shooter007

In the Gaurdian today they have printed words that may offend people, calling some-one a n*gger and also using the C word. Should these words have been blanked out, or have the laws been relaxed in the press so you can print what you like. I think they will have some explaining to do, plus an awful lot of complaints.

Dedrater

Nothing wrong with the c word, i use it as a term of endearment all the time.

Chip

I think they should have been blanked out but nobody seems to give a toss about anything let alone a few swear words these days.

Ant

To be fair we're all grown ups, if you get offended by reading the word **** you need to relax.

tony de wonderful

I think they are completely ***** for printing "****"

*****!

Turbohot

This is the link to the source, I suppose.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ma...lack-man-abuse

Having read this, I think the Guardian' act of publishing those words was justified in the context. They quoted abusive police officer's narrative contents. Hence they showed abuse as an abuse, not as a toffee of some kind. The Guardian themselves aren't calling anyone Cs and Ns, are they?

To add, no under 10s usually reads the Guardian, and almost all over 10s are well aware of these terms. What's spoken out there, in films, on TV programmes and in pop music is hardly unknown to the world. Therefore, the Guardian need not get intimidated by the ones who want the perfect world. They need not blank them out. They had a good reason to put those words as it is.

shooter007

Personally it dosn't bother me either, its just another everyday word. But being a newsagent, and selling the paper to a 75 year old, very posh lady......

bigsinky

i may not like what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it. hate speech is allowed in america. namby pamby pc brigade gets on my thrups. why get your knickers in a twist about a paper printing words that we would likely hear in a primary school play ground anyway.

Turbohot

As a matter of fact, I can't say that these words don't bother me. Some use them in humour, and Snoop Dog calls himself an N in his music. It doesn't mean I don't get bothered by them, if someone uses them as the terms of abuse.


Your opening post^ asks SN people if the Guardian/press should make amends. No, the police officers in question should. The Guardian merely quotes the abuse to highlight police officers' wrong doing, which the 75 year old posh lady deserves to know. If the paper seller presumes that the posh 75 year old would be offended, its a mere presumption. There are an awful lot of posh senior citizens who'll give young ones a run for their money in swearing and racism. You don't have to look very far, just check out what the Queen's husband sometimes comes up with. But if the lady does get offended, she needs to read the paper again. I'd rather give the Guardian a pat on their back for publishing the abuse in such an explicit manner. They shouldn't blank those words nor should they pussyfoot with special characters.

bigsinky

don't be trying sikipedia then

Lee247

I don't get offended, I just do not like the word.

wayne9t9

Apparently its ok if you quote someone, as in he said "your a ****" . Only time its offended me was when a bloke I worked with said it every other word. It seemed completely pointless.

Turbohot

BS, I didn't know what Sikipedia was. I have just Googled it, thanks to you.

GlesgaKiss

Yip. Funny thing is that what the twitter guy was done for probably wasn't even his opinion. More like heat of the moment showing off/saying the most extreme stuff for effect in a rant.

His life's been ruined now. Ah, justice...

Leslie

I reckon it is bad practice as well as childish and unnecessary to speak with a mouth like a lavatory during normal conversation.

Les

subaruturbo_18

I don't get hoe people get offended by words.


Sticks and stones and all that

Saxo Boy

That article is unreal. As usual, one rule for the police and another for the rest of us.

Guy should loose his job and, based on twitter case, should go to jail as well. Bottom line is that the twitter fiend is just an idiot in his bedroom posting nonsense that will generally fall on deaf ears. Where is the public harm? Where is the public interest?

The met police officer however, is in a position of responsibility and should be perform his duties with no prejudice to one skin colour over another. His remarks demonstrate that he clearly cannot do this and they also show a clear attempt to belittle and offend his victim. In my book that is infinitely more harmful and of far greater public interest.

Also, lets not forget that twitter chops didn't even say anything racist. He simply remarked that he hoped the player died. He was done for racial aggravation simply because his victim was black. That, in my mind opens a whole can of worms; it basically means that if you offend someone that is not of your own race then your motivations must be purely racial.

Given that case, I find it disgusting that no action is being taken against the officer involved. I hate this country.

bigsinky

enjoy