• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Oh, The Irony

So you don't think there's a difference with being forthright and being rude?
It is possible to be open and honest but phrase things in a way that doesn't cause offense. It's called being tactful, and not such a bad thing to me.
 
Stormkhan said:
So you don't think there's a difference with being forthright and being rude?
It is possible to be open and honest but phrase things in a way that doesn't cause offense. It's called being tactful, and not such a bad thing to me.
Click to expand...
Look, if I tell a person with bad body odour that they stink, then that's being direct.
If they choose to take offence, that's their problem.
Offence is taken, not given.
If I were to tell that person that they stink and they're ugly......that's being rude.
 
Trevp666 said:
Look, if I tell a person with bad body odour that they stink, then that's being direct.
If they choose to take offence, that's their problem.
Offence is taken, not given.
If I were to tell that person that they stink and they're ugly......that's being rude.
Click to expand...

But did you have to tell them they stink? What gave you the right to say that? Did they ask you if they stank? Or did you feel that you are the judge of social mores?
You can give offense - and absolutely with no obligation, free and pro gratis - but who decided you were the one whose opinion was sought?
Who asked you for a judgement? Why d'you think you are the person who has no responsibility or comeback and yet you tell everyone else of your own judgement?
Please note, I'm not arguing about your own qualifications to be a social arbiter ... but I myself cannot understand why people set themselves up as a 'social' judge then upset people needlessly and yet claim it as a good thing.
"Hey - I don't care who I upset. This is to be admired!"
 
Stormkhan said:
But did you have to tell them they stink? What gave you the right to say that? Did they ask you if they stank? Or did you feel that you are the judge of social mores?
You can give offense - and absolutely with no obligation, free and pro gratis - but who decided you were the one whose opinion was sought?
Who asked you for a judgement? Why d'you think you are the person who has no responsibility or comeback and yet you tell everyone else of your own judgement?
Please note, I'm not arguing about your own qualifications to be a social arbiter ... but I myself cannot understand why people set themselves up as a 'social' judge then upset people needlessly and yet claim it as a good thing.
"Hey - I don't care who I upset. This is to be admired!"
Click to expand...
But is it 'needlessly' though?

I suppose it depends on the context doesn't it? I don't think Trev just goes up to random people and tells them what he thinks about them.

But say you have to work in close proximity ie an office, with someone who does smell of b.o (as an eg)- I think I'd also have to say something, otherwise I would have to leave the job and why should I have to do that? It's supposed to be a 'professional' situation and they should be aware of that. - Just as I would hope that they would tell me if something about me annoyed them. At least you know what they think then, even if you don't agree with it.

I had a conversation once with an old mate of mine and his girlfriend who is Hungarian (which is relevant). I was saying how it annoys me when you say to someone ''ok, what shall we do tonight then?'' and they say ''I'm not bothered'' but then proceed to moan about whatever your choice is.
His girlfriend agreed with me that it is annoying and that it is maybe a 'British/American thing' to do this. It seems strange to me. Why not just say ''I do/don't want to do this or that tonight'' ? Far easier that way for all concerned.

It's like not wanting to 'offend' someone causes even more problems for you than you already had.
It doesn't mean you have to be unpleasant, but pussyfooting around can sometimes just prolong the agony.
 
Stormkhan said:
But did you have to tell them they stink? What gave you the right to say that? Did they ask you if they stank? Or did you feel that you are the judge of social mores?
Click to expand...

a) Yes, if l am required to spend time in close proximity to them.

b) I’m entitled not to have to suffer stinky people.

c) That would imply self-awareness, rare in people with poor personal admin.

d) ln this instance, yes.

Let’s try a thought experiment: Instead of the offender reeking, let’s say that he’s bigoted. How long would you tolerate his unsolicited comments about “The paki in Accounts”, or “The yid in the house next to him”, before feeling compelled to challenge him?

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
Yes those things above.
Also though, somebody who stinks, I'm sure they don't want to stink, but are probably totally unaware that they stink (you get 'used to' your own smell).
Like somebody who works in a fish and chip shop coming home reeking of battered cod.
Or someone who eats a lot of garlic having a stench of it.
Or my friend who keeps ferrets who I can't visit because her flat stinks, and it is so bad that the smell has escaped into the communal corridor, and if she visits me I immediately tell her she has a weaselly whiff about her.
I'm not being 'judgemental'....I'm being helpful.
 
Trevp666 said:
Yes those things above.
Also though, somebody who stinks, I'm sure they don't want to stink, but are probably totally unaware that they stink (you get 'used to' your own smell).
Like somebody who works in a fish and chip shop coming home reeking of battered cod.
Or someone who eats a lot of garlic having a stench of it.
Or my friend who keeps ferrets who I can't visit because her flat stinks, and it is so bad that the smell has escaped into the communal corridor, and if she visits me I immediately tell her she has a weaselly whiff about her.
I'm not being 'judgemental'....I'm being helpful.
Click to expand...
At least it's not polecats.
 
1668517497037.png

... and an Apple watch :)
 
Last edited:
maximus otter said:
a) Yes, if l am required to spend time in close proximity to them.

b) I’m entitled not to have to suffer stinky people.

c) That would imply self-awareness, rare in people with poor personal admin.

d) ln this instance, yes.


maximus otter
Click to expand...
That's one thing that must be sometimes difficult being a copper- having to spend eight hours in a patrol car with someone you didn't like (for whatever reason).
 
Floyd1 said:
That's one thing that must be sometimes difficult being a copper- having to spend eight hours in a patrol car with someone you didn't like (for whatever reason).
Click to expand...

Having anyone at all to double-crew with would have been great. (I got on fine with 99% of everyone l ever worked with.)

My station covered an area of ~100 square miles, and a good-sized town plus numerous villages; also quite a bit of major dual carriageway. Our theoretical minimum staffing level was so low that, if l quoted it here, you’d think l was bullshitting. (Quite what was supposed to happen on the regular occasions when we couldn’t muster even that derisory minimum was never made clear. lt certainly didn’t affect what we were required to do. We just made wry jokes between ourselves about “Breaking open a fresh box of policemen.”)

maximus otter
 
Last edited:
As a really off-thread question, d'you think that the lack of officers leading to fewer 'double-crews' gives an opportunity to those officers who abuse their powers or commit criminal behaviour? Yeah, I know you have bodycams and so on, but I'd have thought that having pairs of officers would've been essential.
 
Many years ago I worked in an office close to a stinky human being. He was noted throughout the office. One day the stench was so bad I felt compelled to see the building caretaker and ask for some air freshener please. The man came up started waving the freshener about the office with abandon. Shouting "who is stinking then" as a kind of a joke (I think). I had to secrete myself in the Ladies room as I could not stop laughing. I don't think the caretaker was aware of the smelly human as I had not mentioned it was for a person. A summers day and someone with personal hygiene issues is no laughing matter for his colleagues. We couldn't open the windows as there was noisy drilling going on outside. Still working in close proximity to a stinker is not funny.
 
In the good old days of libraries we really did have the local tramps drying their socks on the radiators. After repeated ignored requests to one particularly fragrant individual the then branch librarian emptied an entire aerosol can of air freshener over him.

He collected his socks and left, but I'm not sure that the air freshener didn't smell worse.

If that sounds unduly callous I should point out that library staff did make every effort to engage with homeless and what would now be termed vulnerable people and could and did refer them on to other agencies; but there were a core group who didn't want any intervention and didn't care about their effect on others. Now I guess it would mean calling out the police to remove them and they have better things to do - aerosol is cheaper than an hour of police officer's time.
 
One place I worked at, there was a chap that did the local deliveries in a Transit van, and he was huge. It was easier to jump over him than it was to run around him.
On a summers day you couldn't go near him.
His surname was 'French' but everyone called him 'Stench'.
 
Stormkhan said:
As a really off-thread question, d'you think that the lack of officers leading to fewer 'double-crews' gives an opportunity to those officers who abuse their powers or commit criminal behaviour? Yeah, I know you have bodycams and so on, but I'd have thought that having pairs of officers would've been essential.
Click to expand...

l suppose that it would. However, the proportion of officers who engage in such behaviour is vanishingly small, and the number of officers out at the sharp end is so tiny, that the notion of pairing officers up to deter “black swan” events is fantasy.

How about pairing doctors up to prevent another Shipman, or nurses to deter another Allitt?

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
l suppose that it would. However, the proportion of officers who engage in such behaviour is vanishingly small, and the number of officers out at the sharp end is so tiny, that the notion of pairing officers up to deter “black swan” events is fantasy.

How about pairing doctors up to prevent another Shipman, or nurses to deter another Allitt?

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Or making sure your builder had his wife with him to deter another Fred West.......Oh, bugger.
 
I wasn't sure if this fitted best in the 'electric cars' thread, the 'sport' thread, or here.
So I put it here.
Attempt to drive an electric car all the way from Wales to Qatar for the footballering ends in Saudi Arabia (or not quite in Saudi Arabia).

World Cup 2022: Wales-Qatar electric car bid falls short
The aim had been to get through 18 countries to Qatar in an electric car - but after successfully driving through 17, the dream ended at the border of the tournament host's neighbour.
They had feared a lack of electric car charging points in countries such as North Macedonia and Serbia would be sticking points - but in the end it was the law in Saudi Arabia that was their undoing, with right-hand drive cars not allowed in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63667078

I'm surprised they didn't check all of the motoring laws etc before they set off.
 
How a crook saw through Madoff:

Merkin relied on someone who turned out to be a crook to perform due diligence. Still, the crook at least saw through Madoff, though Merkin chose to ignore his warnings. Victor Teicher was convicted of insider trading in 1990 and jailed for a year. While in prison, Teicher was managing $375 million for Merkin’s investors, which I seriously doubt Ezra bothered to mention to clients.
Teicher warned Merkin not to invest with Madoff because such steady returns were implausible. Upon Madoff’s arrest, Teicher immediately fired off a vitriolic email: “You took a brilliant career and actively, willingly, wiped your ass with it when it was obvious you knew what you were doing. The Madoff news is hilarious; hope you negotiate out of this mess. Unfortunately, you’ve paid a big price for a lesson on the cost of being greedy. I guess you did such a good job in fooling a lot of people, you ultimately fooled yourself. A man’s name tells you who he is: Madoff made off with the money.”29

From:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/55562053-madoff-talks?from_search=true&from_srp=4NtZRl1U0y&qid=1
 

DC man who pushed "justice reform" bill shot dead on the day it passes​


Last week in Washington, D.C, the City Council passed a sweeping overhaul to the city’s criminal codes. Touted as yet another example of “justice reform,” the changes reduced or removed bail for most crimes, and lowered or eliminated minimum sentences for many crimes while also lowering some maximum sentences. As we’ve seen in so many other cities, the overarching goal of the legislation was to further empty the jails and put criminals back out on the streets more quickly.

There was a tragic bit of irony taking place even as the measure came up for a final vote, however. One of the people who had been actively lobbying and promoting the “justice reform” measure was Kelvin Blowe, a 32-year-old activist with DC Justice Lab. On the night of the City Council meeting, Blowe was driving some colleagues home from his job as a security guard when he was caught up in an automobile accident. He exited his vehicle for reasons unknown and was promptly shot dead by someone on the street.

Police say that no arrests have been made and the case remains under investigation.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/1...m-bill-shot-dead-on-the-day-it-passes-n513117

maximus otter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top