paris brown quits

the playing mantis

btw plz excuse my crappy syntax/spelling, i tend to reel of posts in a rush between working, so dont have time/inclination to check. a spellchecker on the full post editor would help!

ooermissus

Most of us are shocking hypocrites about this kind of thing - saying terrible stuff in private, but then going into witch hunt mode when someone else gets caught out doing it.

VTech

ooermissus wrote:

Most of us are shocking hypocrites about this kind of thing - saying terrible stuff in private, but then going into witch hunt mode when someone else gets caught out doing it.

100%

Anonymous

But that's the difference. In private things are taken in context, along with your personality, as any self-aware person would judge their audience before opening their mouths.
When you start spouting sh!t on the internet, expect people to read it, and read it out of context and give you a dressing down for being such a racist/xenophobe/homophobe/ginger whatever

Frank the tank

VTech wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Most of us are shocking hypocrites about this kind of thing - saying terrible stuff in private, but then going into witch hunt mode when someone else gets caught out doing it.

100%

It just doesn't apply to clearly offensive language/terminology etc but also...............well, what do you make of this true story.

Recently a 13yr old girl was run over and killed by a tram in my home town. It was on a crossing where you cross both the tram track and a train line. There had previously been a double fatality on the same crossing where an autistic child had ran in front of a train and his grand parent trying to save him also perished.
The thing is either way it is approx 3/4mile straight one way and approx 1mile the other clear vision. The girl was 13 and with a group of three or four friends. One said she was holding her hand when the tram hit her friend.
There is no way if that crossing was being used properly anyone would get run over. I spoke to two councilors who were both of the same opinion that the victim was more than a little to blame for her demise. But they wouldn't stand and say so as the victims mum had started a campaign to change the crossing. A totally unnessasary footbridge is now being planned. In the meantime the perfectly good crossing is locked shut.

VTech

frank, another valid but sad point.

People, mainly kids do not realise the damage of actions. Obviously not deserving of what happened but could have prevented it. I'm not sure these actions can ever be fixed but as a father of 3 I've always got the thought of what if in the back of my mind.

ooermissus

Frank the tank wrote:

Recently a 13yr old girl was run over...

I am bemused by your story and why you bought it up. Three people have died on a crossing, and you think a footbridge is a waste of money? Did you see the crossing as a cost effective means of culling the unfit?

CambsNewbie

...

Frank the tank

ooermissus wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Recently a 13yr old girl was run over...

I am bemused by your story and why you bought it up. Three people have died on a crossing, and you think a footbridge is a waste of money? Did you see the crossing as a cost effective means of culling the unfit?

The point I'm making is (I have to choose my words carefully as I was not witness to the incident)

13yr olds particularly when in a group tend to be 13yr olds (i.e. foolish) daring one another etc playing dangerous games. She did not deserve to die and I being a parent feel for her parents's loss. I do know the crossing and have used it loads of times always in the company of my bike.

IF USED PROPERLY THE CROSSING IS SAFE AS A TRAM TRAVELLING AT FULL SPEED YOU CAN SEE IT FOR A GOOD MINUTE AT LEAST.

No one was prepared to say, I'm very sorry for you loss but it was in all probability if not your daughters fault, certainly that of her friends; in not using the crossing properly.

ooermissus

Oh right - she was accused of playing chicken. Presumably the inquest will make a judgement on whether or not the accusation is true.

But two others also died and - maybe worth also mentioning - one more since then. So that's a child, a teenager, a grown man, and a grandmother in just a few years. A million quid for a bridge is a bargain, surely?

CambsNewbie

ooermissus wrote:

Oh right - she was accused of playing chicken. Presumably the inquest will make a judgement on whether or not the accusation is true.

But two others also died and - maybe worth also mentioning - one more since then. So that's a child, a teenager, a grown man, and a grandmother in just a few years. A million quid for a bridge is a bargain, surely?

I think Frank's point is not that he begrudges the cost of the bridge, but was linking back to what you said about the hypocrisy of what people say and do in public and then private..

ooermissus

Oh right. I think I am being slow today.

Frank the tank

ooermissus wrote:

Oh right - she was accused of playing chicken. Presumably the inquest will make a judgement on whether or not the accusation is true.

But two others also died and - maybe worth also mentioning - one more since then. So that's a child, a teenager, a grown man, and a grandmother in just a few years. A million quid for a bridge is a bargain, surely?

I believe the one since was a suicide.
The first person killed by the tram was a friend of mine and he was in Nott'm town centre I don't think they've built a footbridge there.

The crux of this is the crossing if used properly is perfectly safe. The cost of the bridge is not the issue for me it's just not needed. And returning to my point it's the fact people can't say what they believe to be true.

the playing mantis

but in this day and age the state is expected to protect agianst peoples own mistakes/misuse of things to protect them. there is always blame now. thats sad and a major problem now.

people will not take responsibilty for themselves or there own actions

ooermissus

Frank the tank wrote:

And returning to my point it's the fact people can't say what they believe to be true.

Yes I understand now - though, as I said before, maybe in this case it's better for the Coroner to say what s/he thinks based on a full review of the evidence, rather than a couple of councilors. Sorry for being obtuse.

dynamicbrick

ooermissus wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

And returning to my point it's the fact people can't say what they believe to be true.

Yes I understand now - though, as I said before, maybe in this case it's better for the Coroner to say what s/he thinks based on a full review of the evidence, rather than a couple of councilors. Sorry for being obtuse.

I don't think that's what Frank is driving at.

A Coroner would return a verdict of bland-speak. Something like 'Misadventure' which can mean anything from 'idiotic behaviour' to 'not paying attention'

At some point in the last twenty/thirty years, we've stopped saying what we think for fear of offending someone, somewhere - no matter how obvious it may be. Usually, it must be said, because the justice system allows people to be legally offended and therefore extract concessions.

This is the consequence of the civil and then gay rights movements, but the pendulum has swung beyond stopping people saying things that do cause offence (racist, homophobic, etc) to stopping people saying anything which might offend someone.

So, in Frank's case, the councillor may think the person was being stupid, but cannot say so for fear of backlash - whether or not the person was being stupid is now entirely irrelevant, councillor says it and automatically a) they weren't being an idiot, b) councillor is callous and offensive and the Daily Wail gets involved, and c) someone must be paid money to make it better. Ultimately, a footbridge is built because nobody can put a sign up saying "don't be a stupid person"

Team4Luke

and the country believes the yuuf of today are grown up or grown up more...................

Frank the tank

dynamicbrick wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

And returning to my point it's the fact people can't say what they believe to be true.

Yes I understand now - though, as I said before, maybe in this case it's better for the Coroner to say what s/he thinks based on a full review of the evidence, rather than a couple of councilors. Sorry for being obtuse.

I don't think that's what Frank is driving at.

A Coroner would return a verdict of bland-speak. Something like 'Misadventure' which can mean anything from 'idiotic behaviour' to 'not paying attention'

At some point in the last twenty/thirty years, we've stopped saying what we think for fear of offending someone, somewhere - no matter how obvious it may be. Usually, it must be said, because the justice system allows people to be legally offended and therefore extract concessions.

This is the consequence of the civil and then gay rights movements, but the pendulum has swung beyond stopping people saying things that do cause offence (racist, homophobic, etc) to stopping people saying anything which might offend someone.

So, in Frank's case, the councillor may think the person was being stupid, but cannot say so for fear of backlash - whether or not the person was being stupid is now entirely irrelevant, councillor says it and automatically a) they weren't being an idiot, b) councillor is callous and offensive and the Daily Wail gets involved, and c) someone must be paid money to make it better. Ultimately, a footbridge is built because nobody can put a sign up saying "don't be a stupid person"

That's pretty much it. Not limited to councillors though any member of Joe public would suffer the same berating.

ooermissus

I suspect you both underestimate the coroner's role - plus the allegations were extensively reported in the press at the time, and then denied by the family, so it's not like the silence is *that* suffocating.

As an analogy, we all had to play along with Mitch Winehouse's claim that his daughter had died because she had kicked the booze, but the inquest made it clear that, in fact, she had drunk herself to death.

rolf_f

Then there is that other unspoken rule. A 16 year old boy who has sex with his 15 year old girl friend is a paedophile and would get lynched if the Daily Mail decided ignorant people should know where he lives and yet the much younger children who killed Jamie Bulger aren't children because they killed another child.

Trouble is, people can't understand that stuff isn't always straightforward. I mean, you can build a bridge to cross a tramline where there have been accidents but people capable of being hit by trams on clear straight roads will probably find somewhere 100 yards down the road of the bridge to get hit. You've spent a load of money to solve a perceived specific location problem which isn't actually location related and the money you spent on that might well have been more effective in saving lives spent elsewhere.

CambsNewbie

Rolf F wrote:

Then there is that other unspoken rule. A 16 year old boy who has sex with his 15 year old girl friend is a paedophile and would get lynched if the Daily Mail decided ignorant people should know where he lives and yet the much younger children who killed Jamie Bulger aren't children because they killed another child.

A 16yr old boy having consensual sex with his 15 yr old girl friend is very, very, very unlikely to be prosecuted nowadays. Not in the public interest and the long term implications of putting this boy on the sex offenders register for doing what teenage boys and girls do..

If he was considerably older that's a different matter..

VTech

I think Rolf was commenting what is possible.
Too many times we see things that are not in the interest of the public or individuals go way further than needed.
Common sense is hard to find these days.

upperoilcan

Looks like im going to have to Google Paris Brown...... :shock: