Nitpicking? Or relevant?
Manniq, 02 Nov 2005 07:55:16
This came up in an off-board discussion with someone else - but is something that has struck me as odd since the consultation paper came out.
The writers of the paper describe bdsm and its associated imagery as on occasion 'abhorrent', on occasion 'aberrant'.
This is quite a difference. The first suggests (some) bdsm is so horrid that society cannot stomach it: the second attacks bdsm itself, implying that it is abnormal and, by implication, that its practitioners are abnormal and/or sick or possibly mentally ill?
Is there a point here? Can the government not make its mind up? Is it as simple as a civil servant who cannot distinguish the meaning of two similar sounding words?
It would be useful to get the government to explain....because if it means 'abhorrent', this is just more of the social cushioning that snowdrop so nicely described. If aberrant, then the same issue that various bdsm groups have been fighting, in terms of bdsm being classed as a mental illness.
Regards,
M
Thunder, 02 Nov 2005 10:33:15
In message
<2569233.1130918113106.JavaMail.root@thallium.smartgroups.com>,
manniq@hotmail.com writes
>Is there a point here? Can the government not make its mind up? Is it
>as simple as a civil servant who cannot distinguish the meaning of two
>similar sounding words?
>
As I discovered long ago - Whitehall Mandarins often live in another
world to mere mortals.
And "Yes Minister" , again as I have discovered, has a lot of elements
of truth in it.
Remember, senior Civil Servants consider themselves to be the
professionals and politicians merely "here today, gone tomorrow"
amateurs.
Unless one is a conviction politician (and risking incurring Paul's
wrath, and delay in the making of the bootlace flogger for me ) like
Margaret Thatcher and her "Big Beasts" then a weak Minister will do as
his/her Department advice.
New Labour have NO convictions and are unable to say NO to their
advisors . Has anyone BTW seen the nonsense that Politically Correct
Civil Servants have now come up with to prove Britishness?
--
^Thunder^
Paul C. Dickie, 02 Nov 2005 11:02:41
In message , ^Thunder^
wrote:
>As I discovered long ago - Whitehall Mandarins often live in another
>world to mere mortals.
>
>And "Yes Minister" , again as I have discovered, has a lot of elements
>of truth in it.
It could be argued that the situation changed when 'political advisors'
(spin doctors rather than agents like Frank Weasel) became part of the
loop. It was certainly the perception of the public rather than
accurate 'intelligence' that dictated the content of the dossier
presented to Parliament regarding Saddam's alleged WMD capabilities.
>Remember, senior Civil Servants consider themselves to be the
>professionals and politicians merely "here today, gone tomorrow"
>amateurs.
A term, I recall, to which Sir John Nott rather objected when Sir Robin
Day referred to him as such...
>Unless one is a conviction politician (and risking incurring Paul's
>wrath, and delay in the making of the bootlace flogger for me ) like
>Margaret Thatcher and her "Big Beasts" then a weak Minister will do as
>his/her Department advice.
It's not just a 'weak minister' who has a propensity to go native. In
1997, the Home Secretary was the odious 'Michael Howard' but, on NuLab
getting into power, the new Home Secretary was Jack Straw. He seemed to
think he had to be 'tough' on almost everything; when the turn came for
Blunkett to take on the role, he lurched even further to the right. Of
course, it was easier for the civil servants to control what he read,
for they'd only braille what they wanted him to see. But what excuse
could Jug-Ears Clarke have for seemingly attempting to out-do Blunkett?
>New Labour have NO convictions and are unable to say NO to their
>advisors . Has anyone BTW seen the nonsense that Politically Correct
>Civil Servants have now come up with to prove Britishness?
Yes. It makes Tebbitt's 'cricket test' seem almost sensible.
--
< Paul >