Blah Blah

Even those who don't suffer from depressive illness are living under high levels of stress. So when looking at wellbeing I think there are broader queastions that go beyond just those who become ill. Prevention in mental health terms could save the country billions in lost working hours alone for example, and save lives too. We know ao much more now about the brain and physiology and there are some great advances in understanding how depression evolves and impacts on every part of the body. Yet the standard treatment is still anti-depressants, and patients are left languishing for years on them with no other treatment. Anti-depressants do not cure anything. One neurological area that is of interest is the hypothalamus. It shrinks in people who are suffering from depression. The good news is that it can return back to normal if a patient recovers from that depressive period, but that takes time. If it doesn't recover from a depressive episode, it makes repeat and more severe episodes likely. That is just one clinical aspect of research but all the evidence is showing that treating depressive illness has to go beyond just controlling mood (which is what anti-depressants seek to do). And I would also add that depression is a normal human emotion. We all experience bereavement for example. It only becomes a problem when it is prolonged and even then it's only a problem because we live in a society where there is constant pressure, to work, to be happy, to perform. That is what I think this government fails to understand most. That it takes time to help someone get well and that it will be different for everyone. By taking those most qualified to assess patients out of the welfare assessment process for example, they are simply condemning people to an abyss. The DWP have investigated 80 welfare reform suicides and refuse to publish their findings. The real figure is higher (especially in men). Hardship is killing people.

I think it typifies that problem with twiiter though ????. People behave in ways they never would face to face and write without any sense of responsibility. It also goes back to comments above about the kinds of people who seem to end up as diversity officers and think the use of shocking language is ok, and worse than that, actually forwards debate. It doesn't. It just polarises people against those claiming to forward the debate. The other thread on the ride out group reflects this too. That shocking behaviour will somehow forward their demand for a place to ride legally. It won't. There are numerous examles out there of this sort of thing. Fortunately, enough people are able to seperate the misguided behaviour of some individuals from the core issue.

Or as someone said above, the council could have built new homes on it and sold a couple privately to pay for the homes to rent.

Elephant and Castle. A prime piece of land went for just ?50 million. Oh wait!

It is all about welfare reform, but they are making major errors of judgement. People with depressicve illness have been deliberately targetted and the consequences have been detrimental to the health and any hope of recovery of those people. So in my department we have less resources and more people to treat, who are more difficult to treat because of external factors like welfare reform. It makes no sense and saves absolutely no money.

Being black or asian or chinese is not circumstance. Being male or female is not circumstance. Being heterosexual or homosexual is not circumstance. Being racist is a choice, albeit often a learned choice. The same is true for sexism and homophobia. Frankly, for someone who claims to have worked in the diversity and equalities sector I am astounded by your whole line of reasoning, and as for the original post that was deleted by admin, I could be forgiven for thinking you don't have the slightly clue as to what diversity and equality means.

Article in the Evening Standard tonight saying they stole petrol from a station in Streatham en masse. The police are looking at CCTV footage apparently. Take a look at their facebook page UK Raise It Up - lot's of people telling them how stupid they are!

There was also Panorama last week that highlighted the desperate shortage of resources for mental health treatment. 3000 beds have been lost in five years and trusts are now having to use private hospitals to house patients because there are not enough NHS beds, so much so that the private health sector is running out of beds in some areas. It's a national disgrace. Government doesn't even class depression as a disabling illness anymore.

That post Admin has reposted absolutely isn't anything the OP claims it was. It was quite clearly and deliberately offensive.

Agreed Dave. That was my point too. Sometimes, unpalatable views are best out in the open where they can be challenged. We do have freedom of speech Jeremy but we also have laws to protect society from people abusing that right by inciting others to do harm to others. Is it a perfect balance? Probably not but well meaning all the same.

I agree the Police response is pathetic (which is why I said it might take a tragic incident to force them to act) but what can they realistically do against 100 moped/ bike riders? At best they can catch and prosecute one or two for traffic offences. That will hardly stop similar events from happening will it?

I would argue that if that offence was taken on religious grounds, then no, given that many people with religious views have also not chosen to be religious. Most religion is brainwashed into children from an early age, often using devices of fear to force compliance.

Saffron is correct. Bedbug bites can be any size depending on the level of reaction to them. And they are difficult to get rid of because of their feeding and breeding cycles.

Hard to know what the police can do about mass anti-social riding. Sadly it will probably take something tragic to happen first. Looking at the footage online, it seems that it was a minority of riders on the pavemnts though. There's nothing new about motor cycle rallies. How to tackle the anti-social element is the problem.

The Police were all at the Lambeth rave riot I think.

Yes worth asking the people who put out the basket (good suggestion Sue). Fleas can be ruled out as they bite at any time of the day, can usually be seen and tend to attack the lower legs. Whilst spiders are known for double bites, you would be able to see the fang puncture marks. From what you describe dreamcatcher I would suspect bedbugs, who bite the areas you list and are difficult to get rid of. Bedbugs only bite at night and can travel meters from wherever they hide to bite you. A bedbug can go for a week after one feed without feeding again. A whicker basket is a perfect hiding place for them too.

Yes but Loz, differing views on communism are not the same as racism,sexism, homophobia etc. You can't compare McCartyism to any of those things - it's a very poor analogy ayway. And there are better examples of what you are trying to say. The OP was comparing culture to things that are determined by birth. The two are different things, that's my point. Prejudice on the grounds of race for example is absolutely wrong (and we all accept that - or should) but prejudice of what a person believes will depend on the moral code of the society. But even within that, there are things a civilised society tends to agree are wrong, like murder, violence, robbery etc. I agree regarding Tim Hunt and Dianne Abbot for example. The failure of a system to deliver consistency doesn't mean that we should drop the moral benchmark though (and politicians of late are poor examples of any kind of moral line anyway). Julie Burchill, whether she joins the Police force or not can still be defined by her views. The BNP are not a proscribed organisation. They are not on the list at all. Members are not allowed to join the Police or Prison Service presumably because of the BNPs racist views. That seems like common sense to me.

Just to add that McCarthyism is about subversion with no regard for evidence. So you've lost me in describing my view as the basis for that. The supression of beliefs is something that does have a fine line but we don't live within a tyranny.

The examples I were given were sexism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. I don't think there's any doubt that those things in themselves are wrong. Ideas of course are debateable, like culture, but they are not the same thing as anything in the list given. There is a clear difference between the prejudice of things people are, and the things they think.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blah Blah, this is definitely not any form of trolling. I have not attacked any poster on this > thread for their contribution. Trolling doesn't need to be directed at a person. > I spent two years in diversification and equality service delivery training and remain very interested in people's > viewpoints on this whole subject. Really? So the best you could do explore that was to write a post that used the expressions of an offensive fictional TV character to make some observation about the men on x Factor? A post that mdoerators deemed needed to be removed and another poster has said read like a homophobic rant? It just doesn't make sense. But again I have not seen the deleted post so can't really know. > As a slight aside and (maybe) to broaden the debate, when it comes to being an equal opportunities employer then it > could be arqued that there is no such thing. People holding homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist/etc views are > generally excluded from public service institutions (and other employers), therefore do these sections of society > become discriminated against? The Police service particularly excludes any person that is/was a member of a right-wing > fascist neo nazi organisation, thereby contradicting their own stated "regardless of........political persuasion". There are good reasons why ureasonable views are not tolerated, as everyone knows. What's interesting is that your list, gender, nationality, sexuality are all things that are accidents of birth, and cannot be changed, except in certain circumstances. A way of thinking on the other hand is learned. There is no excuse for such prejudices anymore. We are in a country where there is awareness of these things and quite frankly, if someone wants to behave like a racist, sexist, or homophobic idiot, then they deserve to be excluded.

adonirum Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Therefore it seems we are concluding that context > both condemns and excuses the same words and that > nothing can ever be said to be insulting or > offensive per se. No, we are merely pointing out the difference between fiction (which is a reflection) and real life. There are debates to be had about whether fiction reflects or influences (art imitating life and vice versa) but most people know the difference. Having said that, there is censorship in the form of certification for viewing, so there are sensibilities as to the level of maturity expected from the viewer. > Do we maintain the right to be offended (free > speech) or do we instigate the right not to be > offended(total censorship)? We have something in between and that is both sensible and right. Responsibility comes with free speech and again most people know when they are being deliberately offensive as opposed to having sensible debate.

I don't watch X factor, so can't comment on that, but I would say that using deliberately provocative language to offend enough to raise debate is a form of trolling. And I'm not really understanding what your point is. Were you commenting on X factor, by using offensive language from a fictional character in a fictional drama? I didn't see your deleted post, but would assume moderators would only delete if they had good reason to do so. To echo everyone else, context is everything. Fiction is different from real life.

Agreed Saffron. Human identity on any level is complex and to reduce any part of it to one aspect of biology is ridiculous.

I know better than to argue with a sodding big spreadsheet :D

I agree too ???? and prety much with everyone else. They made committments to some groups to secure votes and it's coming back to haunt them (and I think part of the problem is that they didn't expect to win the election and have to deliver half of them). The stupid thing is that I don't think anyone disagrees with the principle that the Tories are promoting, just the process of delivering it. It's like having a good idea and then pissing everyone off to the point that no-one thinks it's a good idea anymore :D I absolutely agree ??? that Osborne has shown great niaivity in his rush to balance the books. He puts himself under a pressure that is very hard to deliver when so many people are trapped in low wage, insecure jobs. There does seem to be a huge disconnect whne it comes to what people on the breadline are going through. He could slow down cuts and look to reducing the deficit in a rational way rather than clearing it. At the same time he seems completely ignorant to some of the causes of hardship, like rent inflation for example. Balancing the books is more than just getting public spending into the black. It's also about making sure what people earn is enough to live on, and that the costs of living are kept in check where possible. Heseltine the other day had the nerve to say to the steel workers losing their jobs that it was a good time for them to lose them! Two million new jobs (700,000 of them zero contract) has not seem a 2 million reduction in the unemployment figures. Most of those jobs have just replaced other jobs lost through cuts and market forces. Cameron has nothing to boast about. And they think we are all too stupid to understand any of it.