Stabbing in Hither Green.

[Robert Poste's Child]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> It's not - for describing people with mental

> illness. As a common epithet for silly - "The

> lunatic plan for a garden bridge" - I've never

> seen it suggested before that it's wrong to use

> it. It's all context, one wouldn't call a child

> with learning difficulties stupid but that doesn't

> mean it's offensive to say "that's a stupid plan."

> Nor have I ever seen it suggested that the phrase

> "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" as used

> above is offensive, it's certainly still in common

> use. Bad news for Funboy Three residuals if it's

> wrong.

Except that the word still includes the MH connotation so it's always there in the resonance. I used to have a friend who used your argument every time she described something low-quality using the horrible abbreviation for Pakistani or a derogatory term for traveller.

[JoeLeg]

Disclaimer - I?m aware that what follows is on the level of ?a bloke down the pub told me?, but then you can also. Heck put the relevant website/thread for yourselves.

I frequent a website called Arrse, which has a number of former/serving police officers on it, almost all of whom are former service personnel. It is hardly a bastion of delicate liberal sensibilities.

The general opinion of those with police experience is that while it?s a tragedy, there is procedure to be undergone to ensure that the law is followed. This quote from a serving detective sums it up best...

?The law in this country doesn?t generally allow this (the investigations) to be conducted outside of custody and the rights of the arrested bloke will be better served by having the protection afforded by arrest.?

Where they all get wound up is over the idea of what will happen to the other burglars, if caught, and burglars in general (like I say, the site is not a bastion of fluffy thinking). But the agreed view is that this poor guy will have to go through the legal process before, most likely, not being charged, so long as nothing happened on the street, and he didn?t commit any act over and above self defence, in which case they are all agreed it?s a different matter.

[DaveR]

"Depressing that no one but me seems to have an issue with the use of 'lunatic'. I'm pretty sure it hasn't been an acceptable label in the lifetime of anyone using this forum."

Not a word I often use but I'm reasonably sure that 'lunatic' was a widely used legal term until the 1960s, if not later. One of the original jurisdictions of the Chancery Court was in respect of the 'property of lunatics and idiots', with the former being considered a (potentially) temporary condition whereas the latter was permanent.

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > It's not - for describing people with mental

> > illness. As a common epithet for silly - "The

> > lunatic plan for a garden bridge" - I've never

> > seen it suggested before that it's wrong to use

> > it. It's all context, one wouldn't call a

> child

> > with learning difficulties stupid but that

> doesn't

> > mean it's offensive to say "that's a stupid

> plan."

> > Nor have I ever seen it suggested that the

> phrase

> > "the lunatics have taken over the asylum" as

> used

> > above is offensive, it's certainly still in

> common

> > use. Bad news for Funboy Three residuals if

> it's

> > wrong.

>

> Except that the word still includes the MH

> connotation so it's always there in the resonance.

> I used to have a friend who used your argument

> every time she described something low-quality

> using the horrible abbreviation for Pakistani or a

> derogatory term for traveller.

For most people it isn't, I don't believe. And by equating saying "the lunatics are taking over the asylum" to saying "Paki" or "Gyppo" you're just being silly. In what way, seriously, could someone use the same argument I used above to justify those terms? Nonsense.

ETA Actually I really object to the link you've drawn between my argument and those of your erstwhile friend, with the clear implication I'm just as bad. Quick Google throws up the following:

"This Brexit leak shines a light on our collective lunacy about immigration"

"Australia, China, and the lunacy of Trump's talk of a trade war"

"How the lunatic fringe conquered world politics"

"Lunatic coaches, controlling managers and overzealous parents are wrecking kids' sport "

I could give many more examples, but they'll do. Those are all headlines, from the last year, from that bastion of political incorrectness, The Guardian. "it hasn't been an acceptable label in the lifetime of anyone using this forum" eh? I rest my case.

[robbin]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > JohnL Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > The police and CPS have to go through the

> > motions

> > > - I think the law says also that for a self

> > > defence defence you need to feel in imminent

> > > danger for your life.

> >

> > It doesn't - there's no such requirement. You

> may

> > use (objectively) reasonable force to defend

> > yourself. It's use also has to be justified and

> > necessary. Since the much publicised change in

> > the law in 2013 (Crime and Courts Act), as a

> > homeowner, you are entitled to use

> > disproportionate force to defend yourself.

>

>

> Seems to be true after checking - not a change in

> the law but a precedent case set by judges

>

> https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jan/15/high-c

> ourt-rejects-challenge-to-householder-defence-law

>

>Always good to check but... The Guardian?! You're not correct in your interpretation though - it was a change in the law (by statute) as I said. See Section 43 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. The case referred to in the Grauniad was 3 years later when the family of the injured burglar brought a case challenging the validity of Section 43 on the grounds that it contravened the Human Rights Act as it was incompatible with the right to life (originally in the ECHR). Not surprisingly that argument was kicked into touch.

[Robert Poste's Child]

Rendel, your examples don't make it OK to use an outdated, pejorative word simply because it's in a slightly different context. Using the words keeps the bias alive, even if it's being used indirectly. Looks like the changing of attitudes to mental health has a way to go around here.

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel, your examples don't make it OK to use an

> outdated, pejorative word simply because it's in a

> slightly different context. Using the words keeps

> the bias alive, even if it's being used

> indirectly. Looks like the changing of attitudes

> to mental health has a way to go around here.

You're just being tiresome - my examples clearly show that even the most politically correct of media outlets don't think there's anything wrong with using the word; indeed you're the only person I've ever seen making a fuss about it. The idea that saying "nuclear war would be lunacy" is somehow derogatory to people with mental health problems is, frankly, lunacy itself. I fear you're a bit confused about how language works, I've tried to explain but clearly however much it's proved to you that using the term lunatic when not referring to someone with MH problems is not regarded as offensive you're just going to carry on saying "yes it is" without evidence, so let's leave it there.

ETA and what's not OK, very much not, is accusing someone using a word which, as I've demonstrated, is regarded as perfectly acceptable in common speech and in the media, of being as bad as someone saying "Paki." That's both an unjustified and frankly spiteful way of desperately trying to justify your non argument.

[JoeLeg]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel, your examples don't make it OK to use an

> outdated, pejorative word simply because it's in a

> slightly different context. Using the words keeps

> the bias alive, even if it's being used

> indirectly. Looks like the changing of attitudes

> to mental health has a way to go around here.

To be honest I?ve not come across any reference to the word ?lunatic? being viewed as you view it, and while I wouldn?t have an inherent problem if society in general decided that lunatic should go the way of many other words we no longer use in polite conversation, I?d be interested to know what could replace it. Surely even ?crazy? could be viewed in the same way?

What kind of language can we use to describe ideas, actions or behaviour that we find incomprehensible?

(Apologies for thread drift, I?m genuinely interested in this point)

[rendelharris]

I'm rather fond of the phrase "He's completely hatstand" (derived from the Viz character Roger Irrelevant, as far as I can recall), also "Mad as a box of frogs" though doubtless RPC would take me to task for that. Look, the thing is, language use changes over time, obviously - it was fascinating, hearing all the wonderful speeches of MLK yesterday for the anniversary, to see how often he used the word "negro", something that's obviously become unacceptable. But what you can't have is someone suddenly creating their own rules (based on a miscomprehension, I believe - nobody calls mental health patients lunatics any more, or the institutions that help them lunatic asylums, but that does not mean the word lunatic in other contexts is regarded as offensive) and then accusing other people, using a word in a sense that's in general use (by the Guardian for heaven's sake, how much more confirmation that it's not un-PC do you need?), of being like people saying "Paki" or "Gyppo."

Weird thread this for me, the EDF's "leading bleeding heart liberal PITA" (forget who it was called me that, but obviously a title borne with pride) not only defending the boys in blue and the due process of the law but having to defend against a charge of un-PC language!

ETA Interesting comment from my little sister: "Because it's wrong to call someone a retard, is it still wrong to call someone emotionally retarded?" Minefield.

[hammerman]

Charming Rendel, exclaiming that RPC is being tiresome and a bit confused about a word!

Surely they are entitled to their opinion.

Then again, you do love taking over a lot of threads with tiresome descriptive words etc. etc.

[rendelharris]

hammerman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Charming Rendel, exclaiming that RPC is being

> tiresome and a bit confused about a word!

>

> Surely they are entitled to their opinion.

>

> Then again, you do love taking over a lot of

> threads with tiresome descriptive words etc. etc.

What's truly charming is accusing people of being insensitive about mental health, and apparently as bad as someone who uses foul racial insults, for using a term that (as proved by the examples above) nobody finds offensive except in one context (in the medical lexicon). It's really not on to be casting slurs at people on the basis of some linguistic value system you've made up yourself.

I'm sorry you find the use of adjectives tiresome.

[intexasatthe moment]

Oh do be quiet Rendel .

Your constant derailing of threads to take offence is getting boring .

"nobody finds offensive except in one context " it appears that you now feel entitled to speak for everyone .

[rendelharris]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh do be quiet Rendel .

>

> Your constant derailing of threads to take offence

> is getting boring .

>

> "nobody finds offensive except in one context " it

> appears that you now feel entitled to speak for

> everyone .

Nothing like working out old grudges, is there? Hope you feel better now. You will, if you're not blinded by your desire to avenge perceived past slights, notice that it was RPC who "took offence" and took the thread off topic by complaining about the use of the term lunatic, not me.

[JohnL]

Whilst googling Lunatic I now know that Dotard (as used by Kim Jong Un about Trump) is "an old person, especially one who has become weak or senile".

[Vik]

Excuse the Daily Fail link but this happened last year, was just a mile down the road from the latest incident and bares similarities:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5197493/Homeowner-killed-drunk-burglar-cleared-murder.html

[flocker spotter]

most of the worlds present ills are caused by people googling things and declaring their new found expertise ( not aimed at you JohnL)

[JohnL]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> most of the worlds present ills are caused by

> people googling things and declaring their new

> found expertise ( not aimed at you JohnL)

That's probably true. Immediately googling everything you hear is actually a bad habit and can cause trouble.

[malumbu]

This thread's got interesting at last. Thanks for the great quote "baseless hyperbole and red faced macho fury" (gives me an idea for the musical recommendation for the weekend), and Rendel for taking some flack aimed at me. Malumbu you are such an rrrrse I hear the rest of you say.

I'd love to visit the Asylum pub some time and Bethlem/Bedlam hospital.

Separately it always amused me that the Mr Men books translated into French have Mr Retard as Mr Slow.

As for loonies, a term we threw around with gay abandon at school, I'm not sure how offensive it is. Noting that for around four decades Warner Brothers produced cartoons under the brand of Looney Tunes.

Right I am off to bark at the moon with my good friend Ozzy.

Oh Malumbu, you are so facetious.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I googled what to do if there's a burglar in my house.

It didn't say shoot him, but it did say to keep yourself away from them and not to tackle them unless you're trained in combat.

Things obviously change as in the situation with the 73 year old man, when there is violence used against you....

[robbin]

I've just been reading about the dead burglar and some of his lovely feral family members. It's quite shocking! Pretty vile people.

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've just been reading about the dead burglar and

> some of his lovely feral family members. It's

> quite shocking! Pretty vile people.

Good candidates for Commissioner Dick's new "Al Capone" strategy perhaps, get them out of circulation through any legitimate means.

[Blah Blah]

Burglars always have strings of burglaries behind them and it seems these two characters come from a family of career burglars targetting elderly people. The dead burglar was already wanted. Maybe his family should think about the misery heaped on the countless victims at their hands?

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/694191/henry-vincent-burglar-murder-case-london-richard-osborn-brooks-pensioner

[Robert Poste's Child]

Rendel, what's tiresome is how quickly you retreat into moral outrage and personal attack when someone has an opinion that's opposed to yours. For what it's worth, I've worked in communication and mental health so perhaps I just have a more developed awareness around this than you do!

[rendelharris]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rendel, what's tiresome is how quickly you retreat

> into moral outrage and personal attack when

> someone has an opinion that's opposed to yours.

> For what it's worth, I've worked in communication

> and mental health so perhaps I just have a more

> developed awareness around this than you do!

No, RPC, have a look back at our exchange; I politely suggested that it was not offensive to use the term "lunatic" outwith a medical context. I took offence when you suggested that my argument was the equivalent to someone trying to justify saying "Paki" or "Gyppo." I would suggest that you would take offence at someone saying the same to you; you can't really expect to say things like that to someone and not have them react, can you?

You haven't answered my point as to why, if the use of the word outwith the medical context is so offensive, even an entity which strives so hard to be PC as The Guardian sees no problem with using it?

One person's "developed awareness" is another's "oversensitivity." I work with language, as both a writer and a teacher, maybe I have a more developed awareness of how that works than you?

ETA If you want to criticise people for going off on one with moral outrage and personal attack, have a look at your own flareup at malumbu in this thread when he clearly wasn't even addressing you!

[malumbu]

Vik Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Excuse the Daily Fail link but this happened last

> year, was just a mile down the road from the

> latest incident and bares similarities:

>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5197493/Ho

> meowner-killed-drunk-burglar-cleared-murder.html

Round our way we have 'smart water' that would hopefully deter burglaries. Others may have dogs, or recordings/pictures of dogs, with words to the effect that entering is at your own risk. Perhaps those who are handy with knives could have similar warnings. (Not talking about the recent event, I'll judge that later.