Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Depends on the use. Mental illness is something tangeable and cleary defined. Use of he word 'mental' as a adjective for being out of control, is a common form of slang. To be offensive, it has to be an inappropriate use that directly compares to a person or group in a derogatory way. You could just as easily use 'deranged' instead of 'mental' in this context. That would be a more correct description of what the user is trying to describe. I think there are other words that people use (around the lanugage of mental illness) when people are trying to be deliberately offensive though.

So there's a pathology and a pejorative term for these words - should we stop using the pejorative ?


cretin (plural cretins)

(pathology) A person who fails to develop mentally and physically due to a congenital hypothyroidism. [from 1779]

(by extension, pejorative) An idiot.


Rees Mogg called Theresa Mays custom plan Cretinous - but I assume he didn't mean it failed to develop mentally and physically due to a congenital hypothyroidism.

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5

> ,1931142

>

> Mental

>

> is this just off the cuff throwaway term based on

> generations of hand me down tropes or worse?


Slow news day?


Nothing any good on daytime tv and Sky Plus is busted?

I use crazy, mental, mad, and no doubt other terms that others may object to in common parlance. They have long since become harmless in my opinion. I have others words if I want to be offensive. There are words that we threw around in my school days that I wouldn't ever resort to nowadays. I once chatted to a couple of teenagers in a school group who said that someone looked like a mong. They didn't know what it meant so worth telling them that if a teacher overheard they would get grief. It was on a ski lift, I wasn't hanging around outside school.


I work with people with mental illness, my mother suffered from it, so I have a fair idea of right and wrong. Of course language evolves and I shudder that we used to use the word 'gay' as a term for say an idea or act that was a bit 'lame'. Was not intended to be homophobic. Yabadabado, gay would be a good word to reclaim as a happy or nice time.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The term 'brainstorm' was used widely before the

> year 2000 and then teachers in my school were told

> not to use it as it offends people with mental

> health problems...so we stopped using it.



That's mental.


As someone who probably shouldn't be considered 100% the full ticket I use the M word every day and in a variety of contexts, and I think it's very rarely offensive. Only if used against those who are vulnerable to the negative effects of mental illness (of which I understand little - perhaps that's important) or intimately associated with them by their family, social, treatment, work or other institutional networks should it be considered offensive.


I do like using the word "gay" in reference to lame acts, which isn't very PC but I don't really care. Perhaps that's because I'm not a big fan of homosexuality. The loose use of the word "lame" which I just repeated is probably more offensive to me when I think about it!

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The term 'brainstorm' was used widely before the

> year 2000 and then teachers in my school were told

> not to use it as it offends people with mental

> health problems...so we stopped using it.


And yet I taught to 2005 and am married to a current teacher and have many friends who are still teachers and not one has ever been told not to use that term - sounds like one of those typical urban myth "Oh do you know in the 80s you weren't allowed to ask for a black coffee in County Hall" nonsenses.


ETA and if you ask am I calling you a liar, then yes.

SpringTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps that's because I'm not a big fan of

> homosexuality.


I'm struggling to think why it's necessary for you to be a "fan" of homosexuality or otherwise? Presumably you mean you don't like homosexuals, which makes you rather a [redacted].

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The term 'brainstorm' was used widely before

> the

> > year 2000 and then teachers in my school were

> told

> > not to use it as it offends people with mental

> > health problems...so we stopped using it.

>

> And yet I taught to 2005 and am married to a

> current teacher and have many friends who are

> still teachers and not one has ever been told not

> to use that term - sounds like one of those

> typical urban myth "Oh do you know in the 80s you

> weren't allowed to ask for a black coffee in

> County Hall" nonsenses.

>

> ETA and if you ask am I calling you a liar, then

> yes.


OMG https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jun/26/uk.politicalnews ....and its from your fave libtard rag rh!!!

Hope I can bring some light relief. In the 80s I was studying in Glasgow and looking for some house mates. In my earlier school days we'd use the term 'straight' for someone a bit dull/conformist. In my youth you could be a punk or a straight. The term also meant something else, and certainly so in Scotland.


So when I put a note up in the accommodation office of one of the less prestigious universities I was the butt (ho ho) of the jokes among my fellow students. But bless the students of the day (mainly local Glaswegians) as the responses that I got on my ad (those interested wrote their contact details) were full of good humour, and not offended or offensive.


Now that has got me started. In 6th form we had a parents' evening where were showing some of our special projects. I was doing one on divining where we placed bits of metal, water and stuff under lifted turf. I knew the word for a piece of turf was 'sod' which of course could also be used as an insult or a sexual practice. So I am thinking in a Peter Griffin sort of way "don't say sods, don't say sods"), and in my confusion I spoke about lifting the turds of grass.

SpringTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The term 'brainstorm' was used widely before

> the

> > year 2000 and then teachers in my school were

> told

> > not to use it as it offends people with mental

> > health problems...so we stopped using it.

>

>

> That's mental.

>

> As someone who probably shouldn't be considered

> 100% the full ticket I use the M word every day

> and in a variety of contexts, and I think it's

> very rarely offensive. Only if used against those

> who are vulnerable to the negative effects of

> mental illness (of which I understand little -

> perhaps that's important) or intimately associated

> with them by their family, social, treatment, work

> or other institutional networks should it be

> considered offensive.

>

> I do like using the word "gay" in reference to

> lame acts, which isn't very PC but I don't really

> care. Perhaps that's because I'm not a big fan of

> homosexuality. The loose use of the word "lame"

> which I just repeated is probably more offensive

> to me when I think about it!


South London is the most gay friendly place around but each to his own :)

What if SpringTime had written he or she liked to use the word (insert any word used to describe black people which is derogatory in its use), but that he or she didn't care because he or she was not a big fan of black people?


It's one thing to use language without an awareness of how it it might be offensive to do so. It is another to use it irregardless of a full awareness of that.


So no, not each to his own. SpringTime clearly thinks it is ok to to see gay people as inferior or 'lame' and then draw comparisons when describing what he thinks is a 'lame' act (that is where the use of gay in that context stems from). There are words used to describe people with mental and physical disabilities in the past that have also been used in this way. No-one would let that pass now. So let's not excuse use of any language in any context that deliberately shows disregard for a group of people.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Exactly, one silly instance immediately dismissed

> and people like you, a walking Daily Mail, start

> saying "oh yes it happened to me." Didn't.


Google 'brainstorm insensitive' and you will find umpteen examples- I picked the one I linked because it was from that odious of rags that you love so much....we WERE instructed not to use the word- I don't care what you say or think rh (feeling of deja vu now) and i'm sure there is an adjective that describes YOUR kind - I've probably used it myself

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Exactly, one silly instance immediately

> dismissed

> > and people like you, a walking Daily Mail,

> start

> > saying "oh yes it happened to me." Didn't.

>

> Google 'brainstorm insensitive' and you will find

> umpteen examples- I picked the one I linked

> because it was from that odious of rags that you

> love so much....we WERE instructed not to use the

> word- I don't care what you say or think rh

> (feeling of deja vu now) and i'm sure there is an

> adjective that describes YOUR kind - I've probably

> used it myself


If you Google "brainstorm insensitive" it comes up with four results relating to whether or not it's wrong to use the term. Four. Is that umpteen? I know you tell an awful lot of lies in your frothing rants ("I met this east European immigrant in the pub and he told me...") but it's foolish to tell lies that are so easily checked and dismissed.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...