Manchester uni banns clapping...use jazz hands so as not to alarm the faint hearted.

by Syl Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:17 pm

Words fail really. Rolling Eyes

"Clapping as been banned at a leading universty's students' union "to avoid triggering anxiety".
The University of Manchester Students' Union passed the resolution to ban clapping at student union events at the first Senate session of the academic year on September 27, according to student newspaper the Mancunion.
"It was argued that the loud noise of traditional clapping and whooping pose an issue to students with anxiety or sensory issues. BSL clapping – or, jazz hands – would be a more inclusive form of expression," the paper said.
Jazz hands is the British Sign Language for clapping."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/clapping-banned-university-to-avoid-13344363

by Fred Moletrousers Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:22 pm

And to think that our country's future leaders will probably come from loony bins like this....

by Syl Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:31 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:And to think that our country's future leaders will probably come from loony bins like this....

Scary isn't it?
Another recent joke at the recent Labour conference, (sad but true) a snotty nosed kid who looked about 12 spoke to the room and asked for delegates to no longer be referred to or addressed in gender terms....so no more Miss, Mr, he or she....just delegate whoever.

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:59 pm

Yet more lefty "little grey men in little grey boxes living little grey lives"

yet more lefty "we dont approve so BAN it"

more lefty "lets find a miniscule minority and be offended on its behalf"

more lefty "lets impose on the majority the (made up by us) demands of a tiny minority.

minorities, by definition should not have any say in matters, beyond their representational level, and beyond certain humane necessities, which are both practical and "reasonable" in cost should NOT have any priorities

so we should financially assist the disabled
we should provide easy access for disabled
we should provide for the overall safety of any minor group
we should provide assistance (like guide dogs, hearing loops etc )
we should eliminate deliberately discriminatory behaviour from society

clapping is NOT discriminatory (except when a L/Wer says it is)

we should provide political acces IN PROPORTION to the representational level of these groups

BUT there should be NO expectation of the majority of the population changing its normal behaviour to suit any one particular group.

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:03 pm

OH. I forgot...send the entire bunch of idiots down.....they obviously are not intellectually and psychologically equipped to follow the courses they have chosen, nor to deal with "real life" afterwards. snowflakes should be denied an expensive education and put to some real use clearing the road sides of rubbish from 6am till 10pm daily all year round.

by nicko Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:05 pm

by Vintage Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:28 pm

Let's hope none of those with anxiety or sensory problems go to concerts ( where things like the 1812 overture are played) or films with sudden explosions, gunfire screams as well as clapping. I suppose you could argue that they know to expect such things if they attend them, so should equally expect applause at many other meetings and gatherings.

by 'Wolfie Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:53 pm

One small problem with that bullshit article, though...

It was the Student Union that has banned clapping at their meetings, -- and not the actual university banning clapping on their campus...

Not only do we see one of the stupidest prats on NewsFix posting a totally fanciful thread here, with an equally stupid and false thread title..

But true to form, the usual braindead right-whingers on here automatically jump to blaming "lefties" in general and uni' students at large.

Totally ignoring that those idiots in that Student Union will probably only represent 5% or less of the actual student body !

by Vintage Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:12 pm

The fact that it was banned in the students union is there for all to see in the first post. It was also stated thus on the national news this morning, the usual brain dead etc on here are in good company as a number of people, including those of the particular minority, felt they too could comment on the daftness of it all.
Trying to agitate the effluent again, Wlofie?

by nicko Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:05 pm

It gave him an excuse to be Angry again, mind you it doesn't need much !

by Syl Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:31 pm

Vintage wrote:The fact that it was banned in the students union is there for all to see in the first post. It was also stated thus on the national news this morning, the usual brain dead etc on here are in good company as a number of people, including those of the particular minority, felt they too could comment on the daftness of it all.
Trying to agitate the effluent again, Wlofie?

Coming from Manchester and living here all my life, it's quite a big story.
The students have a powerful say in what goes on in their uni at Manchester....if they say no clapping allowed at their events there will be no clapping. Twisted Evil

Poor Wetwipe as usual is talking through his arse.

by Syl Wed Oct 03, 2018 5:36 pm

Why should the teeny tiny minority decide what the majority should do anyway?
What % of students are so frail that a loud noise will give them palpitations?

What % of confused people who are not sure which sexual group they belong to object to being labelled as either, so expect everyone else to go along with their paranoa?

Bloody utter nonsense.

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:24 pm

there has been NO good comedy aired since the likes of up pompei, carry ons, one foot in the grave etc......and as for that American crap that poses as "sit com"....dont get me started......... they lost it when the likes of "bewitched" and "my mother the car" and "Uncle martian" stopped..........

by Syl Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:32 pm

Lord Foul wrote:there has been NO good comedy aired since the likes of up pompei, carry ons, one foot in the grave etc......and as for that American crap that poses as "sit com"....dont get me started......... they lost it when the likes of "bewitched" and "my mother the car" and "Uncle martian" stopped..........

Manchester uni banns clapping...use jazz hands so as not to alarm the faint hearted. Samant11

by Victorismyhero Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:46 pm

burger...that should have been in the what do you think of this thread.....silly me.

by nicko Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:55 pm

I hope we are not called upon to fight another War in the near future, I,v seen many examples of the Snowflakes actions and ideas in the last few years, and I must say that the idea of these people keeping us safe is very worrying !

by Vintage Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:06 pm

The amount of British comedy that couldn't possibly be shown these days without someone fainting or becoming hysterical must be a veritable mountain of film, yet we have extreme violence, gore, nudity and sex scenes galore, almost every film or series has a warning, plus flashing lights of course.
I sometimes watch a channel showing films from the thirties up to the 60's/70's and more often than not there's a warning about language(not swearing) and cultural norms that might offend, I forget the actual wording. That said even I get a bit miffed about how women or certain people are depicted, I don't tend to get the vapours though, I just remember things have changed or are changing.
The Carry on films had lotharios and sirens (if that's the female form of lothario), Benny Hill chased women and was then chased by them, the double entendre, meant only people who actually knew what was intended to cotton on, it would go over children's heads.

by nicko Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:42 pm

Benny Hill, now there was a real situation comic !

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Oct 04, 2018 10:33 am

nicko wrote:Benny Hill, now there was a real situation comic !

How about the fiercely moustachioed Sgt. Major Williams in "It ain't 'arf 'ot, Mum"?

We had a Flt. Sgt. former wartime Lancaster pilot in the RAF who was a dead ringer for him both in appearance and demeanour. These days, he would have been busted back to AC2

by Original Quill Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:34 pm

nicko wrote:I hope we are not called upon to fight another War in the near future, I,v seen many examples of the Snowflakes actions and ideas in the last few years, and I must say that the idea of these people keeping us safe is very worrying !

Always love a good war, eh nicko? Shame the quality isn't up to your snuff, but the babies of color are ripe. Go for it! It'll still be fun.

by nicko Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:38 pm

Fuck off you daft prat !

by Victorismyhero Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:52 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:I hope we are not called upon to fight another War in the near future, I,v seen many examples of the Snowflakes actions and ideas in the last few years, and I must say that the idea of these people keeping us safe is very worrying !

Always love a good war, eh nicko? Shame the quality isn't up to your snuff, but the babies of color are ripe. Go for it! It'll still be fun.

Quill...you are a second rate cunt

by Syl Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:I hope we are not called upon to fight another War in the near future, I,v seen many examples of the Snowflakes actions and ideas in the last few years, and I must say that the idea of these people keeping us safe is very worrying !

Always love a good war, eh nicko? Shame the quality isn't up to your snuff, but the babies of color are ripe. Go for it! It'll still be fun.

Why do you constantly taunt Nicko about the fact he was a soldier Quill?

I can tell you with absolute honesty, if I was ever in danger I would prefer a man like Nicko by my side than a fantasy lawyer who would hide behind someone else to protect them.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:46 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Always love a good war, eh nicko? Shame the quality isn't up to your snuff, but the babies of color are ripe. Go for it! It'll still be fun.

Quill...you are a second rate cunt

Can you say "cunt" on here now? Xlnt...progress, innit?

by Fred Moletrousers Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:I hope we are not called upon to fight another War in the near future, I,v seen many examples of the Snowflakes actions and ideas in the last few years, and I must say that the idea of these people keeping us safe is very worrying !

Always love a good war, eh nicko? Shame the quality isn't up to your snuff, but the babies of color are ripe. Go for it! It'll still be fun.

The thing is, Quill, soldiers don't start wars; politicians start wars. Soldiers just fight and die in them.

And what is one of the most prevalent "day jobs" of politicians?

Er, lawyers.

by Guest Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:55 am

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Always love a good war, eh nicko? Shame the quality isn't up to your snuff, but the babies of color are ripe. Go for it! It'll still be fun.

The thing is, Quill, soldiers don't start wars; politicians start wars. Soldiers just fight and die in them.

And what is one of the most prevalent "day jobs" of politicians?

Er, lawyers.

+1

by Original Quill Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:45 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Always love a good war, eh nicko? Shame the quality isn't up to your snuff, but the babies of color are ripe. Go for it! It'll still be fun.

The thing is, Quill, soldiers don't start wars; politicians start wars. Soldiers just fight and die in them.

And what is one of the most prevalent "day jobs" of politicians?

Er, lawyers.

But soldiers relish killing babies, and that is where the problem begins. No politician ever said 'Our goal is to kill 100,000 babies'. But it always ends up that way.

by nicko Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:07 pm

"Soldiers relish killing Babies", what on earth is wrong with you Quill ? All the soldiers I knew would risk their lives to save a Child, indeed I have done so myself ! You are just so fucked up I can't imagine your mind set . I just can't understand you, I'm stuck for words to describe you, except the word SCUM keeps coming up !!!

by nicko Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:09 pm

PS, your always on about killing Babies, I think the thought excites you !

by nicko Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:04 pm

Any answer scumbag ? or do you realise you'v gone to far ?

by Original Quill Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:06 pm

I notice, significantly, that you don't deny it. It's simply one of the by-lines that must go along with any war...like homelessness, starvation and maiming. Think of it as an inconvenient truth.

I feel compelled to bring it up every time I see soldiers shining their brass. I don't like one-sided falsehoods.

by nicko Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:58 pm

What the fuck you saying,? I don't deny it. Of cause I deny that it never happens . You should stand up at a Vets meeting and say that. You would never leave the meeting, except in an Ambulance, and I would be clapping !

by Original Quill Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:12 pm

nicko wrote:What the fuck you saying,? I don't deny it. Of cause I deny that it never happens . You should stand up at a Vets meeting and say that. You would never leave the meeting, except in an Ambulance, and I would be clapping !

I don't give a fuck about Vets. Quit pounding your chest. I have a political opinion that's very bad for soldiers. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. It guides how I vote.

I don't fall for shiny buttons and marching bands. I feel for the dead babies.

by nicko Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:20 pm

by Vintage Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:25 pm

So you have no use for soldiers Quill. You are lucky you've never been in a position to need them.
You obviously don't consider a threat like the Nazis or ISIS to merit anyone, definitely not you of course, intervening
on behalf of those babies who were gassed and burnt or sold and raped?

by Original Quill Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:06 am

Vintage wrote:So you have no use for soldiers Quill. You are lucky you've never been in a position to need them.
You obviously don't consider a threat like the Nazis or ISIS to merit anyone, definitely not you of course, intervening
on behalf of those babies who were gassed and burnt or sold and raped?

I have no problem with true defense. Don't put me in the box of pacifism. But the last time we needed to defend our territory was in 1943, on Attu Island, on the Aleutian chain in Alaska.

Since then, we have been exporting our own brand of terrorism in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Nicaragua, and Iraq, among other places. Yes terrorism, just like those 'nasty' Muslims we call terrorist and y'all hate so much.

Now, should I--along with nicko--cheer those shiny buttons and marching bands for exporting our own form of terror in foreign adventures? If it's wrong for them to kill babies in the name of Allah, then it's wrong for us to do it in the name of democracy and capitalism.

by nicko Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:04 am

Your sick mate, your interest in babies should be investigated !

by Vintage Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:28 am

So you are not a pacifist but an isolationist.
If your country is attacked you are happy to have a military that very likely causes the death of babies then. If another country is unfairly attacked and doesn't have the man power or where with all to defend themselves, well its just too bad is it? I don't agree with the wars we've had recently but I don't blame the military for them.

by Original Quill Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:44 pm

Vintage wrote:So you are not a pacifist but an isolationist.
If your country is attacked you are happy to have a military that very likely causes the death of babies then.

Absolutely not. But defending our borders would be a military endeavor necessary, but not of our doing. I think everyone appreciates the idea of defense, that's why we in America call it the Department of Defense. More antiseptic. We accept military endeavors when they are in the nature of a defense. It's the foreign campaigns that are objectionable, and quite unnecessary.

Nor do I see the necessity of killing babies in defending the homeland. I have a theory that the reason why soldiers kill babies in foreign lands is, they don't see the purpose of their presence in a distant land in the first place. (Whereas, in ancient times the purpose of foreign adventure was simple: to plunder.) They lose their sense of mission, and (with guns at their disposal) they become short-sighted and see the killing itself as the mission...babies are just the easiest targets...often in the way...or, simply non-essential. WTF...blow everything and everyone up, gives clarity and comfort to soldiers.

Now, in a defensive effort, you have a strong, overriding sense of mission. Invading soldiers, your adversaries, don't bring their babies with them, and you don't have a natural inclination to kill your own babies. Such an effort--at least on the defensive side--is much cleaner, and more proper. You have a clear sense of what you are doing, and why.

Vintage wrote:If another country is unfairly attacked and doesn't have the man power or where with all to defend themselves, well its just too bad is it?

There's rarely a right and wrong in any situation. Look at our own opinions here on Newsfix: half of us think all Muslims are aggressive terrorists, out to do us wrong, and the other half think that Muslims are victims. There is no pure case of "unfair attack"...only greedy outsiders, taking advantage of selfish opportunity.

To make the decision to jump into another nation's business, you must to have a clear sense opportunity...or be on a defensive mission. I believe that the only reason American went into Europe’s war during WWII was to preserve the UK islands as a launching platform to attack the Nazis--which Roosevelt perceived as a threat that would eventually cross the Atlantic. The whole effort was a defensive one, to destroy a threat to America.

On the other hand, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq were just opportunities.

Vintage wrote:I don't agree with the wars we've had recently but I don't blame the military for them.

See? You don't like these wars, in actuality, either. So why contemplate the theory of them? As said above, the military is not responsible for wars, but soldiers do get tired and confused, and eventually go to killing everyone, babies included.

There are only two things for certain when it comes to these foreign adventures: (1) you will find that right and wrong becomes infinitely complex as details unfold; and (2) they will go on forever. Eventually, the intermeddling side will give up, and get out…under disadvantageous circumstances.

Me? I think it's much more practical simply to not get involved in the first place.

by Vintage Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:53 pm

Ok. So your idea is if someone attacks you you'll defend yourself but if they attack your neighbour, even though they are a friend you'll keep out of it, unless, you think they might come to you when they've finished next door ?

How would babies (your are obsessed with baby killing) not be killed even in a defensive war if there were bombing and missiles?

I have to say its a bit much accusing Nicko and any other military person of deliberate systematic killing of children, just because they are or were in the military.

by nicko Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:08 pm

Seems like a bit of a Coward to me !

by Original Quill Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:13 pm

nicko wrote:Seems like a bit of a Coward to me !

Everyone's a coward when you are a bully. Most people see it as a more complex issue.

by Original Quill Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:34 pm

Vintage wrote:Ok. So your idea is if someone attacks you you'll defend yourself but if they attack your neighbour, even though they are a friend you'll keep out of it, unless, you think they might come to you when they've finished next door ?

That's a pretty good assessment, though you have avoided mentioning the flip side...what happens when you go willy-nilly round the world, starting wars with anybody and everbody, for any reason you want.

Vintage wrote:How would babies (your are obsessed with baby killing) not be killed even in a defensive war if there were bombing and missiles?

Nothing guarantees it. I am merely saying that if you lessen the opportunities for war, you lessen the occasion for killing babies.

Vintage wrote:I have to say its a bit much accusing Nicko and any other military person of deliberate systematic killing of children, just because they are or were in the military.

If it wasn't nicko, it would be someone right next to him...or he knows someone who did kill babies. The agent is of less importance than the circumstances or atmosphere. A war with ego, or oil as its purpose, is hard for the grunt soldier to get his head around. It has no purpose, or it has only selfish purposes. Only killing becomes tangible, and that's where the dead babies come in.

And glorifying soldiering, or giving out honors, only exacerbates the evil. I'm only raining on the parade, not holding it up. Go ahead...just know that some of us are not so thrilled about the dead babies.

(Look the only reason you despise me for bringing it up, is because you know it's true...and it's an inconvenient truth. Nobody likes pictures of dead babies. We'd all like to turn away and not think of them. But there they are.)

by Vintage Sun Oct 07, 2018 8:38 pm

It may be true, there are always unwanted casualties in war but I think you are tarnishing everyone with the same brush, including my close relatives.
Babies are being killed in many countries everyday, with civil war and hardline regimes killing their own countrymen and neighbours, even where a foreign power isn't militarily involved, is it right to stand back and do nothing even if we can?
I don't like the current spate of wars because I don't think the motives were honest, perhaps they are difficult for me to appreciate, WW2 was a bit easier, they were fighting an evil regime, everyone became involved, now its left to a few to sort out the 'conflict', usually without a real solution and its seems these days no one really wins, well no one wins at all but perhaps I should say there are no real conclusions. Afghanistan has the Taliban making progress once again. Iraq is a mess, as for Syria I'm not sure who is on which side. ISIS is as bad as the Nazis in their region.
So we all stay out of these situations so that we can say we are not responsible for the babies dying there?

by eddie Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:
nicko wrote:What the fuck you saying,? I don't deny it. Of cause I deny that it never happens . You should stand up at a Vets meeting and say that. You would never leave the meeting, except in an Ambulance, and I would be clapping !

I don't give a fuck about Vets. Quit pounding your chest. I have a political opinion that's very bad for soldiers. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. It guides how I vote.

I don't fall for shiny buttons and marching bands. I feel for the dead babies.

Okay listen. I tend to agree with you when it comes to war but what you said to Nicko was nasty. You have to stop telling someone that they like killing babies.
It’s not nice.

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:21 am

eddie wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I don't give a fuck about Vets. Quit pounding your chest. I have a political opinion that's very bad for soldiers. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. It guides how I vote.

I don't fall for shiny buttons and marching bands. I feel for the dead babies.

Okay listen. I tend to agree with you when it comes to war but what you said to Nicko was nasty. You have to stop telling someone that they like killing babies.
It’s not nice.

Oh come on, eddie. Nicko likes tough language. He gives it. He takes it. He calls me a coward, I call him a baby killer. We've had this discussion dozens of times, he and I, and over many years. It's not him personally, but what he does--what he excels at--wars kill babies!

What's going on here is, everybody wants to salute and cheer the soldiers, as if they are some sort of priests. I think it's a phony notion, designed to glorify violence and killing. It belongs to a bygone age...the age of knights, blood and death, where life was meant to be short. I don't like all the symbols that glorify violence and killing.

I don't think soldiers are anything special: at best, it's just a job, and not very productive at that. They ought to have all the perks taken away from them. Or give those perks--education, housing, medical care, etc.--to everyone: workers, teachers, refuse workers, carpenters, plumbers... everyone.

This is a much more practical age. We should no longer glorify soldierly killers, nor the swords they kill by, nor the knives and shields, guns and bombs. It's a pathetic, beastly and wasteful enterprise. Krist, soon the next wars are going to be fought on the Internet, anyway. All I am really saying is, wake up and stop living in a dream. That, and stop devoting so much money to such a wasteful dream.

by nicko Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:01 am

by Syl Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:46 am

Odd then, considering the way soldiers are so revered and rewarded, that a high % of the homeless on the streets in the UK are actually ex service men.

by nicko Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:10 pm

People sleep safely in their Beds, confident that "Rough Men"are watching over them !

by Original Quill Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:21 pm

Syl wrote:Odd then, considering the way soldiers are so revered and rewarded, that a high % of the homeless on the streets in the UK are actually ex service men.

What are they trained to do? Small wonder that they end up destitute. They don't fit in civilized society. Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content