Chat Forum
[closed]
Transexual joke led to police warning
-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Sack him.
Posted 3 years ago # -
who me? ......just cause I can't dance?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes. You think you can, but you can't.
Me, on the other hand...
I mean, 'ave you ever seen me dancin'? Y'know, really dancin?
Posted 3 years ago # -
That's his side of the story.
Given the choice of choosing whether to believe a Tory councillor or the police on a matter relating to sexual orientation discrimination/hate crimes, and knowing that the police are trying to treat these important issues seriously, on this occasion I choose to believe the police, and not some Tory councillor who's agenda I don't even know.
West Midlands Police have "strongly refuted" the version of events described by Mr Yardley during and after the meeting last October.
At the time he thanked the officers for discussing the matter with him and the appropriate and proportionate way that they dealt with the matter. We are at a loss to understand why this has been raised now almost six months after the event.
"West Midlands Police would not wish the public to be left with the impression that this matter occupied a large amount of police time, as the contrary is true. We spend our time successfully tackling crime, anti-social behaviour and arresting criminals, as the public quite rightly expects us to."
Posted 3 years ago # -
I mean, 'ave you ever seen me dancin'? Y'know, really dancin?
Yes!!
Posted 3 years ago # -
At the risk of sounding like my dad..."FFS, You can't say or do bloody owt these days without some bloody do-gooder or deviant having a go about it...send them all back and throw away the key, etc".
Posted 3 years ago # -
semms pretty innocuous as terra says but as he is a Tory i say BURN HIM
Posted 3 years ago # -
We are at a loss to understand why this has been raised now almost six months after the event.
I'm guessing it's because the 6 month time limit for lodging proceedings has now passed. Mr Yardley has obviously been quietly seething for 6 months, and now feels safe enough to make a stink about it. Hasn't he also got 'much more important issues' to deal with? Or is he just lifting his snout out of the trough for a second to whinge about his dented ego?
Posted 3 years ago # -
OK so how many buttons should this remote thingy have had then?
A = Male
B = Female
C = Transgendered
D = Gay
E = Lesbian
F = BiSexual
G = Gay but still in the closet
H = Lesbian but still in the closet
I = ???Posted 3 years ago # -
Actually youd need just one more, LGBT, is the correct terminology.
Lesbian , Gay, Bi sexual,and Transgender.Or "I" for ignorant tory .
Posted 3 years ago # -
LGBT - that seems to be confusing sexuality and gender... I'd say the transgender person in question should have just pressed the button they felt like: if you feel you're a woman, look like a woman, and want to be treated as one, behave like one and hit the appropriate button.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The issue isn't the buttons, it's the comment made. When chairing a public meeting he should have been aware that everything he said would be scrutinised.
Although some may view this as political correctness gone mad it's actually an example of people standing up for themselves and not tolerating the behaviour of ignorant bigots. 20 years ago a comment like this may have been acceptable for many people but not for the person it was directed at, they were just less likely to stand up and fight. It may also have been acceptable by some at that time for a police officer to give someone a hefty backhanded slap.
The chances are the guy meant no malice by his comment but that's no excuse, he should have been aware of the fact that the audience was made up of members of the public and tailored his comments accordingly, we all do it. Would you tell the same joke to your Granny that you'd tell to your biking mates?
Posted 3 years ago # -
He gets lots of good press though
I don't remember him from when I used to work with the CA there, I did run away when they asked me to be Nick Budgen's agent.Posted 3 years ago # -
The issue isn't the buttons, it's the comment made. When chairing a public meeting he should have been aware that everything he said would be scrutinised.
Though actually what is wrong with the remark made (as reported in that article)? Is it actually offensive, apart from to those looking to be offended? I'm guessing that anybody asking the question asked is probably the latter, as what a stupid question to ask anyway - I mean exactly what sort of sensible answer is there to that question?If all that makes me an ignorant bigot, then I really couldn't care less.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I would have assumed that the guy asking the question was intending to be funny as otherwise its a fekkin stupid question. IMO....
Posted 3 years ago # -
mudshark good ans,, this world is **** with all this pussy fotting around then cring to the police cos they said a bad word to me
Posted 3 years ago # -
wots all the fuss about , i thought it was quiet funny.what next , no more gay jokes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 3 years ago # -
The person involved,thought it was homophobic, as did her partner,as did the police,it was a meeting funded from taxpayers, about taxpayers of that cities needs,more respect should have been given.
If the councillor wanted humour, of that sort listen to moyles,(humour and moyles, i know dont mix for most sensible people).9
Posted 3 years ago # -
Some people are desperate to be offended
Posted 3 years ago # -
I don't see how this is an homophobic issue.
There was a man and there was a man dressed up as a woman.
The man fancies women, ok in this case it's a man "dressed up" as a woman that he facies, but it's still a "woman in a dress" that floats his boat. That doesn't make him gay. Gay men fancy men dressed up as men afaik.
The man dressed up as a woman wants to be a woman, so should be considered as one.
So if neither of them are gay. Where does the homophobia come in?
Posted 3 years ago # -
"Unbeknown to him there was a man dressed as a woman in the audience whose male partner had raised the question."
Sweet baby Jebus and all of the orphans! I really do despair. That has got to be the biggest non story I have ever read.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"as did her partner"
Read it again.
Posted 3 years ago # -
A man in a dress is still a man.
Button A.
What I do find insulting is that Male should be given priority and assumed to be button A. Why not have Female be button A?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Buton A for men = arseholes.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Buton A for men = arseholes.
Now that is homophobic
Posted 3 years ago # -
He should have told them that 'he loved the cock' and walked out.
Posted 3 years ago # -
aracer
If all that makes me an ignorant bigot, then I really couldn't care less.
I don't think it makes you an ignorant bigot, but I think it might mean that you're maybe a bit gullible.
West Midlands Police have "strongly refuted" the version of events described by the councillor. So either the police are lying, or the councillor is lying, why have you chosen to believe the councillor ?
How do you know exactly what he said - because of what he's told the press ?
Certainly if things happened as he says they happened, then it would be a complete waste of police time. Which is one of the reasons why I choose not to believe him and choose instead, to believe the police.
I suspect that Mr Yardley has his own agenda, which would certainly help to explain why he waited 6 months before complaining. I also suspect that Mr Yardley is a crap councillor who feels a need for publicity and public sympathy.
After all, if the version of events are exactly as described by Mr Yardley and the police did indeed act in such an outrageous manner, then it suggests that he must be one hell of a crap councillor, if it takes him that long to deal with an issue which he apparently claims to be so serious.
Posted 3 years ago # -
West Midlands Police have "strongly refuted" the version of events described by the councillor. So either the police are lying, or the councillor is lying, why have you chosen to believe the councillor ?
I'm believing both - they don't appear to have refuted the question and reply made, which is all my comment referred to - can't be bothered to go into the "he said, they said" of what actually happened regarding a complaint. They do appear to claim though that people did find the remark in question offensive, so my comments about people looking to be offended stand. So who exactly is gullible?FWIW I tend to agree with you and believe the police on the dealing with the matter, but like I said, really can't be bothered.
Posted 3 years ago # -
They do appear to claim though that people did find the remark in question offensive so my comments about people looking to be offended stand.
And yet the only information which you have about what exactly was said, is from the councillor. The councillor who had to wait 6 months before he decided that he outraged by what the police had done.
Posted 3 years ago # -
yet the only information which you have about what exactly was said, is from the councillor.
Information which the police appear not to refute. In my mind that means they agree with that part of the story. If you think that's not the case, then I'd suggest your issue is with the journalist (feel free to suggest it's a rubbish paper - I know you want to )
Posted 3 years ago # -
The police "strongly refuted" his version of events. There's nothing in the article to suggest that they agree with what he claims to have said, they simply point out that his comments were not met with general amusement. Like you, I'm not really bothered with the story, and what exactly was said. As I've said previously : I suspect Mr Yardley is a crap councillor who feels a need for publicity and public sympathy.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I wonder who it was in the audience who asked the question ? The same person who made the complaint by any chance ?
Although some may view this as political correctness gone mad it's actually an example of people standing up for themselves and not tolerating the behaviour of ignorant bigots.
Oh FFS no it's not - it's actually complete bollocks wasting everyones time
Posted 3 years ago # -
I have a related question - would it be inappropriate to suggest that a gay man would find it easier to find casual sex than a straight one? I'm led to believe that this is the case but is it frowned upon to say it...and is it true?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'm led to believe that this is the case but is it frowned upon to say it...and is it true?
Is it frowned upon to say that?
Though strictly speaking it would depend on the gay man in question, so it does fail as a stereotype, though may be a statistical truth. In the same way as saying a straight woman can't catch a ball.
It is frowned upon to say things such as homosexuals are dammend to hell because of their untrammelled lascivious fornication. But that's not quite the same thing.Posted 3 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
