If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#441
|
|||
|
|||
Freedom & speach
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Desmond Coughlan wrote: There's a difference between expressing an opinion, and insulting, IMHO. Most people who get their collars felt for the above, are of the kind who get stopped for speeding, and call the cop 'un pauvre con' [1], or who go to the local social security office, get told that they're not getting any money that day, and start screaming that the lady behind the counter is 'une sale pute' [2]. The view in French law is that people who serve the state, don't deserve to be on the receiving end of such abuse. What's the difference between the person at the social security office, and the person at the bank or the phone company office? If they've decided they're going to legislate politeness, it ought to at least be equal-opportunity. I disagree there. Any agent of the government has available significant implied force in their interactions with their bosses. The limits of what they must put up with should be broader than those for ordinary citizens. FFM Personally, I'd say it should be the opposite: Anyone who is so immature as to respond in any way but laughter to being called 'un pauvre con' or anything else should be hauled off to re-education camp. All the power in words like that comes from the recipient. miguel |
#442
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
le Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:34:49 GMT, dans l'article , Miguel Cruz a dit ... There's a difference between expressing an opinion, and insulting, IMHO. Most people who get their collars felt for the above, are of the kind who get stopped for speeding, and call the cop 'un pauvre con' [1], or who go to the local social security office, get told that they're not getting any money that day, and start screaming that the lady behind the counter is 'une sale pute' [2]. The view in French law is that people who serve the state, don't deserve to be on the receiving end of such abuse. What's the difference between the person at the social security office, and the person at the bank or the phone company office? One is a private citizen; the other is a civil servant. Verbal attacks on them are an attack on the very foundations of the Republic. The statement that there is a difference is correct. The implication of which needs more protection is reversed. The Republic can protect itself. It's agents must serve the citizens and not threaten them unless more severely threatened than the average citizen. FFM If they've decided they're going to legislate politeness, it ought to at least be equal-opportunity. Personally, I'd say it should be the opposite: Anyone who is so immature as to respond in any way but laughter to being called 'un pauvre con' or anything else should be hauled off to re-education camp. All the power in words like that comes from the recipient. I agree, but having been called it once (by a rather inconsiderate driver who was fortunate that I was in a hurry that morning, otherwise his forehead would have got to know the steering wheel of his car, with my fingers laced in the hair at the back of the little scrote's neck), I can confirm that it is unpleasant. |
#443
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
It also makes sense to me, given the extreme force available to governments, that they and their minions must endure far more before the boundaries are reached. Well, this isn't just about 'government workers.' In any case, there is government and _government_. The kind of force someone working in a welfare benefits office can use compared to, say, a ministry of defense, is quite different. People who work for the government are "people" anyway, though your dehumanisation of them is duly noted. David -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#444
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
"Reid©" wrote:
Following up to Mxsmanic The way to become rich is to start a business, you can also become relatively rich by working in the financial sector as an employee. True in the U.S., but not in Europe. I'm just now looking a cookbook by a man named Gulab Noon, he has made himself rich by making supermarket curry ready meals in UK. They have given him an MBE BTW. In the last boom top employees in the City of London received £1m annual bonuses. Which Europe do you live in? That's not his point. Of course there are rich people in Europe. His point is that most inherited money, and either inherited enough to be rich, or made it grow. I have no idea if he is correct. For his thesis to be false, the rich people in the City should contain a substantial proportion of people who inherited or obtained from their parents essentially nothing. Doug McDonald |
#445
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
David Horne wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote: Threats are another matter entirely. You and mxsmanic are missing the point, which surprises me, because it's hardly a nuanced one. You can feel threatened, quite legitimately, without _being_ directly threatened. Being called "a ****ing *******" in context can seem perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other contexts it can seem very threatening. I don't know that I'm really missing the point so much as making a different one. Sure, any number of things can seem threatening to someone who's prepared to take them that way. I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. I have worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a little patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
#446
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:26:45 GMT, dans l'article , Miguel Cruz a dit ...
{ snip } I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. I have worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a little patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down. Personally, one of the things I find most annoying when I'm angry ... is someone in front of me, being calm.. -- Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org http://www.zeouane.org/ |
#447
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
Desmond Coughlan wrote:
Miguel Cruz a dit ... I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. I have worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a little patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down. Personally, one of the things I find most annoying when I'm angry ... is someone in front of me, being calm.. The trick isn't to be super-calm, but to steer the person toward discussion of the things that are actually frustrating them rather than the (often irrational) targets of their anger. Once people feel that they're actually able to get it out and have someone listen, things usually calm down quickly. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
#448
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
Miguel Cruz wrote:
David Horne wrote: Miguel Cruz wrote: Threats are another matter entirely. You and mxsmanic are missing the point, which surprises me, because it's hardly a nuanced one. You can feel threatened, quite legitimately, without _being_ directly threatened. Being called "a ****ing *******" in context can seem perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other contexts it can seem very threatening. I don't know that I'm really missing the point so much as making a different one. Sure, any number of things can seem threatening to someone who's prepared to take them that way. Well, I think you _are_ missing the point then, because your "seem" suggests that the threat is purely in the imagination of the person being abused, and I take issue with that. It all depends on the context IMO. I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. You're assuming, incorrectly, that staff are not trained to deal with people who swear at them. They often are. Some better than others, no doubt, but this still doesn't mean that you can't have some kind of standard whereby staff can have a reasonable expection that they won't be abused verbally. It's just a generally _good_ thing for the work environment. I certainly don't swear at people or call them names when I get frustrated, and lord knows, I'm stuck enough on trains and frustrated by other things to give sufficient cause. I think it's incredibly boorish behaviour, and I don't think you infringe someone's freedom by saying they don't have an automatic right to verbally abuse anyone they want. And, if there was a clear understanding on the part of the customer that they would get nowhere by abusing the staff, then a lot of them might think twice before shooting off. It doesn't necessarily require criminalisation. Just having a sign in a place stating that verbal abuse won't be tolerated can have an effect on everyone- in a positive way. I have worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a little patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down. Just because it worked for you, in whatever kind of jobs they were, doesn't mean it would work for everyone, and for other jobs. There's certainly a place for patience in trying to resolve someone's problems, and assuage their irritation, but by the same token some people are just malevolent arseholes, and I've got zero problems with protecting the workplace against their threatening, abusive language. David -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#449
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 17:43:49 GMT, dans l'article , Miguel Cruz a dit ...
I just think that it's better overall to spend the energy on preparing people to deal with verbal abuse, because then they can effectively deal with these people rather than criminalizing them. Train the staff. I have worked in customer service jobs in the past and I have been called any number of things by people frustrated with the organization. With a little patience it was possible to calm every one of these people down. Personally, one of the things I find most annoying when I'm angry ... is someone in front of me, being calm.. The trick isn't to be super-calm, but to steer the person toward discussion of the things that are actually frustrating them rather than the (often irrational) targets of their anger. Once people feel that they're actually able to get it out and have someone listen, things usually calm down quickly. That's what annoys me ... :-) -- Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org http://www.zeouane.org/ |
#450
|
|||
|
|||
Nice Ugly Americans
Keith Willshaw writes:
Since use of reasonable force in self defense is allowed saying "If you hit me I'll punch your head in" is not assault even though you intend to cause the other party apprehension of danger. Your intent is conditional on their own action. However, if you don't give that condition, it's assault. Additionally, if you say what you plan to do, it's premeditation. If something happens and you're use of force is found to be excessive, that premeditation will count dearly against you. "If that guy bothers me again, I'll kill him" is an extremely dangerous thing to say in front of witnesses. If you get in a fight and he dies, you're a murderer. Unless acompanied by overt physical acts or a recording of the events its seems highly unlikely that a prosecution would succeed in such a case. Neither of these is necessary to obtain a conviction. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
USA Continues to Abuse Innocent UK Tourists | S.Byers | Air travel | 77 | July 10th, 2004 10:48 PM |
Tourists who end up dead in Thailand | scuffler | Asia | 3 | March 20th, 2004 08:02 AM |
BHARAT HAS THE WORLD'S MOST LUXURIOUS TRAIN | Dr. Jai Maharaj | Asia | 3 | January 19th, 2004 10:47 PM |
Thai Navy rescues tourists | Alfred Molon | Asia | 8 | October 26th, 2003 06:39 PM |
world's worst tourists | Blackden | Asia | 480 | October 20th, 2003 11:03 AM |