world's worst tourists

Miguel Cruz wrote:

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.

Not always. It depends on the context- soome insults are off-the-cuff,
others are much more personal and threatening.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
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.

Not always. It depends on the context- soome insults are off-the-cuff,
others are much more personal and threatening.

Threats are another matter entirely.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Miguel Cruz writes:

What's the difference between the person at the social security office, and
the person at the bank or the phone company office?

One benefits from a law that can be selectively enforced to allow him to
harass his clients, and the other does not.

If they've decided they're going to legislate politeness, it ought to at
least be equal-opportunity.

The state is special in France. In France, kids aspire to be civil
servants, not private captains of industry.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

David Horne writes:

Not always. It depends on the context- soome insults are off-the-cuff,
others are much more personal and threatening.

A threatening insult is assault. Anything else is not worth caring
about.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

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.

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.

--
Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
http://www.zeouane.org/

Miguel Cruz wrote:

David Horne wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote:
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.

Not always. It depends on the context- soome insults are off-the-cuff,
others are much more personal and threatening.

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. There are lots of manners, tones
of voice and so on, in which someone can convey that. And, believe me,
there are contexts in which simply being called "a ****ing *******" are
more serious than something the individual can just laugh off. In the
UK, a lot of businesses, public and private, from railways to
immigration workers, have taken a much tougher line recently wrt
personal abuse against their staff. It's quite easy for people who
aren't on the front line with angry customers to suggest the workers
should just laugh it off- in practise, I think it can often be more
serious than that.

It makes sense for some companies to adopt a 'zero tolerance' to _any_
form of abuse. If you swear at a train guard, you can be thrown off the
train. Quite right- in my opinion. It makes it clearer to customers,
etc., what the boundaries are, in terms of how they are permitted to
treat other people in a public environment.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Desmond Coughlan wrote:

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.

You might want to reflect, just for a moment, what it would feel like to
be called that several times a day as you did your job, often by people,
who without explicitly threatening you, are expressing _more_ than just
a little bit of frustration. In some occupations, people face this
situation every day, and it can be extremely stressful. A lot of those
jobs have very high turnover rates- no surprise. As to whether public
servants should get special protection, that's a debatable matter I
think, but there's no doubt that in some jobs, simple verbal abuse can
be a very serious issue.

Think of it as a workers' rights issue- surely something you'd support?

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

le Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:57:40 +0100, dans l'article 1g2t9y1.13riftgmaqlelN%this_address_is_for_spam@y ahoo.co.uk, David Horne a dit ...

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.

You might want to reflect, just for a moment, what it would feel like to
be called that several times a day as you did your job, often by people,
who without explicitly threatening you, are expressing _more_ than just a
little bit of frustration. In some occupations, people face this
situation every day, and it can be extremely stressful. A lot of those
jobs have very high turnover rates- no surprise. As to whether public
servants should get special protection, that's a debatable matter I
think, but there's no doubt that in some jobs, simple verbal abuse can be
a very serious issue.

Think of it as a workers' rights issue- surely something you'd support?

You're preaching to the choir ...

--
Desmond Coughlan |desmond [at] zeouane [dot] org
http://www.zeouane.org/

David Horne writes:

You can feel threatened, quite legitimately,
without _being_ directly threatened.

That's assault.

Being called "a ****ing *******" in context can seem
perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other
contexts it can seem very threatening.

When it seems very threatening, it's assault, provided that the person
doing the insult intends it that way. This usually has to be decided on
a case-by-case basis.

There are lots of manners, tones of voice and so on,
in which someone can convey that.

When they do, it's assault.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
David Horne writes:

You can feel threatened, quite legitimately,
without _being_ directly threatened.

That's assault.


Kind of, under common law assaults is defined as

"placing a person in immediate and unlawful apprehension of danger"

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.

Being called "a ****ing *******" in context can seem
perfectly harmless, if unpleasant, and in other
contexts it can seem very threatening.

When it seems very threatening, it's assault, provided that the person
doing the insult intends it that way. This usually has to be decided on
a case-by-case basis.


Just so and the standard of proof is high, beyond a reasonable
doubt in fact.

There are lots of manners, tones of voice and so on,
in which someone can convey that.

When they do, it's assault.

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.

Keith