Crosswords1 min ago
Have Those Days Gone.
84 Answers
http://
Were the MPs right or wrong not to offer this pregnant MP their seat?
Even though I belong to the old school which still believes that the more able person should stand for those who don't appear to be able to stand for long, and the male of the species should hold the door open for the female. one has to be so careful these days that one doesn't offend.
Most would accept willingly whereas others will not and make sure that one knows they are offended.
Were the MPs right or wrong not to offer this pregnant MP their seat?
Even though I belong to the old school which still believes that the more able person should stand for those who don't appear to be able to stand for long, and the male of the species should hold the door open for the female. one has to be so careful these days that one doesn't offend.
Most would accept willingly whereas others will not and make sure that one knows they are offended.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Chivalry is not dead. I get offered a seat on the underground if I am standing. Sometimes I say no, and if they look hurt I say I have been sitting down all day. And kindness is related to the person, not their sex. I had a large suitcase one day and was struggling on platform stairs. A lady actually helped me very kindly.
Left side for the first kiss seems to be rule here. The French generally opt for that side. As to once or twice, or more, the French do have an etiquette. Once for every woman on acquaintance or, particularly among the young, on being first introduced to any stranger in a group, some of whom you know, twice for close relatives and long established friends. More than twice? In some regions that seems the norm in families, and, in the South, your bus may be delayed by ten minutes because of all the multiple kissing between the relatives when they are seeing someone off !
// Miss Swinson believes it was ‘quite sexist’ to suggest she was not capable of standing. //
It isn't really. If there was a heavily pregnant man we'd all assume he'd be just as incapable of standing.
This looks like a Daily Mail nonsense story. There's alot of reference to 'sources close to' various people, which is always newspaper speak for 'our imaginations'.
It isn't really. If there was a heavily pregnant man we'd all assume he'd be just as incapable of standing.
This looks like a Daily Mail nonsense story. There's alot of reference to 'sources close to' various people, which is always newspaper speak for 'our imaginations'.
Well, Ludwig, any outrage does seem to be the Daily Mail's, since the article doesn't support that. But that's common enough with that paper. The American practice of saying that a witness did not wish to be named is certainly preferable to 'sources [plural] close to...' which is unhelpful, suggest imagination or false gossip and only has a place in political reports when someone has wished to officially ' leak' something without attribution ; it would be embarrassing to the parties to reveal that it was a government minister or department doing it .
Quite. Why does the paper not name sources in a story like this? Curiously, one lot "of sources close to" Jo Swinson destroys the take of the paper on the story. But the Daily Mail relies on its readers not reading that far down. Judging from some posts on here which rely on it, that reliance is well-founded; read the headline and the first couple of sentences only, and post
politicians do have sources-close-to: they're aides, staff, friends etc who are prepared to speak on behalf of the boss, who then hasn't committed herself to any particular point of view and so could change her mind tomorrow if the political winds changed direction.
Quite often they are the politician herself, speaking on condition that what she says should not be attributed to her.
Quite often they are the politician herself, speaking on condition that what she says should not be attributed to her.
It may not have escaped your notice that 'the sources close to' Jo Swinson, cited by the paper said that she would not have and did not object. That is the effect of what they said, plainly enough. But the Daily Mail had that as Jo Swinson would have thought it sexist for a man to offer his seat. That slyly attributes this 'source' with extraordinary and illogical political correctness and feminism gone mad; just the kind of thing that the paper rails against. A moment's thought shows how unlikely it is that anyone would say that or Jo Swinson would think it. What if a woman offered her a seat? Would that be sexist ? And how likely is it that the 'source' would not see that ?
Another non-story with the Mail getting its knickers in a twist as it gets its facts wrong.
The paper says "But Miss Swinson believes it was ‘quite sexist’ to suggest she was not capable of standing."
She doesn't - the comment was provided by 'an aide' and Miss Swinson has distanced herself from it.
In answer to your OP AOG, I don't think those days are gone - diminshed certainly, but not gone ... yet.
The paper says "But Miss Swinson believes it was ‘quite sexist’ to suggest she was not capable of standing."
She doesn't - the comment was provided by 'an aide' and Miss Swinson has distanced herself from it.
In answer to your OP AOG, I don't think those days are gone - diminshed certainly, but not gone ... yet.
Thanks for the debate however i cannot see how it got put off coarse by the supermarket packing examples, joined in surprising enough by AB Editor who has in the past told us to "keep on track".
Then there were the usual (now getting rather boring) anti-Daily Mail jibs from the usual suspects.
This was entered by new boy EdgeofDarkness
/// Not much sympathy for you, being a Daily Heil reader, but your question deserves answering. ///
What I say to him as well as the usual suspects if the Daily Mail upsets you so much why do you bother responding to their stories, the same could be said for my posts also?
It is also interesting to note that it is mostly those that go on about how they are against discrimination in any form, who are generally the ones who do not shy away from discriminating against those who dare to read the Daily Mail or even to enter a Daily Mail story.
Then there were the usual (now getting rather boring) anti-Daily Mail jibs from the usual suspects.
This was entered by new boy EdgeofDarkness
/// Not much sympathy for you, being a Daily Heil reader, but your question deserves answering. ///
What I say to him as well as the usual suspects if the Daily Mail upsets you so much why do you bother responding to their stories, the same could be said for my posts also?
It is also interesting to note that it is mostly those that go on about how they are against discrimination in any form, who are generally the ones who do not shy away from discriminating against those who dare to read the Daily Mail or even to enter a Daily Mail story.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Shopping & Style11 mins ago
Jobs & Education23 mins ago
Business & Finance37 mins ago
