The term Male Voice Choir is no longer acceptable .Where will all this nonsense end ?

Who would even get upset by this, other than bona fide snowflakes?

The term The Beatles is no longer acceptable.
A) they are not.
B) they can't spell.

Just watch Jordan Peterson on YT and you'll feel better or worse depending on your point of view.

male voice choirs are specific due to the tone they create, surely there must be female choirs out there again it's a totally different tone.

Next we'll be having people leaving a space before a question mark. This country is going to the dogs.

Don't lie.

The term isn't the issue, the issue is that they have refused to let women join in.

Lord Rothbury wrote:The term Male Voice Choir is no longer acceptable .Where will all this nonsense end ?

People making up stories on football websites to suit their agendas? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-43646802" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aggi wrote:People making up stories on football websites to suit their agendas? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-de ... e-43646802" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It will now be known as the Derbyshire Community Male Voice Choir.

Why are so many UTC posters such d1cks, creating lies like this?

It's still pretty stupid that the police force in question thought that it was inappropriate to have a male voice choir. Smacks of someone being too scared of being sued to make the common sense decision.

I'm worried I am turning leftie. If a male voice choir has females in it, which I am led to believe is the situation. Then how can it be considered a male voice choir? Apologies in advance if I have misread/misheard this as it was at 6am when I caught this news. However, I was led to believe women had been admitted?!

bfcjg wrote:male voice choirs are specific due to the tone they create, surely there must be female choirs out there again it's a totally different tone.

I'm not sure but I think you might find 'female choir' will be okay. This is probably because it is okay to 'offend' heterosexual, able bodied, white males. We seem to be the only species in this country that isn't 'protected' in some way. We have female only taxis, female only gyms, seats in elections reserved for female only candidates (Labour party I'm almost ashamed to say), black music awards, disabled parking bays that far outnumber the actual percentage of disabled people around (which is why they are usually mostly empty), race laws that seem to only apply to the indigenous population, I could go on but I can't be bothered.
Has anyone ever seen a able-bodied persons only parking spot?
When was the last time we saw a male only gym or taxi firm?
How illegal would it be for a political party to say, effectively, no women allowed for this particular seat?
My wife works for social services and they are allowed to advertise for 'Asian females' for cultural reasons or indeed for female only applicants in some cases. Nowhere are they allowed to advertise for male only candidates, let alone white male only candidates.
For a few years I worked in employment law and was amazed and disillusioned at what was happening in this country, but it seems only now people are waking up to it but the horse has gone and the stable door is well off its hinges. I believe in equality for all, but I mean ALL, and the way we are going we will be crushed into a procrustean bed of political correctness from which there will be no escape.

One good thing is if we apply this logic to all music there can never be a Spice Girls reunion.

piston broke wrote:The term The Beatles is no longer acceptable.
A) they are not.
B) they can't spell.

Not named after insects. Furthering modern music via 'the beat'. Holds good!

houseboy wrote:Has anyone ever seen a able-bodied persons only parking spot?

You do realise that you actually typed out that stupid comment and posted it?

Rileybobs wrote:You do realise that you actually typed out that stupid comment and posted it?

Do you realise that you have taken a single line out of a whole post, removed the context and therefore all sense of irony? The only stupid comment my friend is yours. I was making a point by using comedic irony, something lost on you obviously. I'll explain seeing as you seem to need it; in context I was pointing out that, in my view (and not just mine) the number of disabled spaces always seems to outweigh the need in many car parks, particularly supermarkets but not exclusive to them, my reference to 'able-bodied only' spaces was to emphasise the fact that vary rarely do you see all these disabled spaces full, therefore inferring that the need for them is not as great as is perceived by the politically correct.
Having said all this it is obvious that you would have a problem with it because if you weren't PC you wouldn't have picked up on it and tried to publicly, with devastating failure, criticise it.

One can always start up a nail voice choir...

There's quite a traditional repertoire of songs including 'Who the f***inell are you?'

I'm going to criticise the number of disabled parking bays on a public forum based purely on my own experience, without knowing or spending any effort in researching what goes into calculating how many there should be.

Falcon wrote:I'm going to criticise the number of disabled parking bays on a public forum based purely on my own experience, without knowing or spending any effort in researching what goes into calculating how many there should be.

Regardless of any research Mr Sensitive PC have you ever seen them all full? Simple question. If they are never all full it doesn't need research to tell you there are too many. 'Research' has meant an end to the 'competitive spirit' in schools that has meant competitive sport and physical education are frowned upon and kids (or their parents) can then opt out. We now have a tax on sugar in drinks due to obesity in kids. Has that bit of research been successful?
Again, much like the other PC obsessed poster you have picked up on one sentence in a whole post and taken it straight out of any context. View my previous reply if you need enlightening.

I've seen all disabled spaces full, yes.

Pstotto wrote:One can always start up a nail voice choir...
'

Not necessarily in tune but quite often found in beauty salons...

houseboy wrote:Regardless of any research Mr Sensitive PC have you ever seen them all full? Simple question. If they are never all full it doesn't need research to tell you there are too many. 'Research' has meant an end to the 'competitive spirit' in schools that has meant competitive sport and physical education are frowned upon and kids (or their parents) can then opt out. We now have a tax on sugar in drinks due to obesity in kids. Has that bit of research been successful?
Again, much like the other PC obsessed poster you have picked up on one sentence in a whole post and taken it straight out of any context. View my previous reply if you need enlightening.

Oh boy, you're one of those 'had enough of experts' type people aren't you

UpTheBeehole wrote:I've seen all disabled spaces full, yes.

Can you provide a link to show when this occured.

Does that mean if we don't have full hospitals we can start tearing them down because they are not needed?

Reading back through their most recent post I think houseboy might be a joke/spoof/troll account to be honest.

Falcon wrote:Oh boy, you're one of those 'had enough of experts' type people aren't you

No mate, experts are fine, I'm a massive fan of experts, it's just that most research of this type is carried out by complete amateurs who are sent out to do a job because there is nothing in the office for them to do. If you need to do some research check out the car park at, for instance, Accrington Tesco. There are vast swathes of car park given over to disabled parking and I have never seen it even half full. When you factor in all the people with disabled badges who shouldn't have them or the badges that are mis-used by relatives taking advantage when they are alone you don't need any expert to tell you something is amiss.

ClaretAndJew wrote:Does that mean if we don't have full hospitals we can start tearing them down because they are not needed?

The hospitals are full to overflowing so we need more. If they weren't we would need less. Your point is?

houseboy wrote:The hospitals are full to overflowing so we need more. If they weren't we would need less. Your point is?

Well just because something isn't full doesn't mean we don't need it, does it? That's my point.

Falcon wrote:Reading back through their most recent post I think houseboy might be a joke/spoof/troll account to be honest.

Would that be because I express an opinion that differs from yours? Or have you any proof to back up what you think? I have made a statement about. among many other things, car parking, but you seem to think I am being contentious. Why? That part of my post was just a very small part, why not pick up on any other point, or is it because you actually agree with most of it?
Listen mate there are far, far worse people on here than me and if I occasionally offend remember this; offence is always taken but very rarely given. Something the PC of this world should think about.

This thread might catch a few.

It’s like UTC Gogglebox.

houseboy wrote: We have female only taxis, female only gyms... .

On the face of it women only gyms do seem sexist but I'm quite a fan.

It means in the mixed gym the running machines aren't full of people walking and the women who come in are all really nice

We just need men only gyms so all the muscle bound dickheads who spend the whole time sticking 100kg on the weight machines and looking at themselves in the mirrors can go somewhere else. It'd be perfect then

I would like to make it clear this is the only type of segregation I support.

Guich wrote:On the face of it women only gyms do seem sexist but I'm quite a fan.

It means in the mixed gym the running machines aren't full of people walking and the women who come in are all really nice

We just need men only gyms so all the muscle bound dickheads who spend the whole time sticking 100kg on the weight machines and looking at themselves in the mirrors can go somewhere else. It'd be perfect then

I would like to make it clear this is the only type of segregation I support.

This is the sign of a men only gym

Lift heavy or go home.

houseboy wrote:Do you realise that you have taken a single line out of a whole post, removed the context and therefore all sense of irony? The only stupid comment my friend is yours. I was making a point by using comedic irony, something lost on you obviously. I'll explain seeing as you seem to need it; in context I was pointing out that, in my view (and not just mine) the number of disabled spaces always seems to outweigh the need in many car parks, particularly supermarkets but not exclusive to them, my reference to 'able-bodied only' spaces was to emphasise the fact that vary rarely do you see all these disabled spaces full, therefore inferring that the need for them is not as great as is perceived by the politically correct.
Having said all this it is obvious that you would have a problem with it because if you weren't PC you wouldn't have picked up on it and tried to publicly, with devastating failure, criticise it.

Not really. I didn’t want to quote your whole post as I was only interested in pointing out the stupidity of the point about able-bodied only parking spaces. That didn’t require any more context than the whole sentence which I quoted.

houseboy wrote:Regardless of any research Mr Sensitive PC have you ever seen them all full? Simple question. If they are never all full it doesn't need research to tell you there are too many.

Another stupid point. The whole idea of disabled parking provision is to ensure that they aren’t all full at any given time.

Rileybobs wrote:Another stupid point. The whole idea of disabled parking provision is to ensure that they aren’t all full at any given time.

That's why they're a firm favourite of mine.

Rileybobs wrote:Not really. I didn’t want to quote your whole post as I was only interested in pointing out the stupidity of the point about able-bodied only parking spaces. That didn’t require any more context than the whole sentence which I quoted.

When, exactly, did you have your sense of humour bypass operation? Do you actually understand irony? I would imagine you use that now common phrase 'that isn't appropriate' a lot don't you?

Rileybobs wrote:Another stupid point. The whole idea of disabled parking provision is to ensure that they aren’t all full at any given time.

Perhaps, while we are talking 'stupidity' (or rather you are), you might care to explain why we need more than are necessary. The definition of stupidity could almost be the statement that we create any number of something so that some of them never get used. Why would we do that exactly? Would that be the 'just in case' scenario that never happens? Could it be that every now and then a deaf person might have to walk an extra few yards because there has been a sudden influx of disabled people taking up all the spaces? And before you get all PC precious about that statement I am partially deaf and (bizarrely) qualify for a badge (why I will never know as being deaf does not make anyone immobile) but I choose NOT to have one because I don't believe myself to be 'disabled'. And therein lies the whole problem, many people who qualify as disabled from a badge point of view are NOT. Logically then we have spaces that are rarely if ever full to provide for a 'just in case' scenario to allow for parking for people who, in many cases, shouldn't even have one. Now THAT is stupid.

I can't believe that this has degenerated into a tit for tat about parking (well knowing this forum I can believe it actually). Somewhere in this the gist of houseboy's post has been lost because of an opportunity to get all holier than thou about disabled parking. His point I believe is a valid one. The point being that as a society we are very selective about what we consider to be discrimination. We can happily accept women only institutions but not men only ones, we are not worried about job vacancies where candidates must be a certain gender or ethnicity as long as they are not white males. We must accept the views of those who identify as another gender (and by the way I do accept that) as long as they don't expect to be accepted onto female only parliamentary candidate shortlists. The list goes on. Those were the types of thing houseboy was talking about, not just disabled parking, so why not address his arguments on those issues.

This thread shouldn't have been allowed to continue once aggi had identified that the OP was a pack of lies.

It's a sorry state of affairs if a few vacant disabled bays gets your back up, I genuinely feel it'd be exhausting and depressing to sweat the small stuff so much.

They should bring back Castrati choirs.

Chobulous wrote:I can't believe that this has degenerated into a tit for tat about parking (well knowing this forum I can believe it actually). Somewhere in this the gist of houseboy's post has been lost because of an opportunity to get all holier than thou about disabled parking. His point I believe is a valid one. The point being that as a society we are very selective about what we consider to be discrimination. We can happily accept women only institutions but not men only ones, we are not worried about job vacancies where candidates must be a certain gender or ethnicity as long as they are not white males. We must accept the views of those who identify as another gender (and by the way I do accept that) as long as they don't expect to be accepted onto female only parliamentary candidate shortlists. The list goes on. Those were the types of thing houseboy was talking about, not just disabled parking, so why not address his arguments on those issues.

Care to hazard a guess as to why we might have female only institutions?

houseboy wrote:Perhaps, while we are talking 'stupidity' (or rather you are), you might care to explain why we need more than are necessary. The definition of stupidity could almost be the statement that we create any number of something so that some of them never get used. Why would we do that exactly? Would that be the 'just in case' scenario that never happens? Could it be that every now and then a deaf person might have to walk an extra few yards because there has been a sudden influx of disabled people taking up all the spaces? And before you get all PC precious about that statement I am partially deaf and (bizarrely) qualify for a badge (why I will never know as being deaf does not make anyone immobile) but I choose NOT to have one because I don't believe myself to be 'disabled'. And therein lies the whole problem, many people who qualify as disabled from a badge point of view are NOT. Logically then we have spaces that are rarely if ever full to provide for a 'just in case' scenario to allow for parking for people who, in many cases, shouldn't even have one. Now THAT is stupid.

Why does it matter if the bays are never full? Do you ever encounter a situation where the disabled bays are all empty and there are no other spaces available in the car park? If I went to my local supermarket and there was nowhere to park but a disabled bay, I'd park in the disabled bay, but I've never been in that situation so I'll leave those bays free for people to use who need them more than me.

If some people think this thread has gone tit for tat or off topic then fair enough, but trying to point out how 'PC gone mad' this country has gone by using the provision of disabled parking facilities is just stupid.

Bacchus wrote:Care to hazard a guess as to why we might have female only institutions?

No, care to enlighten me?

Chobulous wrote:No, care to enlighten me?

It’s so they can share recipes and cleaning tips.

These days, if you say you’re English you get arrested and thrown in jail.

I'm gonna watch Burnley!

Rileybobs wrote:Why does it matter if the bays are never full? Do you ever encounter a situation where the disabled bays are all empty and there are no other spaces available in the car park? If I went to my local supermarket and there was nowhere to park but a disabled bay, I'd park in the disabled bay, but I've never been in that situation so I'll leave those bays free for people to use who need them more than me.

If some people think this thread has gone tit for tat or off topic then fair enough, but trying to point out how 'PC gone mad' this country has gone by using the provision of disabled parking facilities is just stupid.

You're right. I'm bored now. Seems we have been arguing over one sentence that was meant with ironic overtones in the first place, then quoted out of context.