a right not to be upset, and that trumps any right to free speech or being presumed guilty. Usually, you won't even get to find out who complained, because victims of tolerence must be protected at all costs. You're guilty, it doesn't matter what you intended, and you're fired.

Now do you begin to understand what the woman at the counciling center was put through? How unfair that was? As for this being a "special case" because she's working at a counciling center for abused women...an organization that is funded by public money, getting to make their own special workplace rules? Suppose a Christian counciling center using public funds fired a worker for making an offhand remark that might offend Christians? But that's all right, because the worker should have known a Christian organization demands special behavior.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Ashles
I'm talking about this in terms of laws and guidelines. Someone Welsh would be far less likely to take offense at being called a good singer than to being 'fond of sheep'.

It is an area where a certain amount of common sense is to be encouraged. I have made jokes about the Welsh and have had them made to me in return (it doesn't work so well as I am only half-Welsh).
Someone certainly could be offended by a sheep reference and they would have the right to complain about it, as they would if they were offended about being called stereotypically a good singer.

The complaints should be judged by the amount of offense caused and the amount of offense intended.

Any comment or assumption about people as part of stereotyping runs the risk of offending someone - we can just hope that, if the complaint is taken further, there is a measure of common sense in the legal arbiters or employers who judge the complaint.

Half-welsh? Does that mean you are a good singer but have no interest in sheep or.... can you not sing well? :p (Apologies to anyone offended, including Welsh people, sheep and singers.)

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
If you make this remark at work and a complaint gets lodged, you can argue the nature of the remark all you want, and it's irrelevent. Your crime is that you upset someone. The fact that someone got upset enough to complain means you're guilty. Period. After all, according to liberal idealogy we have a right not to be upset, and that trumps any right to free speech or being presumed guilty. Usually, you won't even get to find out who complained, because victims of tolerence must be protected at all costs. You're guilty, it doesn't matter what you intended, and you're fired.
What an awful system.
I'm sorry if it works like that where you live. It doesn't anywhere I have ever lived or worked.

Originally posted by Cinorjer Now do you begin to understand what the woman at the counciling center was put through? How unfair that was? As for this being a "special case" because she's working at a counciling center for abused women...an organization that is funded by public money, getting to make their own special workplace rules? Suppose a Christian counciling center using public funds fired a worker for making an offhand remark that might offend Christians? But that's all right, because the worker should have known a Christian organization demands special behavior. [/B]
Workplaces certainly can enforce special rules. I'm fairly sure strict rules on permissible behaviours would have been witten into her contract. If she didn't like it she didn't have to join.
If she felt they treated her badly she should have taken it to tribunal.
Your Christian example is exactly right in principle, (except for the fact that Christians aren't considered a minority group in the same way as different races are).

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Half-welsh? Does that mean you are a good singer but have no interest in sheep or.... can you not sing well? :p (Apologies to anyone offended, including Welsh people, sheep and singers.)
Half of me is a good singer. Unfortunately it is not the half that has my mouth in it.:(

[jmercer]

I cannot believe that "born to shop" is even a topic of discussion here. <sigh>

I'm a native New Yorker. If you go back and read the original post by DeVega, DeVega states that the girl's father is from New York, and so is "genetically disposed to shop - CHEAPLY!"

It's a joke on her (his?) part, but it's based on a real cultural phenomenon (not just in NY, but in several spots in the US) of "competitive shopping". The idea is to out-shop the competition by finding the same product(s) or service(s) for less, then making sure that everyone knows about it. :D

Other than inciting excessive consumption, it's a fairly harmless pastime. The people that indulge in it are actually proud of what they do. There are shirts (and not cheap tee-shirts!) that express these and similar sentiments that you'll see people wearing... there are even temporary tatoos (sp?) available - I kid you not. "Born to Shop", "Shop 'til you drop", "Shopping is an Olympic Sport!", "I live for Bargains!", etc.

And it's not just a female thing, although women tend to shop for different items than men do. And - perhaps more to the point - it's completely cross-ethnic, so there's no ethnic slur involved.

Although I am slighty offended by Jaggy's implication that being a New Yorker makes me a member of an ethnic group. ;)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by jmercer
I cannot believe that "born to shop" is even a topic of discussion here. <sigh>

I'm a native New Yorker. If you go back and read the original post by DeVega, DeVega states that the girl's father is from New York, and so is "genetically disposed to shop - CHEAPLY!"

It's a joke on her (his?) part, but it's based on a real cultural phenomenon (not just in NY, but in several spots in the US) of "competitive shopping". The idea is to out-shop the competition by finding the same product(s) or service(s) for less, then making sure that everyone knows about it. :D

Other than inciting excessive consumption, it's a fairly harmless pastime. The people that indulge in it are actually proud of what they do. There are shirts (and not cheap tee-shirts!) that express these and similar sentiments that you'll see people wearing... there are even temporary tatoos (sp?) available - I kid you not. "Born to Shop", "Shop 'til you drop", "Shopping is an Olympic Sport!", "I live for Bargains!", etc.

And it's not just a female thing, although women tend to shop for different items than men do. And - perhaps more to the point - it's completely cross-ethnic, so there's no ethnic slur involved.

Although I am slighty offended by Jaggy's implication that being a New Yorker makes me a member of an ethnic group. ;)

I think the cheaply part is a reference to the Scottish part of her genes. After all we are famous for our, shall we say, cautious attitude to spending.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I think the cheaply part is a reference to the Scottish part of her genes. After all we are famous for our, shall we say, cautious attitude to spending.

I found a description of this demonstration in an old book of hand tricks:

Get someone to put their hands together so that the tips of their forefingers, ring fingers, and little fingers are touching. The middle fingers should be folded so that their first (lower) knuckles are touching.

Put a penny between the forefingers and say, "There's a penny for the English."

Put a penny between the ring fingers and say, "There's a penny for the Scots."

Put a penny between the forefingers and say, "There's a penny for the Welsh."

Then ask the person to drop the pennies without separating the middle fingers. The Scottish fingers hold their penny tight!

I suppose this passed for amusement once.

[DeVega]

...Look... I will explain this really slowly for those who are enjoying takink offence... or taking the p***

IAM Scottish. I know we Scots have a certain reputation for, shall we say, loving a bargain. I DO match that stereotype! Sorry guys but it's true! I repeat I am a (proud) Scot who loves to shop CHEAPLY! I come from a relatively affluent household & I STILL enjoy a good scrum in a charity shop...

My ex-husband is from New York. A place where people from the UK RAVE about the wonderful shops - 5th Avenue etc. It is something of a draw which I thought most people would understand. Maybe in the US New York would not be considered THE place to shop as it is here...

(and you might rightly surmise from this that my ex-husband being Chinese is something of a red-herring in terms of the infamous perceived slight.)

So YOU SEE when I say my beloved girl is BORN TO SHOP -CHEAPLY I do KNOW whereof I speak. And trust me, she CAN shop till I (and my plastic) drop/s!

I hope this lays this somewhat bizarre speculation to rest - although I would have tought that most people posting here would be intelligent enough to realise I would not slight my own daughter OR indeed, my ex-husband in this regard.:o


And BTW. I'm sorry but I DO consider Chinky a horrible word. It is not always used in connection with meals only... but maybe that's my perception of it...

DeVega

[DeVega]

... it is all in the context, as someone said - oh yeah, it was me;)
and also the perception of the speaker and the receiver...

in short, a minefield!

DeVega
(who is off to lie down in a darkened room)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Matabiri
I found a description of this demonstration in an old book of hand tricks:

Get someone to put their hands together so that the tips of their forefingers, ring fingers, and little fingers are touching. The middle fingers should be folded so that their first (lower) knuckles are touching.

Put a penny between the forefingers and say, "There's a penny for the English."

Put a penny between the ring fingers and say, "There's a penny for the Scots."

Put a penny between the forefingers and say, "There's a penny for the Welsh."

Then ask the person to drop the pennies without separating the middle fingers. The Scottish fingers hold their penny tight!

I suppose this passed for amusement once.

Try that with a Scottish person and it won't work.

There's no way we would drop tuppence!

[supercorgi]

Originally posted by DeVega
My ex-husband is from New York. A place where people from the UK RAVE about the wonderful shops - 5th Avenue etc. It is something of a draw which I thought most people would understand. Maybe in the US New York would not be considered THE place to shop as it is here...
I never considered NYC *The* place to shop but I suppose many people do. Basically the whole of the US eastern seaboard is one big shopping mall. You can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a store.

(and you might rightly surmise from this that my ex-husband being Chinese is something of a red-herring in terms of the infamous perceived slight.)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I was racking my brain trying to figure out the relationship between "Chinese" and "born to shop" -- it certainly wasn't a stereotype I had ever run in to.

[DeVega]

that great. The whole approach to shopping is different in the US - like how one assistant attaches themselves to you the minute you walk through the door. "My name is..." To be sure they make their comission I guess?

I liked shopping in New England where they're slightly more relaxed about it...

But for some reason NY is firmly fixed in the UK shoppers hearts!

DeVega

[Sandy M]

Uh... just to remind that "niggardly" as a word has northing to do with race and that OTHER "n-word."

nig-gardly adj. 1. grudging and petty; stingy. 2. Scanty; meager. (ME nigard. Scand.orig.)

I suppose if one is "Born to Shop - Cheaply" one might be characterized as "niggardly," but it would have nothing to do with race, despite some PC reaction to the contrary.