Jump to content
Brett

Calling Someone The C Word On Twitter Is Now Officially A Crime

Recommended Posts

I'll repeat that shall I … if only to try and convince myself that I'm not dreaming … calling someone the C word is a terrible crime that will see you in court, prosecuted, found guilty and facing a custodial sentence. That's official because the blogger and tweeter, Olly Cromwell, has today been found guilty under Section 127 of the Telecommunications Act 2003 of making a grossly offensive and menacing comment on Twitter.

Apparently, Olly called a Bexleyheath councillor a !*!@# , on Twitter, and a District Judge has now referred Olly To Bromley Court for sentencing. The prosecution are asking for a custodial sentence equal to 45 days for each letter.

I feel like John Simms and I've gone back to 1984!!!

Some offensive language within.

http://www.maxfarqua...-olly-cromwell/

Edited by Brettly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems strange really, that someone this year was let off by the courts for swearing at a policeman because policemen (and presumably policewomen) were used to bad language.

Personally I hate it, and I hate it when I'm subjected to it.

It seems that most of the drinking fraternity here in Bedlington find it somehow necessary to swear at every given opportunity, and yes that includes the women. Could some Bedlington councillors please congregate in the pubs and get these people put away by complaining to lily for the 180 to 540 days they so obviously need to stop them. I'm wondering if this will bring people back into pubs if they are not subjected to the torrent of bad language at the bar by the unshaved (sometimes unwashed) groups of men and women when ordering their *-!"£%^& pint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing wrong with being unshaven, doesn't necessarily mean that they would use foul language or be blatantly rude. More to the point that people are subject to abuse every day but because it is logged in a conversation in written text in the vastness of the internet that it should be deemed a criminal offence.

The government have already proved that they will sign up to telecommunications companies filtering our boobies for us so that we don't have to pay attention to our children on the internet, next will be all foul language and then anything thought provoking. I repeat, yet again that any kind of censorship is a bad thing in what is supposed to be a free and open forum such as the internet.

I have already highlighted this in previous posts: http://www.bedlingto...__fromsearch__1

Personally I think that the language used in pubs is not acceptable but expected in most establishments. I can remember standing in pubs when it was acceptable to tell racist jokes so it will take more than a bit of condem politics to rid bars and everyday general life, especially the internet, of any foul language or obscenities. There is a cultural difference in age ranges where someone of late 70's finds it perfectly acceptable to use derogative racist language deemed acceptable in their time but they wouldn't dream of swearing yet the likes of the words used on twitter appear to be more socially acceptable to younger ones these days but would find racism more unacceptable in the eyes of the law.

They think that someone calling a councillor a !*!@# is bad on twitter yet I have read stronger opinions about the powers that be which go unpunished. Are the swear police going to be sitting trawling forums for any foul and abusive language to mein fuhrer sitting in parliament dishing out orders whilst they feed their ducks on hovis which we paid for?!?!

They're all a bunch of pencil pushing !*!@# !*!@# !*!@# barstewards :whistle: !!

Edited by Brettly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, thought provoking stuff. Agreed that unshaven doesn't necessarily mean bad language will be used,(I never accused them of being rude), just as white trainers and grey sweatpants does not make someone a chav. Amazing however how often I would double my money in bets with you if you decided to take the challenge.( I could even appear unshaven to give you a head start).

If you think it is bad language is not acceptable then tell the proprietor, bar manager/ess or barperson concerned. If they choose to ignore your complaint, take the business elsewhere. If you want to live with it and educate your family in that manner, stay there. Nothing more to be said really.

Personally I was brought up in the period where calling a black man a black man went from being right to wrong and is now back to being right again. First it was brown or coloured deemed ok, then mixed race and finally from themselves and accepted by all it now ok to call a black man a black man. There were other such derogatory terms such as !*!@# , !*!@# , !*!@# or even worse that were used as well and still are by some.

However we also punish ourselves that is to say if we find anyone different from our local expectations they get picked on. This includes sexuality, race, disability or in some cases just eccentricity.

Personally, I think, the bad language question is down to a lack of education and the failure of multiple governments since the 1970's to police and to keep the English education standards high.There are so many ways to insult somebody without using a swear word that it does not make sense in many cases to even use a curse. I find that chatting with people from that era they have a much better grasp of language and politics than some of those since who think that having the right accessories to go with their tracksuits is a much better way of expressing themselves. I chat with folk from all walks in this game, and do not think that all young people are uneducated louts, I've met some great folks with university degrees and multiple levels who can almost hold a conversation only to let themselves down with foul language. It seems to me that foul language and fashion are the order of the day. Fashion I can live with, foul language I choose not to.

So you are aware I hold no degrees or advanced qualifications. I have some 1970s O levels and CSEs that count for nothing because to most companies I am an old fart and incapable of being employed. When I was at school corporal punishment was legal and we respected our elders. I've had 4 weeks on the dole since leaving school at 16 years of age. I'm 53 now. Nothing of what I learned in the forces was accepted by civilian companies when I left in 1993 because the country had to find jobs for youngsters when I left the army. Despite this I feel that the only way we can progress is by education of our young people and instilling in them pride in their country, along with the best education available. People like myself have the ability to do this, but we do not hold any qualifications that are accepted by education authorities, despite training numerous army recruits in both military basics and accountancy. (Many of these people joined the army with no formal civilian qualifications) Do you see a cycle here?

The more they swear the time inside they deserve unless you can actually show a reason why foul and abusive language is acceptable. My pencil is ready and I'm still a barsteward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... the failure of multiple governments since the 1970's to police and to keep the English education standards high. ...

"Policing the language" is such a French thing to do that you are going to need to become "Le Taureau Noir"! :D

http://www.french-pr...e_rules_france/

Any Anglo Saxon government wouldn't dare meddle in the vernacular. And, thank your luck stars your pub isn't in Montreal:

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...c-olf-0214.html

Ciao! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to feel that the number of people using foul and abusive language is receiving tacit support here. Still that will teach me to attempt to be part of a closed community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that most of the drinking fraternity here in Bedlington find it somehow necessary to swear at every given opportunity, and yes that includes the women.

The above comment was your mistake, foul and abusive language is not used by "most of the drinking fraterity in Bedlington" I can't comment on the Black Bull but do frequent other pubs in the town where there is'nt a problem, the management would not tolerate it anyway. Do You?

Edited by foxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I hate it, and I hate it when I'm subjected to it.

It seems that most of the drinking fraternity here in Bedlington find it somehow necessary to swear at every given opportunity, and yes that includes the women.

Have you as landlord tried politely asking the drinking fraternity in your pub to "tone it down" a bit? I remember in the 80's a pub just outside of Bedlington where swearing was frowned upon by the ownwers. When they heard anyone swearing - the coarser words - they were politely asked to "tone it down a bit for the sake of the other customers" or because "there are ladies present". Most often it worked but should the owner need to repeat his polite request to "tone it down a bit", the offender was pointed in the direction of a "swear box" on the corner of the bar and invited to deposit a donation to St. Oswald's Hospice or leave the pub. There was always a pleasant atmosphere and St. Oswalds got the occasional TV.

Just a suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above comment was your mistake, foul and abusive language is not used by "most of the drinking fraterity in Bedlington"

Couldn't agree more Foxy. Almost as bad as calling them the C-word!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you as landlord tried politely asking the drinking fraternity in your pub to "tone it down" a bit? I remember in the 80's a pub just outside of Bedlington where swearing was frowned upon by the ownwers. When they heard anyone swearing - the coarser words - they were politely asked to "tone it down a bit for the sake of the other customers" or because "there are ladies present". Most often it worked but should the owner need to repeat his polite request to "tone it down a bit", the offender was pointed in the direction of a "swear box" on the corner of the bar and invited to deposit a donation to St. Oswald's Hospice or leave the pub. There was always a pleasant atmosphere and St. Oswalds got the occasional TV.

Just a suggestion.

I used to drink in the Half Moon as well. :icecream: :icecream:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above comment was your mistake, foul and abusive language is not used by "most of the drinking fraterity in Bedlington" I can't comment on the Black Bull but do frequent other pubs in the town where there is'nt a problem, the management would not tolerate it anyway. Do You?

I don't think it was a mistake.

I stopped drinking in the Grapes because, quite frankly, coarse language seemed to be expected of you! I have found the Sun to be the same, although have not been there for a while. The Black Bull I can't comment on, the Tavern these days is rife with it, the Blue Bell seems to have always been a place to take your mouth before washing it out and the Wharton has its fair share, too. I drink regularly in the Red Lion now and, despite Wetherspoons policy and promises, it is far from unusual to hear fould and offensive language as a matter of course. It's not necessary, not clever, and not funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you used foul language of any sort when the Extons ran the Railway Tavern, you were shown the door, no second chances, you were out for the night. John Exton would tell you that there were plenty more places in the station to drink in that would tolerate such language. If you whent back to the Railway the next day (or whenever) you had to apologise to Mrs Exton (or john) before you could get a drink. I must say though, that, that only seemed to happen to us, the younger customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I I must say though, that, that only seemed to happen to us, the younger customers.

So you were an uncouth youth, Keith? Shame on you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it was a mistake.

I stopped drinking in the Grapes because, quite frankly, coarse language seemed to be expected of you! I have found the Sun to be the same, although have not been there for a while. The Black Bull I can't comment on, the Tavern these days is rife with it, the Blue Bell seems to have always been a place to take your mouth before washing it out and the Wharton has its fair share, too. I drink regularly in the Red Lion now and, despite Wetherspoons policy and promises, it is far from unusual to hear fould and offensive language as a matter of course. It's not necessary, not clever, and not funny.

The mistake was He/She said "most of the drinking fraternity" There are decent people in the town using the public houses that have been insulted by this comment and I would'nt say they were in the minority. If He/She has a problem in their pub they need to ask themselves what they are going to do about it rather than moan about it on a world wide website,and giving the town a bad name.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury, believe me when I tell you that there is not one word in the english language, or any other for that matter, which is unnecessary, not even the taboo words as even these have a function. By 'taboo words' I mean those dozen or so words that people avoid using in public because they think of them as harmful, embarassing or just plain offensive. Some might call them swearwords others might call them abuse.There is a lot of research both within linguistics and psychology which shows that there is a place within each language for these words and that in the right place they are totally acceptable in that they have a function (research has shown for example that swearing can be just as effective in pain management as traditional analgesia)! That which can at times be wrong, however, is the situation in which these words are used.

Taboo words, abuse and swearing are not necessarily the same thing, though the three can overlap at times. However, swearing is often used as an all encompassing label for many kinds of bad language - whatever its function - but from a purely linguistic point of view swearing refers to a strongly emotive use of a taboo word. It's an outburst which gives release to a surge of emotional energy. It has a function as a substitute for an aggressive bodily response and it can express a wide range of emotions from annoyance through frustration to anger.

Swearing isn't however confined to being an emotional response. Swearing has been shown to have a well defined social function. On the one hand it can be used to mark social distance such as showing contempt for social convention by swearing loudly in public or writing obscene graffiti on walls. On the other hand swearing can also be used to mark social solidarity, that's to say a whole group takes on identical swearing habits. i think it's this phenomenon you are seeing in the pub Chris so you are not too far from the truth when you say that "foul language and fashion are the order of the day".

When anyone joins a new group they are, consciously or otherwise, very much influenced by the group's language - swearing included. If the gang swears and you want to be one of the gang you swear too. There's plenty of research to support this. There is however one very significant difference between the two types of swearing I've mentioned. Swearing as a marker of social solidarity, by far the most common, is dependant for it's effect upon an audience and furthermore it has been shown to diminish in the presence of non-swearers.

You, Chris, think that bad language can be attributed to "a lack of education and the failure of multiple governments since the 1970's to police and to keep the English education standards high". A certain amount of prohibition in the use of swearwords does already exist in the English language. At times that prohibition is quite explicit. In the law courts, for example, it's called 'contempt of court'. In the houses of parliament it's called 'unparliamentary language' and in the media there has long been a group of words which are officially banned until after a certain time in the evening in order to prevent children being exposed to them. Even in everyday language there is an unwritten understanding of what's taboo between people and this at times becomes explicit in the form of a correction or a comment by the listener or even the user himself/herself. I should mention here that what's taboo for one person may not be taboo for another, as the situation in the Black Bull bears witness to. That is to say, a mild expletive like !*!@# may not be considered as swearing by someone who allows the c-word to roll off their tongue at the drop of a hat. Because of this it's not always clear to the user of taboo words whether or not he/she is being abusive or offensive.

I cannot agree with you Chris when you say that lack of education and governmental 'policing' on the language front is the cause of the sittuation you describe. The real problem, I believe, is that we ordinary people have lost the ability to make explicit that unwritten understanding which I mentioned earlier. In other words, we simply don't point out for people, in a nice manner, when their swearing is not acceptable. It doesn't need a school education. Both inside and outside the schools we'll still have social groups forming. Some of these will inevitably swear.´and if they don't know they are offending people, and nobody marks the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable they will continue.

You, as a landlord, have the perfect opportunity through your regulat´r contact with young people to point out for them that language needs at time to be modified to suit the surroundings, that swearing is not always acceptable, that you and other customers are offended by it and that it is undesirable in your pub. If you make it known that you neither like nor accept bad language in the Black Bull then your regulars will modify their language accordingly. Of course you may lose the odd customer but on the other hand you'd be making way for people like Mercury who prefer a pub without coarse language. It's a win-win situation for you.

On a parting note, (thank goodness I hear you saying!), I must just add that my sentiments lie with Foxy. I agree wholeheartedly that it was a mistake, or even totally wrong, on Chris's part to tar everybody with the same brush in relation to their drinking and swearing habits. Mercury doesn't appear to belong to that group - and presumably many others with him, unless the Red Lion is managing to stay solve´nt with only one customer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury, believe me when I tell you that there is not one word in the english language, or any other for that matter, which is unnecessary,

I think there are many. As a professional write I despair at the use of superfluous and unnecessary words and phrases that make their way into the mainstream press. As for the use of taboo words in pubs, I can't think of a single occasion when they would be necessary. I'm no prude, I simply find it ugly and cringeworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury, believe me when I tell you that there is not one word in the english language, or any other for that matter, which is unnecessary, not even the taboo words as even these have a function. By 'taboo words' I mean those dozen or so words that people avoid using in public because they think of them as harmful, embarassing or just plain offensive. Some might call them swearwords others might call them abuse.There is a lot of research both within linguistics and psychology which shows that there is a place within each language for these words and that in the right place they are totally acceptable in that they have a function (research has shown for example that swearing can be just as effective in pain management as traditional analgesia)! That which can at times be wrong, however, is the situation in which these words are used.

Taboo words, abuse and swearing are not necessarily the same thing, though the three can overlap at times. However, swearing is often used as an all encompassing label for many kinds of bad language - whatever its function - but from a purely linguistic point of view swearing refers to a strongly emotive use of a taboo word. It's an outburst which gives release to a surge of emotional energy. It has a function as a substitute for an aggressive bodily response and it can express a wide range of emotions from annoyance through frustration to anger.

Swearing isn't however confined to being an emotional response. Swearing has been shown to have a well defined social function. On the one hand it can be used to mark social distance such as showing contempt for social convention by swearing loudly in public or writing obscene graffiti on walls. On the other hand swearing can also be used to mark social solidarity, that's to say a whole group takes on identical swearing habits. i think it's this phenomenon you are seeing in the pub Chris so you are not too far from the truth when you say that "foul language and fashion are the order of the day".

When anyone joins a new group they are, consciously or otherwise, very much influenced by the group's language - swearing included. If the gang swears and you want to be one of the gang you swear too. There's plenty of research to support this. There is however one very significant difference between the two types of swearing I've mentioned. Swearing as a marker of social solidarity, by far the most common, is dependant for it's effect upon an audience and furthermore it has been shown to diminish in the presence of non-swearers.

You, Chris, think that bad language can be attributed to "a lack of education and the failure of multiple governments since the 1970's to police and to keep the English education standards high". A certain amount of prohibition in the use of swearwords does already exist in the English language. At times that prohibition is quite explicit. In the law courts, for example, it's called 'contempt of court'. In the houses of parliament it's called 'unparliamentary language' and in the media there has long been a group of words which are officially banned until after a certain time in the evening in order to prevent children being exposed to them. Even in everyday language there is an unwritten understanding of what's taboo between people and this at times becomes explicit in the form of a correction or a comment by the listener or even the user himself/herself. I should mention here that what's taboo for one person may not be taboo for another, as the situation in the Black Bull bears witness to. That is to say, a mild expletive like !*!@# may not be considered as swearing by someone who allows the c-word to roll off their tongue at the drop of a hat. Because of this it's not always clear to the user of taboo words whether or not he/she is being abusive or offensive.

I cannot agree with you Chris when you say that lack of education and governmental 'policing' on the language front is the cause of the sittuation you describe. The real problem, I believe, is that we ordinary people have lost the ability to make explicit that unwritten understanding which I mentioned earlier. In other words, we simply don't point out for people, in a nice manner, when their swearing is not acceptable. It doesn't need a school education. Both inside and outside the schools we'll still have social groups forming. Some of these will inevitably swear.´and if they don't know they are offending people, and nobody marks the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable they will continue.

You, as a landlord, have the perfect opportunity through your regulat´r contact with young people to point out for them that language needs at time to be modified to suit the surroundings, that swearing is not always acceptable, that you and other customers are offended by it and that it is undesirable in your pub. If you make it known that you neither like nor accept bad language in the Black Bull then your regulars will modify their language accordingly. Of course you may lose the odd customer but on the other hand you'd be making way for people like Mercury who prefer a pub without coarse language. It's a win-win situation for you.

On a parting note, (thank goodness I hear you saying!), I must just add that my sentiments lie with Foxy. I agree wholeheartedly that it was a mistake, or even totally wrong, on Chris's part to tar everybody with the same brush in relation to their drinking and swearing habits. Mercury doesn't appear to belong to that group - and presumably many others with him, unless the Red Lion is managing to stay solve´nt with only one customer.

you can say that again ! Edited by keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury, believe me when I tell you that there is not one word in the english language, or any other for that matter, which is unnecessary, not even the taboo words as even these have a function. By 'taboo words' I mean those dozen or so words that people avoid using in public because they think of them as harmful, embarassing or just plain offensive. Some might call them swearwords others might call them abuse.There is a lot of research both within linguistics and psychology which shows that there is a place within each language for these words and that in the right place they are totally acceptable in that they have a function (research has shown for example that swearing can be just as effective in pain management as traditional analgesia)! That which can at times be wrong, however, is the situation in which these words are used.

Taboo words, abuse and swearing are not necessarily the same thing, though the three can overlap at times. However, swearing is often used as an all encompassing label for many kinds of bad language - whatever its function - but from a purely linguistic point of view swearing refers to a strongly emotive use of a taboo word. It's an outburst which gives release to a surge of emotional energy. It has a function as a substitute for an aggressive bodily response and it can express a wide range of emotions from annoyance through frustration to anger.

Swearing isn't however confined to being an emotional response. Swearing has been shown to have a well defined social function. On the one hand it can be used to mark social distance such as showing contempt for social convention by swearing loudly in public or writing obscene graffiti on walls. On the other hand swearing can also be used to mark social solidarity, that's to say a whole group takes on identical swearing habits. i think it's this phenomenon you are seeing in the pub Chris so you are not too far from the truth when you say that "foul language and fashion are the order of the day".

When anyone joins a new group they are, consciously or otherwise, very much influenced by the group's language - swearing included. If the gang swears and you want to be one of the gang you swear too. There's plenty of research to support this. There is however one very significant difference between the two types of swearing I've mentioned. Swearing as a marker of social solidarity, by far the most common, is dependant for it's effect upon an audience and furthermore it has been shown to diminish in the presence of non-swearers.

You, Chris, think that bad language can be attributed to "a lack of education and the failure of multiple governments since the 1970's to police and to keep the English education standards high". A certain amount of prohibition in the use of swearwords does already exist in the English language. At times that prohibition is quite explicit. In the law courts, for example, it's called 'contempt of court'. In the houses of parliament it's called 'unparliamentary language' and in the media there has long been a group of words which are officially banned until after a certain time in the evening in order to prevent children being exposed to them. Even in everyday language there is an unwritten understanding of what's taboo between people and this at times becomes explicit in the form of a correction or a comment by the listener or even the user himself/herself. I should mention here that what's taboo for one person may not be taboo for another, as the situation in the Black Bull bears witness to. That is to say, a mild expletive like !*!@# may not be considered as swearing by someone who allows the c-word to roll off their tongue at the drop of a hat. Because of this it's not always clear to the user of taboo words whether or not he/she is being abusive or offensive.

I cannot agree with you Chris when you say that lack of education and governmental 'policing' on the language front is the cause of the sittuation you describe. The real problem, I believe, is that we ordinary people have lost the ability to make explicit that unwritten understanding which I mentioned earlier. In other words, we simply don't point out for people, in a nice manner, when their swearing is not acceptable. It doesn't need a school education. Both inside and outside the schools we'll still have social groups forming. Some of these will inevitably swear.´and if they don't know they are offending people, and nobody marks the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable they will continue.

You, as a landlord, have the perfect opportunity through your regulat´r contact with young people to point out for them that language needs at time to be modified to suit the surroundings, that swearing is not always acceptable, that you and other customers are offended by it and that it is undesirable in your pub. If you make it known that you neither like nor accept bad language in the Black Bull then your regulars will modify their language accordingly. Of course you may lose the odd customer but on the other hand you'd be making way for people like Mercury who prefer a pub without coarse language. It's a win-win situation for you.

On a parting note, (thank goodness I hear you saying!), I must just add that my sentiments lie with Foxy. I agree wholeheartedly that it was a mistake, or even totally wrong, on Chris's part to tar everybody with the same brush in relation to their drinking and swearing habits. Mercury doesn't appear to belong to that group - and presumably many others with him, unless the Red Lion is managing to stay solve´nt with only one customer.

Yep what canny lass said !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are many. As a professional write I despair at the use of superfluous and unnecessary words and phrases that make their way into the mainstream press. As for the use of taboo words in pubs, I can't think of a single occasion when they would be necessary. I'm no prude, I simply find it ugly and cringeworthy.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here Mercury. When I say that there is not one word in the English language which is unnecessary I am speaking totally from a linguistic point of view. From that view a word is an entity which has form, function and meaning and even the taboo words fill these basic criteria. They can be spoken and written, therefore they have a form. They fulfill several functions, among them expression of emotion, substitution for aggresive bodily response and group affiliation, as I mentioned earlier. They also convey a meaning to the listener/reader. If a word fills these criteria then it has a justifiable place in a language, albeit in a very small niche. That word can help somebody, somewhere to communicate what he/she is feeling, thinking or affiliated to and is therefore is necessary part of a language for just that person.

That doesn't mean to say that there aren't words other than swearwords which could do the job equally well and all else failing the English language abounds with euphemisms for the majority of its swearwords ( I belive the c-word had around 700 at the last count). Neither does it mean that I condone the use of foul language in public places or outside of the group in which it is a marker of affiliation. You are a professional writer and that leads me to believe that you are fortunate enough to have at your disposal a vocabulary which is probably larger than the average. However, everybody is not so well blessed.

Like you, I also despair at the use of superfluous and unnecessary words and phrases that make their way into the mainstream press. I can agree that a superfluous word is unnecessary but then I'm not speaking from a linguistic point of view - rather from a literary one. As for taboo words in pubs, I don't agree. Again from a purely linguistic viewpoint, swearwords have a place as a social marker if the landlord hasn't set any boundary for what is acceptable and what is not. The landlord/lady may well wish to encourage a certain type of customer and use the same type of language him/herself, in which case the swearing would be acceptable as it wouldn't be occurring in the wrong situation. You could say that landlord and the guests who swear are all part of the same social group and those guests who found it unacceptable would go elsewhere.

If, on the other hand, landlord does not want swearing in his pub - as in Chris' case - then it's up to him to make explicit the unwritten understanding of what's taboo by correcting or commenting on the language of his guests thereby making it clear to the user that taboo words are not acceptable in the pub. That leaves the user free to decide if he wants to modify his language during his visit or leave the pub.

Hope this has explained how I was thinking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can recall I never tarred all with the same brush. I said 'most' and I stand by that. There are plenty who do not as well. Remember 'most' can be as little as 51% or as large as 99% (integers).

I can also say that I'm not a prude either but have noticed the increased use of this language since I left school. It follows that in my warped mind therefore that something must be causing it, and I blamed a lack of supervision of the English language in young peoples education. I'm happy to be proved wrong.

I would also add that I have only met a couple of people in my short time here in Bedlington so far whom I do not want in my establishment, and strangely neither of these were for language reasons. I've got to say that I really do not want people to think I'm part of some sort of language police as was pointed out that the French do, I have far more important things to do such as ensuring the real ale here is at its best.

I guess if we were all the same we'd be clones, and I'm really not wanting to be called Dolly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can recall I never tarred all with the same brush. I said 'most' and I stand by that. There are plenty who do not as well. Remember 'most' can be as little as 51% or as large as 99% (integers).

I can also say that I'm not a prude either but have noticed the increased use of this language since I left school. It follows that in my warped mind therefore that something must be causing it, and I blamed a lack of supervision of the English language in young peoples education. I'm happy to be proved wrong.

I would also add that I have only met a couple of people in my short time here in Bedlington so far whom I do not want in my establishment, and strangely neither of these were for language reasons. I've got to say that I really do not want people to think I'm part of some sort of language police as was pointed out that the French do, I have far more important things to do such as ensuring the real ale here is at its best.

I guess if we were all the same we'd be clones, and I'm really not wanting to be called Dolly!

I stand corrected and I apologise.You didn't tar 'everybody' with the same brush.You only tarred 'most' people with the same brush. I really don't think you have a warped mind or that you in any way are any sort of language police and I would never dream of calling you Dolly! I believe that you, like myself, hold your native language very dear and, observant as you are, you have noticed changes over the years which you do not like. So have I. But the fact is that language in general, and its vocabulary in particular, is constantly changing. The changes are brought about by a wide and complex variety of influences the majority of which lie outside the control of the individual or the government and schools can play a very little part in stemming the tide of that change.

I am a Geordie. I was educated in and around Bedlington in the 50's and 60's. I have very vivid memories of articulation classes- part of the drive to wipe out dialects all over Britain and get children speaking the "Queen's English". I don't know how many times I had my knuckles rapped because I couldn't pronounce the words 'boat' and 'coat' in any other way than the way I'd already learned to pronounce them - by way of natural acquisition through listening to the people around me before I started school. Almost sixty years on I still speak Geordie, albeit somewhat modified as I live in another country where they have difficulty understanding it in its purest form as they are only taught "Queen's English" (now called 'received pronunciation') in school. You could say that I've modified my language to be part of the group. The point I would like to make is that I wanted to speak "Queen's English" I thought it sounded nice but I just couldn't make it stick. The social and psychological forces at work outside of school were infinitely stronger than those in the school.

Social and psychological forces are however only two among many affecting language change. They are only the tip of the iceberg. Whether or not the changes they initiate should be called language progress or language decay is another matter. It's a complex question where subjectivity can play a large part. Linguists, like myself, prefer to deal with it more objectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How! Ye! Yes Ye! You know who I'm talking about! Remember when ye called me the 'c' word on here? Let's hear your views on this topic! Ya still a 'Mod' on here even though you haven't posted in at least 2yrs, the rules state to remain a member you have to post at least once a year to retain membership, never mind being a mod! Don't think I haven't noticed you sneaking on in the early hours to have a nose! It might even be you now as a guest!

I call again for you to be removed from mod status. Why should you have the right to snoop around this site, and hide behind a mod status and still have a say in what people post when you don't post yourself! You and your little clique soon spat tha dummies out when you realised you weren't the hub of this site and that people had (God Forbid) different opinions to yourselves!

Yes Hamburger I'm talking to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Hide Adverts


×
×
  • Create New...