PDA

View Full Version : Reporting the darker side of dance?



Gus
4th-April-2006, 11:02 AM
Looking for a consensus forum onion here (dangerous I know!).

The reasons for this activity will become clearer later … but just for now, here is the situation.

An ‘incident’ took place recently. Because of a current dance related project, I thought it would be in the general interest for the real facts to be reported. Following guidance from someone with journalistic experience, I took notes form an eye witness then passed these ‘facts’ on to the parties involved to ask them to confirm, amend or deny the version of events as presented.

The response so far has been interesting. Out of the three parties involved, one has said it’s a ‘private’ matter, and one of the others has asked to know my sources and is threatening to pass the matter on to his solicitor. I feel a semi-evangelical need to bring such things out into the open (there are already enough false claims, wild rumours etc) but given the potential seriousness of this sitiuation, an objective view is required.

I suppose the question is two-fold

1) Regardless of the severity of the incident, do the dancing public really want to know some of the darker incidents in the dance world or should we, in public, only report the happy side?

2) If the incident is reported, and the parties refuse to comment, should it be a policy of publish and be dammed?

Views much appreciated.

Zebra Woman
4th-April-2006, 11:10 AM
After the last round Gus, quite honestly I'm not interested.

I would rather you didn't post anything at all. Call the police by all means.


ZW

TiggsTours
4th-April-2006, 11:17 AM
After the last round Gus, quite honestly I'm not interested.

I would rather you didn't post anything at all. Call the police by all means.


ZW
:yeah:

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about, Gus, whereas I get the impression that ZW knows EXACTLY what you're talking about.

All I can say is that, from the tone of your posting, and the fact that one of the party is even seeking legal advice to shut you up too, that I really don't want to know either! It really is none of my business (or probably yours) and will not enhance my life in anyway whatsoever to know what you're talking about, so no, I don't think you should say anything at all.

We are all just people who like to dance, we have lives of our own that are none of anybody elses business, we are not A-list celebrities, or politicians or royalty. It is in nobodies best interest to have our private details aired for all to read, and nobody else has the right to do so anyway.

Donna
4th-April-2006, 11:23 AM
Looking for a consensus forum onion here (dangerous I know!).

The reasons for this activity will become clearer later … but just for now, here is the situation.

An ‘incident’ took place recently. Because of a current dance related project, I thought it would be in the general interest for the real facts to be reported. Following guidance from someone with journalistic experience, I took notes form an eye witness then passed these ‘facts’ on to the parties involved to ask them to confirm, amend or deny the version of events as presented.

The response so far has been interesting. Out of the three parties involved, one has said it’s a ‘private’ matter, and one of the others has asked to know my sources and is threatening to pass the matter on to his solicitor. I feel a semi-evangelical need to bring such things out into the open (there are already enough false claims, wild rumours etc) but given the potential seriousness of this sitiuation, an objective view is required.

I suppose the question is two-fold

1) Regardless of the severity of the incident, do the dancing public really want to know some of the darker incidents in the dance world or should we, in public, only report the happy side?

2) If the incident is reported, and the parties refuse to comment, should it be a policy of publish and be dammed?

Views much appreciated.

I think I know what you are talking about here, but I agree with ZW and TT. I don't think it's a good idea to say anything on a public forum about it either. It could cause all sorts of problems and you might regret it later on. (Just trying to help mate) Really. :hug:

Genie
4th-April-2006, 11:23 AM
I also do not know what you are on about, and I'm not sure I'd like to. I think if it's going to affect everyone, then it should be up to the ceroc high-ups to decide whether to announce it or not. If it's not that sort of problem, then it's not necessary to make a public announcement.

And when the words 'legal action' are mentioned, you should be very careful what you say and when. As it can be used against you. Be careful.

MartinHarper
4th-April-2006, 11:26 AM
Regardless of the severity of the incident, do the dancing public really want to know some of the darker incidents in the dance world or should we, in public, only report the happy side?

Given the amount of gossip that I hear, despite being relatively unsocial and uninterested, I can confirm that the dancing public are highly interested in darker incidents, to the point that they'll randomly make stuff up if nothing interesting has happened recently.

Donna
4th-April-2006, 11:27 AM
And when the words 'legal action' are mentioned, you should be very careful what you say and when. As it can be used against you. Be careful.

:yeah: Exactament!!! I wouldn't want to see that happen to Gus.

philsmove
4th-April-2006, 11:32 AM
Views much appreciated.


If in Doubt - Do Nowt

Gus
4th-April-2006, 11:33 AM
I have absolutely no idea what you're on about, Gus, whereas I get the impression that ZW knows EXACTLY what you're talking about. Ahem ... no she doesn't


I don't think you should say anything at all. We are all just people who like to dance, we have lives of our own that are none of anybody elses business, we are not A-list celebrities, or politicians or royalty. It is in nobodies best interest to have our private details aired for all to read, and nobody else has the right to do so anyway.Ahem again ... it was an incident that took place at a public dance event, witnessed by 20+ people and involved people in their professional dance roles. It has nothing to do with their personal lives.


I also do not know what you are on about, and I'm not sure I'd like to. I think if it's going to affect everyone, then it should be up to the ceroc high-ups to decide whether to announce it or not. If it's not that sort of problem, then it's not necessary to make a public announcement.
The point of the question was not about the exact details of the incident, but about whather people actualy want to know if something 'bad' has happened. Re Ceroc(tm) ... whats it got to do with them?:confused: It wasn't at a Ceroc venue, and last I checked Ceroc(tm) had not yet adopted the US approach to policing the entire MJ world (:whistle: ).

Example: say Instructor X had done a severe drop on a dancer at a venue and had badly damaged her back ... would that be of general interest. Would the fact that Promoter Y had deliberately sabotaged a competitors event ... would people want to know? Note these are hypothetical examples! I'd canvessed some opinion locally and the feedback was a YES, that people wanted to know, but for the facts to be reported in the way you would find in the 'Independant' rather than in 'Heat'.

I obviously thought there was some 'public interest/service' element here ... it would seem from the universal condemnation here that I'm out of line with Forum opinion :(

MartinHarper
4th-April-2006, 11:40 AM
Anyone can use the words "legal action" and anyone can claim to own a pet solicitor. If anyone disagrees with this I will have to get my solicitor to take legal action against them.


Say Instructor X had done a severe drop on a dancer at a venue and had badly damaged her back ... would that be of general interest?

Yes.


Would the fact that Promoter Y had deliberately sabotaged a competitors event ... would people want to know?

Absolutely.

CJ
4th-April-2006, 11:51 AM
C'mon then Gus....

Go for it and be damned!!

Lou
4th-April-2006, 11:52 AM
Anyone can use the words "legal action" and anyone can claim to own a pet solicitor.
I actually do have a pet solicitor called Adam. He's fine, so long as I continue to feed him black coffee in the morning. But that's beside the point.

I know your intentions are noble, Gus - however I don't think that it's the sort of thing I'd personally like to see published. If we use your example, it's a matter of interpretation of whether Promotor Y had intended to sabotage the event. Without conclusive evidence to back it up, it's not easy to tell.

Like Donna, I'd worry about you getting yourself into trouble here. :hug:

Andreas
4th-April-2006, 12:21 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about, Gus. But like the others I have no interest in somebody else' dirty laundry. There will always be people who have issues with others and it is their job only to sort them out among themselves. Branding somebody else on the basis of biased rumours does not help either party and, in fact, it poisons the atmosphere for a whole lot of people who do neither wish to become involved nor are remotely interested in this sort of gossip. :flower:

David Franklin
4th-April-2006, 12:36 PM
The point of the question was not about the exact details of the incident, but about whather people actualy want to know if something 'bad' has happened.I'm not sure it's so much a "dance" thing as a "journalism" thing.

What I mean by that is if it would be wrong (or more relevantly, legally actionable) to publish your interpretation in, for example, the local newspaper, then it is just as wrong to do so here or on the web. In fact, you could argue it's more wrong, because not only are you directly targetting the group you think might know the people involved, but you are also putting Franck in a compromising position. (Whereas newspapers generally know the risks if they publish).

You may feel frustrated that certain "get away with it"; that everyone knows they did X but no-one will speak up. But if you feel you must intervene, I strongly suggest you do so within the appropriate legal framework. In particular, take legal advice before doing anything rash.

Gus
4th-April-2006, 12:40 PM
...... but you are also putting Franck in a compromising position. (Whereas newspapers generally know the risks if they publish)......Just to clarify, there is NO intention of publishing the story on the Forum! As you say, that would put Franck in a lousy position and its not why the Forum is here. Point re legal position already in hand;)

TiggsTours
4th-April-2006, 12:44 PM
Ahem ... no she doesn't
I said "I get the impression", from the way ZW had worded her post, this does not change the fact that I just don't want to know anyway. It also seems that everybody else feels exactly the same way.


Ahem again ... it was an incident that took place at a public dance event, .......blah, blah, blah.................
This doesn't seem to be stopping you from telling us all though, I guess its just a matter of time before you name names.


I obviously thought there was some 'public interest/service' element here ... it would seem from the universal condemnation here that I'm out of line with Forum opinion :(So it would seem.

JonD
4th-April-2006, 12:48 PM
Just to clarify, there is NO intention of publishing the story on the Forum!
Good!

Disputes between competing teachers; tittle tattle about errors made or offence given; I simply don't want to know. Some things that are important to the teacher, or particular groups of dancers are of no general interest at all.

For me dancing is a delight - I just want to dance and socialise in a pleasant environment. If I wanted to be part of a soap opera I'd apply for a job on Eastenders.

spindr
4th-April-2006, 12:58 PM
Isn't this the traditional prelude to some quasi-libel-by-innuendo. I'm just waiting for some hint of a date and probably a vague location -- preferably one that only has a single class, or one freestyle once every millenium -- so things get narrowed down nicely.

Unless a court decides that there's reckless endangerment -- then I think the assumption has to be that accidents happen.

SpinDr

P.S. nice unbiased use of "severe" :)

Gus
4th-April-2006, 01:03 PM
Isn't this the traditional prelude to some quasi-libel-by-innuendo. I'm just waiting for some hint of a date and probably a vague location -- preferably one that only has a single class, or one freestyle once every millenium -- so things get narrowed down nicely.Nope, ain't going to happen. :waycool:

Again, the details of the particular incident are not germane to the issue. The question was essentialy as to whether the publishing of details of incidents 'of dance significance' (per the examples) is something that the dancing public wants to see. So far it the score seems to be about 10 to 1!

Gadget
4th-April-2006, 01:21 PM
The question was essentialy as to whether the publishing of details of incidents 'of dance significance' (per the examples) is something that the dancing public wants to see. So far it the score seems to be about 10 to 1!
But it's not of general "Dance Significance" like Ceroc being sold on was, or popular/known dancers being on TV. It's bad news.
We dance to have a taste of candy-coloured life; dramas and internal politics just drab it down to a tasteless gloop that matches the rest of life. Please don't spoil the illusions. :flower:

azande
4th-April-2006, 01:23 PM
~snip~
I think this is a time for......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Donna
4th-April-2006, 01:30 PM
But it's not of general "Dance Significance" like Ceroc being sold on was, or popular/known dancers being on TV. It's bad news.
We dance to have a taste of candy-coloured life; dramas and internal politics just drab it down to a tasteless gloop that matches the rest of life. Please don't spoil the illusions. :flower:

:yeah: Some people just rather not know what goes on behind the scenes. (and believe me, half of what I hear that goes on is not nice at all) which in this case it's better not to get involved. People go to dance to socialise and to enjoy themselves. Whatever goes on behind the scenes is for the organisers to sort out among themselves. Sharing such things on a public forum will soon get around to those who don't go on the forum e.g those who go the venue that is being discussed here, and will cause an extremely awkward atmosphere. People then start talking. Things get twisted and rumours fly around and the people will then start dropping out, and the venue loses money causing further problems. It's better if any issues that organisers have is kept discreet and once sorted, carry on as normal.

ducasi
4th-April-2006, 01:47 PM
During a wander round some state-side dance forum, I came across a thread reporting a story of a fairly high-profile ballroom partnership and marriage which had ended with the guy being up on a charge of attempted murder.

This was reported in the press, and presumably was well-enough known to those dancers in the same circles...

However, must of the discussion involved whether it was right to report on the events on that forum. There was a lot of noise on both sides, with many accusations flying back and forward, but the owner of the forum always defended the right of people to report confirmed true incidents.

Here's the thread (http://dancescape.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/911106172/m/1101002623)... I haven't read it all – after the first few pages it becomes more than tedious...

(Aside: it was on this forum that I first discovered these wee charmers: http://ducasi.org/images/smilies/tsr.gif)

Moving from the specific to the general.

If any incident occurred in the UK MJ scene which would make people reasonably wonder about their safety at a particular event/class/freestyle/whatever, then I think it should be reported.

But at the same time, the act of reporting it will doubtless create a lot of heat, much of directed at the wrong people.

Donna
4th-April-2006, 01:57 PM
If any incident occurred in the UK MJ scene which would make people reasonably wonder about their safety at a particular event/class/freestyle/whatever, then I think it should be reported.


I only believe that such incidents should only be made public if it means it's something that puts others at risk. People have the right to know.

Gus
4th-April-2006, 02:03 PM
Moving from the specific to the general.

If any incident occurred in the UK MJ scene which would make people reasonably wonder about their safety at a particular event/class/freestyle/whatever, then I think it should be reported.

But at the same time, the act of reporting it will doubtless create a lot of heat, much of directed at the wrong people.
Thanks pal. Well put ... that puts it ncely in context and would be a good working maxim.

David Franklin
4th-April-2006, 02:14 PM
During a wander round some state-side dance forum, I came across a thread reporting a story of a fairly high-profile ballroom partnership and marriage which had ended with the guy being up on a charge of attempted murder.

However, must of the discussion involved whether it was right to report on the events on that forum. There was a lot of noise on both sides, with many accusations flying back and forward, but the owner of the forum always defended the right of people to report confirmed true incidents.
This is about Stephen Hevenor and Larinda McRaven. In terms of how this was reported on DanceScape, it is important to know that Larinda McRaven is one of the chief moderators on their main rival Dance Forums (http://www.dance-forums.com/). I think it would be fair to say there's not a lot of love lost between the two forums. Interestingly, there was virtually no mention of the situation on Dance Forums.

Perhaps a more salutory example of why people shouldn't rush to comment on incidents was the situation at the US Open a few years ago where what originally seemed a open and shut case of physical abuse turned out to be not so simple.


If any incident occurred in the UK MJ scene which would make people reasonably wonder about their safety at a particular event/class/freestyle/whatever, then I think it should be reported.
Just so long as you are sure enough of your facts to avoid a libel action.

Lou
4th-April-2006, 02:23 PM
Just so long as you are sure enough of your facts to avoid a libel action.

And were broadshouldered enough to accept all the accusations of political bias that would surely come your way (judging by the fallout on the DanceScape forum). :eek:

senorita
4th-April-2006, 02:55 PM
1) Regardless of the severity of the incident, do the dancing public really want to know some of the darker incidents in the dance world or should we, in public, only report the happy side?

2) If the incident is reported, and the parties refuse to comment, should it be a policy of publish and be dammed?

Views much appreciated.

Hello Gus, I have no idea what your on about :confused:

but...

Its always nice to hear good/positive constructive news :nice:

On the otherhand....if anything very bad was to happen, the first thing to do is report the bad issue to the organisors. No point chatting to outsiders/or others,... thats how mailicious chain rumours occur.

For me one thing I hate is gossip and gossipers ;-((
If you havent anything good/positive or constructive to say,.. then dont say anything! Amen

Gus
4th-April-2006, 03:08 PM
On the otherhand....if anything very bad was to happen, the first thing to do is report the bad issue to the organisors. No point chatting to outsiders/or others,... thats how mailicious chain rumours occur.

For me one thing I hate is gossip and gossipers ;-((
If you havent anything good/positive or constructive to say,.. then dont say anything! AmenI can, to some extent, understand your view point. However, if you ever read PlanetJive (http://www.planetjive.co.uk/) you will see that they report the Jive/Swing world warts and all. Do you consider this to be a 'bad' thing? Are you suggesting they should have a 'good news only' policy?

Ste
4th-April-2006, 03:48 PM
I know that Gus gets angry about certain things that get me angry too. Seriously angry.

People are taking various stances here but at the end of the day "it all depends".

I have 2 premises:

1. Is it in the public interest for this to be exposed?

2. How strong is the evidence?

Years ago I lived with a guy in a big house. He ingratiated himself to Christian pop artists. I even fielded phone calls from David Grant and a top session guitarist.

But the guy was a thief. He thieved things. Nobody reported him to the police. He was a compulsive liar. His dad didn't let on.

People didn't want to talk. They wanted to help him. He even repented in front of me and others.

People didn't want to slander him and he wasn't even anyone with power. Can you imagine what it would have been like if he had been say a top celebrity? You'd be terrified of saying anything for fear of a letter before action from a top 10 law firm.

I subsequently found out that he was a serial kiddy fiddler and almost killed his child friend. A friend, who was acting in his professional capacity, told me told me not to tell anybody because it was told to him in confidence. He was breaching that promise by telling me but he wanted to protect me. But of course I had no proof.

This was just hearsay. In those days hearsay was inadmissible (I think).

Nevertheless, when telephone calls came to me, I would tell people to have nothing to do with him. One day this got me into trouble because the caller thought I was lying and almost got abusive. But I had to warn him. Subsequently I was confronted by my flat mate for slandering him ( i hadn't). I wouldn't back down. I said that I had said those things. I was with 2 girls at the time and had to protect them so I had to be calm. But I was prepared to take him down physically because I knew he was dangerous.

But funnily enough, over 12 years from when I saw him I did a random search on the internet on his name.

Last summer, he was sentenced to over three years imprisonment for sexual offences against a minor. He had been grooming the kid.

You see, we didn't know 12 years ago whether these rumours were true for sure. So many of us said nothing and were encouraged to keep quiet.

A seprate incident. One of my best friends said that a guy had raped her when they were going out. SHe was actually quite friendly with him afterwards. But I must admit that I was 50 50 as to whether to trash him with the metal implement that I had in my hand to "teach him a lesson".

WHat is the right thing to do? What if say a ( hypothetical situation as I am just making it up) jive teacher was thought to have raped 2 women? What would you do? On the one hand you would not have any proof but the stakes are high.

philsmove
4th-April-2006, 04:01 PM
I ...but at the end of the day "it all depends".

......I subsequently found out that he was a serial kiddy fiddler ...

Hang on

I don’t think we are talking about minors here

If we are, then I and and I suspect every one else on this forum, is going to be giving Gus some very different advice

jiveknight
4th-April-2006, 04:03 PM
WHat is the right thing to do? What if say a ( hypothetical situation as I am just making it up) jive teacher was thought to have raped 2 women? What would you do? On the one hand you would not have any proof but the stakes are high.

If there are reports which one thought were too much to be rumour but didn't want to approach the women in question, or their identity is not divulged, one could report it to the relevant Ceroc organisation as I'm sure they are responsible enough to check it out inconspicuously and directly without ruining the accused persons rep if it turns out to be unfounded. Spreading it without proof could just become rumour.

If one had more details and it seemed real it would obviously be a legal matter but I would still inform the Ceroc organiser responsible for the teacher/venue.


Apparently there is a swing dancer in the US who accused an organiser of something untoward and illegal in a very slanderous way on a swing forum and he is being sued for a million dollars.

MartinHarper
4th-April-2006, 04:05 PM
Suppose a local organiser were to ban one of my friends from going to their event because they ran a "competing" event for charity, or had a birthday party, or something of that nature. I would definately want to know about this. I would have no qualms in pointing out my displeasure at this decision to the organiser in question and letting them know that this behaviour will influence whether I feel happy giving them my money in the future.

That wouldn't even be particularly "dark" - just petty and small-minded.

MartinHarper
4th-April-2006, 04:12 PM
I don’t think we are talking about minors here

Given how little information Gus has provided, none of us have any clue what random incident we are talking about. That's what makes the blanket "whatever it is, I don't want to know" answers on this thread so surprising to me. Seems like I could do a roaring trade in peril-sensitive sunglasses.

TiggsTours
4th-April-2006, 04:19 PM
Hang on

I don’t think we are talking about minors here

If we are, then I and and I suspect every one else on this forum, is going to be giving Gus some very different advice
Absolutely, I would always want to protect a child, and seeing that it became apparent 2 years ago that my cousins 10 year old daughter was in fact being groomed by someone who then went on to rape her 9 year old friend, this scenario is VERY close to my heart. But, we are all adults, there are no minors in any danger here.

Still not knowing what the situation is, if we look at worse case scenario, a new teacher at my local venue is believe to have raped 2 women (as the case given), would I want to know about it? No, I wouldn't.

There are such things as false allegations, which can affect people all their lives, and I, for one, would like to think that Ceroc, or any other dance organisation for that matter, would fully vet their dance teachers and would therefore uncover any situation where someone had been found guilty of such crimes in the past, and the person would therefore not have been deemed fit to work for the organisation.

However, if they had not had charges pressed against them, or not been found guilty, there is always the possibility that this is because they are innocent, in which case I would hate to think something like this would stop them living their lives. If they were guilty, but had got away with it, then that is a worrying thought, but at the same time, we live in a community where you are innocent until proven guilty, I happen to think that is important, and rumours and gossip are not enough, in my mind, to prove anyone's guilt of anything.

Call me foolish if you like, but I trust the powers that be to judge for themselves whether or not they feel someone is worthy of the position of trust that is installed on them, if they feel it is OK, then its OK with me too.

I would prefer to say innocent till proven guilty, in the knowledge that some guilty people will sadly fall through the net, than guilty till proven innocent, in the knowledge there will be mis-carraiges of justice, and innocent people will suffer.

MartinHarper
4th-April-2006, 04:44 PM
We are all adults, there are no minors in any danger here.

There are some dance events where children are present, though it is uncommon.

TiggsTours
4th-April-2006, 04:51 PM
There are some dance events where children are present, though it is uncommon.
And every time I have seen children at dance events, they have always been there with their parents.

drathzel
4th-April-2006, 09:07 PM
If any incident occurred in the UK MJ scene which would make people reasonably wonder about their safety at a particular event/class/freestyle/whatever, then I think it should be reported.

But at the same time, the act of reporting it will doubtless create a lot of heat, much of directed at the wrong people.

:yeah: If my safety was at risk i would like to be made aware of this. Although i do believe we have a strict policy of not Naming and Shaming people on the forum.

Should we need to know whats going on i think we would be informed however this forum is probably not the place to do so

Jive Brummie
4th-April-2006, 09:30 PM
Haven't read everything on this thread (apologies) as it just winds me up constantly reading about folks taking the moral high ground. A bit offensive I know and somewhat generalising, but hey...we all do it:whistle:

My own personal opinion is...

If it makes you question yourself as to whether the good people in dance land should know this kind of information, I'd go with gut instinct.

During my upbringing I was always taught that honesty is the best policy. And this is something I still stick to, however painful it may be. It helps me sleep well at night!

If the people involved in this incedent are not willing to have it discussed, be they the victim or the perpetrator then they should have thought of the potential consequences before carrying out their actions. If it is serious and the perpetrator is not reported then what stops them doing it again? Chuff all! If the victim would rather keep it quiet, how are they going to silence the 20 people who have witnessed said incedent and stop them from spouting their take on things.

The jungle drums within the dance world beat fast and fiercely. Lets be honest here, I can't fart up here in Dundee without someone down south knowing about it before the smell has dispersed! So lets at least promote clarity and truth, because if you don't own up to your actions by the time it get's further away from the 'farter', it would appear to the masses that you actually cacked your pants. (Sorry for the gross example, but I think it gets the message across).

Be loud, be proud.

JB x x

*disclaimer* this is purely personal opinion and in no way should be taken so seriously that you now all think I'm the anti christ...I just like honesty.*disclaimer*

DianaS
4th-April-2006, 09:32 PM
Hi Gus
its an interesting thread that you've started. You're a responsible guy and will do what you think is best. Ask the advice of a couple of people that you know and trust
then think on it

In the end do whats right for you. What your comfortable with and what you believe is in other peoples best interests.

Do it creatively, with honesty and integrity.
Be prepared to be wrong, and possibly unpopular
but if it is important (and to youiit obviously is) find a way to approach it.

Unfortunatley, I can't help but feel that this thread is kind of a wind up..
ie I know something very important what do you believe I should do..
I'm surprised their isn't a poll attached.

For me this trivialises things. And if it is important it perhaps isn't the best way to draw highlight it.

Lots of people have used the forum to approach difficult issues though and have done it well, but this thread seems to much of a tease to move any thing forward.

Trinity
4th-April-2006, 09:38 PM
:yeah: If my safety was at risk i would like to be made aware of this.

Gus, you're nasty and you made me cry. :mad: Maybe you should think before you post in future

TiggsTours
5th-April-2006, 10:05 AM
Haven't read everything on this thread (apologies) as it just winds me up constantly reading about folks taking the moral high ground. A bit offensive I know and somewhat generalising, but hey...we all do it:whistle:

My own personal opinion is...

If by "taking the moral high ground" you mean people saying they don't think this should be made public, then the people you are talking about (I take it that includes me) are also just saying what THEIR personal opinions are, and they are perfectly entitiled to.

You think honesty is the best policy, and would like to know, I think guilty till proven innocent, and that rumour & hearsay is not enough to prove guilt is important, and so would not like to hear, who is to say who is right and who is wrong. The difference is, if you really want to know, you are perfectly welcome to Private Mail Gus and ask him, whereas, if Gus chooses to publicly issue the information, and I happen to stumble across it, I did not have any choice, a little bit like the difference between a smoker and a passive smoker!

Nobody's stopping you from finding out, we're just saying that we don't want to know!

timbp
5th-April-2006, 10:33 AM
If by "taking the moral high ground" you mean people saying they don't think this should be made public, then the people you are talking about (I take it that includes me) are also just saying what THEIR personal opinions are, and they are perfectly entitiled to.

You think honesty is the best policy, and would like to know, I think guilty till proven innocent, and that rumour & hearsay is not enough to prove guilt is important, and so would not like to hear, who is to say who is right and who is wrong. The difference is, if you really want to know, you are perfectly welcome to Private Mail Gus and ask him, whereas, if Gus chooses to publicly issue the information, and I happen to stumble across it, I did not have any choice, a little bit like the difference between a smoker and a passive smoker!

Nobody's stopping you from finding out, we're just saying that we don't want to know!

Please, please, please, tell me you made a mistake in what you wrote.

You appear to say you believe in guilty until proven innocent, and you don't want to hear any details.

In other words, if someone makes an accusation you will accept it as true and not try to find out the facts.

Please tell me that is not what you meant. I am disgusted that anyone would advocate that sort of judgement.

TiggsTours
5th-April-2006, 10:39 AM
Please, please, please, tell me you made a mistake in what you wrote.

You appear to say you believe in guilty until proven innocent, and you don't want to hear any details.

In other words, if someone makes an accusation you will accept it as true and not try to find out the facts.

Please tell me that is not what you meant. I am disgusted that anyone would advocate that sort of judgement.
Sorry, yes, I meant innocent until proven guilty, as per my previous posting.

Ste
5th-April-2006, 12:10 PM
If it makes you question yourself as to whether the good people in dance land should know this kind of information, I'd go with gut instinct.

I think gut instinct is right. Sometimes we suppress it because of some sort of rationalisation. Like : " I must not say anything to anyone because it has not been proved in a court of law" or " I could be sued".

But at some point, perhaps the public safety aspect starts to take precedence as the important variable and that dictates your actions.

With my flatmate, I had a chance to do something about it.

But i did not have the evidence in my hand. It was second hand hearsay. But he was always going on about some 13 year old kid he was seeing and one day I did find a diary with a number belonging to the name of someone with that kid's name. Maybe I applied those nice, decent rationalisations like: "I have no proof....maybe his parents are fantasising" and hoped for the best.

About 8 years ago I was roadying for a band called Delirious. My (by then) ex flatmate turned up with a guitar and the Delirious guitarist played it and so did I. The unpleasant confrontation I had had seemed forgotten. But he was with a teenage boy again. It was almost like " See little boy. I know the guitarist. Stick around with me because I know people in the music business".

But who was I to do anything?

If I had done something that then < on the facts that I had, would have been disproportinate to those facts, then maybe I could have helpped that kid or the kid that years later my flatmate sexually assaulted.

Sometimes we try to be decent to indecent people. We apply middleclass standards to people that don't deserve them. As a lawyer, I once acted for a man accused of kiddy fiddling. But no one could prove it so I had to put my lawyer's hat on and believe him. I did soemthing really agressive to the child's parent but I can't remember what it was...a very nastily written letter or something. I was zealous for my professional position. you see, that was an outworking of my "decent professional standards". Ironically the more I dislked the client the more I was prepared to stand up for him.

OK, in line with the concept of Wittgenstein's games, I am departing slightly from the main variables that are the force of this thread. I want to introduce a new variable. THat is of inaction through middle class reservations. I think Michael Moore had a theory that the 911 aircraft hijacks would have been unsuccessful had the passengers been blacks ie that they would have sorted out the hijackers at an earlier point in time. The actual passengers were doing what was right in that context. Ie obeying the hostess please of " Stay clam" until it was too late. They were applying a western civilised mode of thought to a context that was primitive, violent and life threatening.

Once my dad got mugged by a huge black guy in Chiswick. What this guy did not realise was that my dad used to be a body builder and had a brown belt in karate. My dad elbowed him and ran away and then my 16 year old brother came out the house and did a flying kick on the mugger. They both fell and the guy ran off. My brother got loads of top grade GCSEs and does the middle class academic thing quite well. But to me he is a legend for that flying kick. He did what he thought was necessary to combat a situation that was outside his surburban mentality parameters. Do what is necessary.

Donna
5th-April-2006, 12:35 PM
I think gut instinct is right. Sometimes we suppress it because of some sort of rationalisation. Like : " I must not say anything to anyone because it has not been proved in a court of law" or " I could be sued".

If someone has done something that has been proved in a court of law, it gets released in the papers anyway, so why not reveal it on the forum? For e.g - anybody who works for a dance organisation who has been convicted of GBH, rape, murder etc etc... I think people on here have the right to know. PUBLIC SAFETY INNIT!!! Otherwise if not proven, people should just keep their mouths shut before they land themselves in hot water.

TiggsTours
5th-April-2006, 12:43 PM
With my flatmate, I had a chance to do something about it.

But i did not have the evidence in my hand. .......................But who was I to do anything?

If I had done something then ................................Do what is necessary.
All very well and good, and in this case, you were right with your suspicions, and I can understand why you now feel so passionate about this, but how about a different scenario.

A few years ago now, I used to work with a guy who I got on really well with, he is still one of my closest friends, but at the time, nasty viscious rumours, started by people who "thought" they were acting with the best intentions, but who had no evidence. These rumours nearly destroyed not only that friendship, but his marraige, both our careers, and made him feel suicidal.

Because we were friends, we used to go out to lunch together, we used to chat to each other, and some evenings we used to go out for a drink after work. In line with our job, sometimes we had to go away together for a few days and stay in a hotel. We were work colleagues who developed a very close friendship, which is still strong, but there was never anything more than that.

Some of our colleagues decided that it wasn't possible for 2 people of the opposite sex to have such a close friendship, and it certainly wasn't right for a married man to be so close to a female friend, so they decided we must be having an affair. They talked about it amongst themselves, and eventually these rumours got back to the head of department. Relationships amongst staff were not allowed in this company, and as my line manager, he was pulled up and put on disciplinary for something that had never happened, due to this, his wife heard all about it, and decided that, although he had never once lied to her, for things to have gone so far, the rumours must be true. This obviously caused his marraige to nearly fall apart, which made him seriously depressed.

With his home life suffering, and his career falling apart, he started talking of suicide. Luckily, his wife eventually believed him, and after meeting me properly, and spending time together, she came to be fully supportive of our friendship, and we all still spend alot of time together.

The rumours at work, however, continued, and only ended after I finally left the company.

If the people involved in a situation do not want the world to know, then the world has no God given right to know, and not one person has the right to make that happen either. Only the people involved know what really happened, and there are always 2 sides to any story, any story passed on by a third party is already suffering the chinese whispers syndrome, and being tainted by what that person chose to believe from what they heard.

Nasty viscous rumours ruin lives, I'd rather live without some truths than hear the countless false allegations that are made, in order to hear the minority of true stories.

TiggsTours
5th-April-2006, 12:44 PM
If someone has done something that has been proved in a court of law, it gets released in the papers anyway, so why not reveal it on the forum? For e.g - anybody who works for a dance organisation who has been convicted of GBH, rape, murder etc etc... I think people on here have the right to know. PUBLIC SAFETY INNIT!!! Otherwise if not proven, people should just keep their mouths shut before they land themselves in hot water.
:yeah:

timbp
5th-April-2006, 12:50 PM
If someone has done something that has been proved in a court of law, it gets released in the papers anyway, so why not reveal it on the forum? For e.g - anybody who works for a dance organisation who has been convicted of GBH, rape, murder etc etc... I think people on here have the right to know. PUBLIC SAFETY INNIT!!! Otherwise if not proven, people should just keep their mouths shut before they land themselves in hot water.
Proven in the past. You haven't proven they will do it again. And you have no obligation (nor do I believe you have a duty) to tell new cerocers that their teacher was convicted of [anything].
I don't know how your privacy laws work, but it may even be illegal to inform others of someones criminal past as that is a breach of privacy

I thought the question was about something witnessed but not submitted to the formal process. My advice is find the appropriate authority and report the crime. They are experts and will know the appropriate response.

Donna
5th-April-2006, 12:55 PM
[QUOTE=timbp]Proven in the past. You haven't proven they will do it again.

Done it once, they COULD do it again. Are people really going to put themselves at risk?



I don't know how your privacy laws work, but it may even be illegal to inform others of someones criminal past as that is a breach of privacy

Word gets around though. That's something which can't be stopped.

timbp
5th-April-2006, 01:14 PM
Done it once, they COULD do it again. Are people really going to put themselves at risk?


Are these the same people who drive themselves and their children around in cars with no regard to the risk of dying in a car accident?

What about the people who have done in never, but COULD do it once?

If you have a society where everyone who is capable of a crime is locked up, who runs your society?

If you really believe people who have committed a particular crime cannot be believed never to commit that crime again, why do you ever release them?

(I want to argue this more thoroughly, but I'm tired, sick, and had a bottle of wine. Nevertheless, I suggest you are in serious trouble if you want to punish people for what they might do. Post your arguments, and I'll respond when I'm mrore alert)

Donna
5th-April-2006, 01:35 PM
Are these the same people who drive themselves and their children around in cars with no regard to the risk of dying in a car accident?

I can't see how this example relates to what the thread is about. Gus could have talking about anything (which he still won't reveal) but, the possibilities are he might be talking about someone he knows who runs/helps to run a franchise that has been up to no good. In this case, depending on how serious it is, I think for the sake of 'Public Safety' people have the right to know. It could be a political issue - if so, then why the hell do people want to poke their noses in in the first place? I don't care what goes on behind the scenes. I just go along to a venue to socialise and dance my socks off! Leave them to it! If I was helping to run a venue, that's a different matter, but I certainly wouldn't reveal anything I've been told because I'd be in no position to do so. However, If I was in charge of a venue, then that would be up to me if I wanted to share it with outsiders, but even then, I wouldn't want to if it meant the numbers could drop.

TiggsTours
5th-April-2006, 01:40 PM
Proven in the past. You haven't proven they will do it again. And you have no obligation (nor do I believe you have a duty) to tell new cerocers that their teacher was convicted of [anything].
I don't know how your privacy laws work, but it may even be illegal to inform others of someones criminal past as that is a breach of privacy

If they are a convicted rapist, they will be on the sex offenders list, information publicly available, so there would be no breach of privacy in making that information available.

If someone had been convicted of such a crime, I'd like to know, if not, I'd rather not know any rumours that are in circulation, no matter what.

Donna
5th-April-2006, 01:44 PM
[QUOTE=TiggsTours]If they are a convicted rapist, they will be on the sex offenders list, information publicly available, so there would be no breach of privacy in making that information available.

:yeah:


If someone had been convicted of such a crime, I'd like to know, if not, I'd rather not know any rumours that are in circulation, no matter what.

Well put. Neither would I!

Dazzle
5th-April-2006, 03:20 PM
As a victim of conjecture, rumour and NO evidence I am sad people have such empty, meaningless lives they need to fill it with such rubbish. But then TV and the newstands are full of it and they obviously do. :mad:

Dreadful Scathe
7th-April-2006, 01:25 PM
Nasty viscous rumours ruin lives

Always a sticky situation :).


My opinion, if anyone cares ;) , is that an established public dance forum is not for this sort of information no matter how much of it is verifiable facts.

but...

Gus had no intention of ever doing that as far as I can see and I am all for investigative journalism. I fully support Gus and his team of smurfs in their new on8 endevours. So if on8 is going to cover the news in the MJ world and that happens to include incidents that some people would prefer were NOT covered, then tough - Im all for that sort of investigative reporting. If people dont want their dodgy linen aired in public, so to speak, then they shouldnt do dodgy things in public in the first place. Im sure the on8 team will check their sources so they won't need a lawsuit fund a la Private Eye Magazine ;)

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 02:04 PM
Once my dad got mugged by a huge black guy in Chiswick. ...and the skin colour or racial background of this man is relevant how, exactly?

Gus
7th-April-2006, 02:07 PM
Im sure the on8 team will check their sources so they won't need a lawsuit fund a la Private Eye Magazine ;)Funnily enough we had several stories to research. One was very well 'known' but the rumours mill had been at its worse, so I thought I'd get to the bottom of it and show the general public what fools they were to believe the gossip. I managed to track down someone who was actually there and so I got an eye-witness account of the incident. Smugly, knowing that my AWESOME investigative journalistic skills had cracked the case (:rolleyes: ) , I followed recommended practice and sent my understanding of the FACTS to the relevant parties to comment.

Of course, my naive belief that all parties would prefer the truth to be printed was misplaced and I got the usual legal threats back, but no-one would confirm the facts. I was a bit puzzled at the facts weren't so bad .... and after the tirade I received on the Forum I just decided to drop the whole reporting this as a bad idea. .... and then on Wednesday I found out the missing piece in the jigsaw, what had happened before my eye-witness had appeared on the scene ... and yes, it really was bad :( So ... the public will never know what happened, and the whole thing can happen again ....

Oh, someone pointed out to me why there was such a rant against this post to begin with. Can I confirm that none of the above is about Mikey!

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 02:10 PM
Can I confirm that none of the above is about Mikey!And please explain why you - or anyone else - might suspect that Mikey was involved? If ever there was a libellous posting on the forum, that last one was it.

Dreadful Scathe
7th-April-2006, 02:11 PM
...and the skin colour or racial background of this man is relevant how, exactly?

Its relevant to his description. You could just say "man" but its not very descriptive really. Why arent you bothered about his size being mentioned? ;)

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:11 PM
...and the skin colour or racial background of this man is relevant how, exactly?


Hmmm lets not go there. It could result in this thread being taken upstairs.. I'm sure.

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 02:12 PM
Hmmm lets not go there. It could result in this thread being taken upstairs.. I'm sure.Why not? Blatant racism should go challenged wherever it occurs - even unwittingly.

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:12 PM
And please explain why you - or anyone else - might suspect that Mikey was involved? If ever there was a libellous posting on the forum, that last one was it.


Hmmm lets avoid this one too!

Dreadful Scathe
7th-April-2006, 02:13 PM
And please explain why you - or anyone else - might suspect that Mikey was involved?

Im sure Gus doesnt know the answer to that - some people just assume stuff and jump to conclusions.

Like assuming that some peple can be quite supercilious :)

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:14 PM
Why not. Blatant racism should go challenged - even where unwitting.

I must point out that I have not got one racist bone in my body and talking about racism just ends up with disagreements = arguments etc etc. But then that's another thread to be started off if on the subject of racism.

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 02:14 PM
Its relevant to his description. You could just say "man" but its not very descriptive really. Why arent you bothered about his size being mentioned? ;)It's not at all relevant. His size is relevant - but not his colour. Is being mugged by a big black man different to being mugged by a big white man? Not in any sense relevant to the point being made.

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:16 PM
Im sure Gus doesnt know the answer to that - some people just assume stuff and jump to conclusions.

Like assuming that some peple can be quite supercilious :)


A lot of people out there know about Mikey's history, and whenever something like this crops up, people just assume Mikey is being set as an example. Lets not go down this road.

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 02:17 PM
Im sure Gus doesnt know the answer to that If Gus doesn't know the answer to that then he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. So does he want to tell us what he meant, or does he want to apologise to Mikey?

under par
7th-April-2006, 02:19 PM
Great news ! Its Friday and we have a contentious post running again. Yeah !:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:


Don't you just love Fridays:clap:


Double edged contoversy TOO! Mikey and racism! They aren't linked are they?

Sorry Mikey:hug:

Ste
7th-April-2006, 02:19 PM
[QUOTE=TiggsTours]All very well and good, and in this case, you were right with your suspicions, and I can understand why you now feel so passionate about this, but how about a different scenario.

A few years ago now, I used to work with a guy who I got on really well with, he is still one of my closest friends, but at the time, nasty viscious rumours, started by people who "thought" they were acting with the best intentions, but who had no evidence. These rumours nearly destroyed not only that friendship, but his marraige, both our careers, and made him feel suicidal.

QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying here and I agree. I am sorry that you had to go through that. Rumours can be very destructive. One of the funniest rumours I understand that went around about me was that me and another forum regular recently got married!!!Where did they get that from?We both find it amusing but maybe if it was a rumour that I had done something bad, then I would be thinking about legal action.

I should have made it clear but I was really exploring Gus's original post to the nth degree. An extreme position ( ie top end of the scale in terms of danger to people). I think that gut instinct tells you then to report it or, if necessary, take more drastic steps. In those circumstances you should do something to warn people and not hold back. Whistleblow.

If there are things lower down the scale like whether people are having an (alleged) affair or whatever, or even if there are alleged financial misdemeanors, then these might be of concern but are not things that makes the red lights on my radar go ballistic so that I had to tell someone else whether in word or print.

I think in terms of complaining, I am actually lower down the scale than most people. For example there is a bloke in a venue that I go to. He is very flirtatious with the women and says really odd fake jealousy things to them. I would not be surprised if he had psychosexual issues and i certainly would not let him look after my kids ( if I had any).Someone complained to me and I asked if he had groped anyone. No. Had he physically done anything. No. So I thought...well what's the problem then. Legally, he is not committing any crime or actionable tort. I wasn't that interested. He might be pervy but what has he actually done? But a number of girls have complained about him and I have had to upgrade my surveillance. Like it might appear on my radar with one red light now!

Yes, I do really regret not doing something with my flatmate that could have helped prevent his behaviour. The problem was that I had no proof. Looking back, what I should have done is to take the child's telephone number and report it anonymously to the police.Then they can do what they think is appropriate.

I was passive when I should have been active.

And evil fluorishes when good people do nothing.

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:19 PM
If Gus doesn't know the answer to that then he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. So does he want to tell us what he meant, or does he want to apologise to Mikey?


Because like I said above, people just assume. Gus know's that, everybody knows that so he was just making a point before anybody brought his name up.

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 02:22 PM
Because like I said above, people just assume. Gus know's that, everybody knows that so he was just making a point before anybody brought his name up.So - he thought he'd get in there with the offensive little jibe first and save everyone else the bother? Disgusting.

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:24 PM
So - he thought he'd get in there with the offensive little jibe first and save everyone else the bother? Disgusting.

He might have been doing Mikey a favour?

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 02:25 PM
He might have been doing Mikey a favour?He might have thought he was flying to the moon, more like.

Dreadful Scathe
7th-April-2006, 02:33 PM
It's not at all relevant. His size is relevant - but not his colour. Is being mugged by a big black man different to being mugged by a big white man? Not in any sense relevant to the point being made.

Yes it is, its a description. The point was about the assault and the description puts a picture in peoples minds. Would you have complained if the description had been "huge, red headed man" ? The red hair is also descriptive but not relevant to the assault. For that matter so is 'huge' - small men can still assault people :) in fact maybe, by 'huge', he meant 'fat' rather than 'big' in which case he must be racist and fattist :) Its just political correctness to assume a description of skin colour is anything other than...er....a description of skin colour.

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:37 PM
Yes it is, its a description.

:yeah: Well done! Just because the term 'Black' was used doesn't indicate he was being racist at all! It's just a description. Doesn't mean anything!


The point was about the assault and the description puts a picture in peoples minds.

Exactly!


Would you have complained if the description had been "huge, red headed man" ?


:rofl: Very funny smurf!

Dreadful Scathe
7th-April-2006, 02:38 PM
If Gus doesn't know the answer to that then he shouldn't have made the comment in the first place. So does he want to tell us what he meant, or does he want to apologise to Mikey?

Are you on drugs? :) Gus said "Oh, someone pointed out to me why there was such a rant against this post to begin with. Can I confirm that none of the above is about Mikey!"

which clearly states that Gus did not make any comment about Mikey but that someone had a word in his shell like, so to speak, and suggested that others would jump to conclusions and blah blah blah and i dont know why Im bothering replying to this now but Im not doing anything really and am soon off to the airport. I didnt have lunch either*. Airport facilities are excellent these days i find.

*Or even a cappuccino.

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:41 PM
[QUOTE=Dreadful Scathe]Are you on drugs? :) Gus said "Oh, someone pointed out to me why there was such a rant against this post to begin with. Can I confirm that none of the above is about Mikey!" which clearly states that Gus did not make any comment about Mikey but that someone had a word in his shell like, so to speak, and suggested that others would jump to conclusions and blah blah blah


Well there you go then ESG. Nothing to do with Gus at all. I'm sure he's reading all this now. Hi Gus! :hug: Anyway, he knew if one person already brought it up then so would somebody else so he did the right thing to stop it there.

Hey have a good time in smurf land. ;)

Gus
7th-April-2006, 02:46 PM
So - he thought he'd get in there with the offensive little jibe first and save everyone else the bother? Disgusting.I take it you aren't getting any? You seem a little tetchy today. RELLAAAXXXX. I have had a few calls and PMs where people thought I was on an anti-Mikey tirade. As I was at great pains to point out earlier, the story itself was irrelevant ... I was trying to establish a view on the principle.

I suggest that if you a really so intent on picking a fight with as many people as possible, wander into one of the more "ethnically diverse" areas of London and start asserting your opinion in your own inimitable styel ... I'm sure that you will soon attract the attention you desire.:flower:

In the mean time On8 will stick to reporting FACTS and not innuendos ...:waycool: .

Donna
7th-April-2006, 02:51 PM
[QUOTE=Gus]I take it you aren't getting any? You seem a little tetchy today. RELLAAAXXXX. I have had a few calls and PMs where people thought I was on an anti-Mikey tirade. As I was at great pains to point out earlier, the story itself was irrelevant ... I was trying to establish a view on the principle.

You seeee ESG? Problem solved.

Dreadful Scathe
7th-April-2006, 03:19 PM
whys it called on8 anyway ? :) is that some sort of a reference to either Mikey and/or black people :rolleyes: :)

Gus
7th-April-2006, 03:24 PM
whys it called on8 anyway ? Have you never heard that immortal mantra?

"5 , 6, 7, on 8 ...."

to subtle for the masses once more :tears:

Donna
7th-April-2006, 03:24 PM
whys it called on8 anyway ? :) is that some sort of a reference to either Mikey and/or black people :rolleyes: :)

Dunno. I was going to ask this question. What on8 means that is.:rolleyes:

spindr
7th-April-2006, 03:40 PM
Dunno. I was going to ask this question. What on8 means that is.:rolleyes:
Is it that time before you can eat chocolate?

At least it's not as bad as "AfterFive (http://www.afterfive.co.uk)" :)

SpinDr

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 03:47 PM
:yeah: Well done! Just because the term 'Black' was used doesn't indicate he was being racist at all! It's just a description. Doesn't mean anything!Not so. Descriptions can be very important. The race of the man is of no relevance or significance in the context. Any one of hundreds of descriptions could have been applied - why focus on race? (You wouldn't say "mugged by a large white man", would you? So why point out that the man was black?)

As for Gus and Mikey - I jumped to conclusions. Apologies to Gus.
<table style="border: medium none ; width: 100%;" align="left" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width=""><tbody><tr><td class="normaltext" style="border: medium none ;" width="5%">
</td><td class="newslist" style="border: medium none ; font-weight: bold;" width="95%">
</td></tr><tr><td style="border: medium none ;" width="5%">
</td><td class="normaltext" style="border: medium none ;" width="95%">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Donna
7th-April-2006, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE=El Salsero Gringo]Not so. Descriptions can be very important. The race of the man is of no relevance or significance in the context. Any one of hundreds of descriptions could have been applied - why focus on race? (You wouldn't say "mugged by a large white man", would you? So why point out that the man was black?)

Why do the papers describe the colour of a person as well as height, what they were wearing etc etc when there has been a mugging then? It's a description.

stewart38
7th-April-2006, 03:56 PM
What if say a ( hypothetical situation as I am just making it up) jive teacher was thought to have raped 2 women? What would you do? On the one hand you would not have any proof but the stakes are high.

Try this as idea

Talk to the women involved and or go to the police :yeah:

Discuss it on a public forum naaaaaaa :sad:

Gus
7th-April-2006, 03:58 PM
You wouldn't say "mugged by a large white man", would you? Ahem, if you were of African or Asian descent, dont you think you would? The colour of some ones skin is a very visual descriptor. If the mugger was of the same race you would use the next most visual thing like distinctive hair or skin condiditon.... like saying I was "mugged by a carrot top with bad acne!".

stewart38
7th-April-2006, 04:03 PM
Why not? Blatant racism should go challenged wherever it occurs - even unwittingly.


I know if your 10 you will find yourself before the courts :grin:

Lory
7th-April-2006, 04:03 PM
I've thought about this and if it were me and I was mugged, yes, I don't think I'd say 'I was mugged by a big white man'

BUT if it happened to be an Indian, Chinese, Black, Eastern European, Hasidic Jew, Arab or a girl for that matter, I might mention it. I don't know why, I suspect, as DS explained, its merely being descriptive.

Nothing to do with being racist, cos I'm far from it! :cool:

Dreadful Scathe
7th-April-2006, 04:04 PM
to subtle for the masses once more :tears:

I did actually get it ;)


You wouldn't say "mugged by a large white man", would you?

You might well do if you were black. Sometimes a physical feature that is different from your own is something you automatically add to a description. Unless political correctness holds your tongue :) (and surely that happens to everyone at some point)

Also - skin colour is a glaringly obvious difference between people, so why not mention it as a matter of course to aid identification? Why is this sinister? I wouldnt think twice about describing someone as a "short, *expensively dressed man" so why is "black" bad?

You are right about one thing - in the context "black" was not relevant to the reporting of the attack and could have been left out.... but so could "huge" and "man", it could have been "person" instead, after all, why should the sex be an issue :)


*Maybe I'd be accused of being an anarchist :)


edit: Gus said something similar above already, sorry;)

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 04:05 PM
Why do the papers describe the colour of a person as well as height, what they were wearing etc etc when there has been a mugging then? It's a description.They most certainly don't, and it would be contrary to section 12 of the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct if they did. (See here (http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html), but the relevant paragraph states "Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.")

If, for instance, the police are seeking help from the public to find someone - and have issued a description - then race is obviously relevant and it is printed. Otherwise not.


Ahem, if you were of African or Asian descent, dont you think you would [say 'mugged by a white man']?If I were, and I did, then it would be just as racist a comment.

stewart38
7th-April-2006, 04:06 PM
I take it you aren't getting any? You seem a little tetchy today. RELLAAAXXXX. I have had a few calls and PMs where people thought I was on an anti-Mikey tirade. As I was at great pains to point out earlier, the story itself was irrelevant ... I was trying to establish a view on the principle.

I suggest that if you a really so intent on picking a fight with as many people as possible, wander into one of the more "ethnically diverse" areas of London and start asserting your opinion in your own inimitable styel ... I'm sure that you will soon attract the attention you desire.:flower:

In the mean time On8 will stick to reporting FACTS and not innuendos ...:waycool: .

Attacking someone else now, glad to see you have let me off today :grin:

Still think the thread is interesting, god i might rep you :what:

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 04:10 PM
You might well do if you were black. Sometimes a physical feature that is different from your own is something you automatically add to a description. Unless political correctness holds your tongue :) (and surely that happens to everyone at some point)That's true to an extent, but the tendency is to do it only or mainly in perjorative situations - as in this case. Which is why it is best avoided. But to avoid it, you have to realise that you're doing it and appreciate that it does matter.

Ask yourself - honestly - if you'd be less inclined to insert a racial description in this case: "I was being mugged and a black man came to my rescue".

Lory
7th-April-2006, 04:13 PM
Ask yourself - honestly - if you'd be less inclined to insert a racial description in this case: "I was being mugged and a black man came to my rescue".
Honestly... I most certainly would!

David Franklin
7th-April-2006, 04:14 PM
(You wouldn't say "mugged by a large white man", would you? So why point out that the man was black?)I've certainly heard that (well, it was actually a purse-snatcher who'd jumped over a fence, but close enough). The people describing him were mainly white but also black, for what it's worth. I've also heard a mugger described as a "big black guy" by one of my black relatives.

As much as anything, there's something about the phrasing that often makes it sound better with two adjectives than one. Taking out black from the original phrase gives us "huge guy" which sounds particularly clumsy, so we almost unconsciously search for another adjective to stick in between.

I do agree that often when race is mentioned, the subtext seems to be "it's not bad enough they were a mugger, but they were a black mugger" etc. but I have to say that's not how I saw things here.

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 04:27 PM
...so we almost unconsciously search for another adjective to stick in between.We do indeed. And perhaps - without malice - we choose one that both results from and perpetuates an unconscious stereotype.

The point being that race had no place in the context, and it would have been better to have chosen a different description.

Ste
7th-April-2006, 04:33 PM
Yes it is, its a description. The point was about the assault and the description puts a picture in peoples minds. Would you have complained if the description had been "huge, red headed man" ? The red hair is also descriptive but not relevant to the assault. For that matter so is 'huge' - small men can still assault people :) in fact maybe, by 'huge', he meant 'fat' rather than 'big' in which case he must be racist and fattist :) Its just political correctness to assume a description of skin colour is anything other than...er....a description of skin colour.

Oops. I suppose I could have been a bit more sensitive, but nothing was intended as insinuated. Especailly since about half my friends in London are black.( What about this true story then: My close black friend tells me that she was almost pulled out of a car by a "black" guy when she "cut her eyes" at him and he threatened to "box her face".She isn't being racist. She is just telling me what happened. Or what about another true story when my Ghanaian flat mate says that he saw a black guy holding a screw driver to an Asian guy and abducting him. He isn't being racist either. He is just telling me what he saw. And I am telling you what I heard.).

I was also going to tell you about an incident involving my dad being surrounded by 4 Chinese guys (gangsters) and I was getting ready to do something that was repugnant to me as a pacifist ie mete out some violence. But I thought this was meandering off topic. So I didn't.( It was just an example of extreme situations requiring quick preventative action which offend against your sensibilities).

I guess that would make me racist against Chinese people. WHich is slightly diffcult since I was beaten for being Chinese at school and have suffered real racism.....like insults and things thrown at me. I don't get offended when someone says "A Chinese guy mugged me" unless he is saying that Chinese people have a propensity to mug. I don't call that racism.

I call physical beatings/ your mates egging you on to a fight by calling you "Chinky" not getting a job because people don't think you can speak English/ getting called "Jackie Chan" by Mc Donalds staff etc. racist. Because that has happened to me.

stewart38
7th-April-2006, 04:37 PM
I was also going to tell you about an incident involving my dad being surrounded by 4 Chinese guys (gangsters) and I was getting ready to do something that was repugnant to me as a pacifist ie mete out some violence. But I thought this was meandering off topic. So I didn't.( It was just an example of extreme situations requiring quick preventative action which offend against your sensibilities).




You 'taking out' 4 Chinese gangsters :what:

Anything you say now is fine with me Sir :worthy:

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 04:51 PM
Oops. I suppose I could have been a bit more sensitive, but nothing was intended as insinuated.I didn't mean to imply anything about your intention. It's just very easy to make comments unwittingly that can be insulting, or insensitive.
Especially since about half my friends in London are black.Why does having black friends (or being a member of an ethnic minority oneself) mean one (anyone - not picking on you, Ste) is therefore immune from charges of racism? Some of the most racist people I know are members of 'minority' communities.

Dazzle
7th-April-2006, 05:33 PM
Maybe we should stick to the Police's classifications of being descriptive in that case. That is most certainly not racist and everyone will be happy.:blush:

IC1 White
IC2 Mediterranean or Hispanic
IC3 African / Caribbean
IC4 Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Other Asian
IC5 Chinese, Japanese or South East Asian
IC6 Arabic, Egyptian,

El Salsero Gringo
7th-April-2006, 06:07 PM
Maybe we should stick to the Police's classifications of being descriptive in that case. That is most certainly not racist and everyone will be happy.:blush:

IC1 White
IC2 Mediterranean or Hispanic
IC3 African / Caribbean
IC4 Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Other Asian
IC5 Chinese, Japanese or South East Asian
IC6 Arabic, Egyptian,It's not racist to describe someone's race if it's relevant. Whether you say Indian, "IC3" or whatever. But it can be, if you just throw it in because its the only adjective that comes to mind in a negative context.

Ste
7th-April-2006, 06:36 PM
Don't call me racist you Gringo!
:wink:

tiger
7th-April-2006, 07:51 PM
I think that Frank should close this thread as it is causing far too much controversy and those who it really bothers, concerns etc. should keep this private and consult a lawyer as to their next step.

Gus
7th-April-2006, 08:15 PM
I think that Frank should close this thread as it is causing far too much controversy and those who it really bothers, concerns etc. should keep this private and consult a lawyer as to their next step.At least nice to know this thread stayed totaly on topic.:tears: :sick:

Dreadful Scathe
8th-April-2006, 12:50 AM
Can we have more controversy please ? :)

ducasi
8th-April-2006, 03:02 AM
I think that Frank should close this thread as it is causing far too much controversy and those who it really bothers, concerns etc. should keep this private and consult a lawyer as to their next step.
This is one of the least controversial "controversial" threads we've seen in a while. There is nothing in the thread that has especially enflamed passions. Compare that what happens when you start talking about music, or feet, or public policy... (Too lazy to actually link to the threads I'm thinking of. It's 3 am and I'm tired.)

OK, we've had a pointless discussion about racism which got a few folks a bit hot under the collar, but that was pretty much off-topic, and seems to be settled anyway...

Can anyone recall a thread being closed (i.e. "locked") before? It's more likely that the thread would be "taken outside", but I don't think we've reached that point just yet...

El Salsero Gringo
8th-April-2006, 10:17 AM
OK, we've had a pointless discussion about racismAs opposed to a pointless discussion about gossip, or a pointless discussion about First Move footwork, or a pointless discussion about dancing on the beat or ...

But yes, this is a pretty un-controversial thread, I agree.

Donna
10th-April-2006, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=El Salsero Gringo]They most certainly don't, and it would be contrary to section 12 of the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct if they did.

They most certainly do! What papers do you read? :confused:

TheTramp
14th-April-2006, 11:08 AM
In ancient Greece (469 - 399 BC), Socrates was widely lauded for His wisdom.

One day the great philosopher came upon an acquaintance who ran up to him excitedly and said, "Socrates, do you know what I just heard about one of your students?"

"Wait a moment," Socrates replied. "Before you tell me I'd like you to pass a little test. It's called the Triple Filter Test."

"Triple filter?" asked the acquaintance.

"That's right," Socrates continued. "Before you talk to me about my student let's take a moment to filter what you're going to say. The first filter is Truth. Have you made absolutely sure that what you are about to tell me is true?"

"No," the man said, "actually I just heard about it."

"All right," said Socrates. "So you don't really know if it's true or not.

Now let's try the second filter, the filter of Goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something good?"

"No, on the contrary ...".

"So," Socrates continued, "you want to tell me something bad about him, even though you're not certain it's true?".

The man shrugged, a little embarrassed. Socrates continued." You may still pass the test though, because there is a third filter - the Filter of Usefulness. Is what you want to tell me about my student going to be useful to me?"

"No, not really..."

"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither True nor Good nor even Useful, why tell it to me at all?"

The man was defeated and ashamed. This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem. It also explains why he never found out that his student, Plato, was screwing his wife.

Tinkerbell
14th-April-2006, 12:03 PM
Good one Trampy :rofl:

Gus
14th-April-2006, 01:08 PM
This is the reason Socrates was a great philosopher and held in such high esteem. It also explains why he never found out that his student, Plato, was screwing his wife.{ODA Mode ON}
Ahhh ... but a wise man once said that "Ignorance is Bliss". Isn't there also a line in 'The Name of the Rose' to the effect that one increases knowledge only to increase sorrow? Look at the situation logically. If Socrates had found out, would he have been happier? Certainly not.

In his blissfull ignorance his world still made sense, he was content and the world benefited from his mind being tuned to further great works, rather than the sadness that would follow the knowledge of the affair. That view would certainly concur with the majority view of the Forum on the subject
{ODA Mode OFF}

tiger
14th-April-2006, 01:19 PM
Nice one Trampy:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

doc martin
14th-April-2006, 05:26 PM
It's all Greek to me
Nonsense, it was a Platonic relationship. And don't believe what they say about who slipped him the hemlock. Nudge, nudge.