advertisement


Boycott knighted - the ramifications.

You may or may not have noticed, but the the French like to say non or you can't do that. Once that is out the bag, getting them to turn it around is almost impossible.

Since arriving here I have been reading up on French education and I think the problem starts there. There is a culture of humiliation that makes people want to decline to commit or acknowledge things. And makes them like stressed out coiled springs. There are tricks like this in my kids' school: getting minus scores in tests, a point system that leads to specified punishments....never rewards. It's a semi international school, supposedly going fully international, managed by foreign teachers. And they want to get rid of the French teachers. But of course they cannot. Hilarious....or it would be if my kids were not there.


Not losing face is deeply buried in the culture. As is taking stuff out on other people. You can see it in the police. They are well rude mostly. I saw one police car in an RTA, Police car's fault, all 4 feds jumped out and were on the poor driver like gangster bullies. The little gimps on scooters appear to think their job is to threaten the population.

I have argued before that we are all unlikely to get a fair trial wherever we are. I'd be even more worried about getting an unfair conviction here than back home.

Anyway, must dash, got a tarte flambe and picon biere evening with my French friends in town tonight. Bonne soiree, mes amis rosbif!
Funny, I've heard exactly the same about the Italians and 'not losing face', it must just be a continental thing eh? Us Brits are just so laid back!
 
Funny, I've heard exactly the same about the Italians and 'not losing face', it must just be a continental thing eh? Us Brits are just so laid back!
I suspect but am likely going to get shot down here, that humility and self deprecation is more common in north Europeans, Germany, Holland, UK, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland. So being laid back may be neither here nor there in this context.
 
I really dislike the whole deification of certain parts of Europe compared to our good selves. Ultimately each nation has its pros & cons, a lot of the latter seem to be excused if the weather is nice.
 
I really dislike the whole deification of certain parts of Europe compared to our good selves. Ultimately each nation has its pros & cons, a lot of the latter seem to be excused if the weather is nice.
But nice weather lifts the mood. And everything looks so much better than North Sea horizontal rain. It's not unreasonable to go onto assume overall things are better.

It's a marginal gain, I confess.
 
But nice weather lifts the mood. And everything looks so much better than North Sea horizontal rain. It's not unreasonable to go onto assume overall things are better.

It's a marginal gain, I confess.
I remember ages ago I was on stag do & one of the attendees was an archetypal 'i've been travelling' types, he kept banging on a out how great Canada was, miles better than UK etc etc. I asked him why he didn't stay there, "I couldn't get a decent job or a place to live".
 
Started this thread so it doesn't over pollute the Ashes thread.

I'm not for it. I'm not happy at the message it sends to survivors of DV. However expecting May to consider this when awarding the knighthood is, frankly, ridiculous.

AIMHO of course.
There is plenty of precedent for honours being subsequently removed when bad stuff comes to light, the most obvious being Savile. In his case, there was evidently some disquiet about the granting of the honours in the first place, among some who knew him, or knew his reputation. It is right, I think, that the nation shouldn't honour a person who has been found to have significant flaws, despite whatever positive acts led to their nomination. There's a balance to be struck, so there's a line to be drawn.

The question, then, is where is the line to be drawn. Clearly predatory sexual behaviour is way beyond the line, as would be embezzlement or a flagrant disregard for the law, IMV. Less clear-cut are the sort of character flaws which seem to drive some people to particular success.

In the case of Boycott, there is a specific incident for which he was tried and found guilty. There is also a tendency toward aggression, verbal and otherwise, which might lead one to reasonably wonder whether the incident in question was an isolated one. People honoured by the state are, in a sense, being held up as role models. It is not simply a transactional process - reward for services rendered. That's why it is right to remove honours, even if the services were indeed rendered.

So the question here is whether, given the history, you could or would hold Boycott up to be a role model. My feeling is that, since he continues to deny the offence, and has continued in his irascibility, he falls short of the standards required of a role model, so the honour is inappropriate.
 
I remember ages ago I was on stag do & one of the attendees was an archetypal 'i've been travelling' types, he kept banging on a out how great Canada was, miles better than UK etc etc. I asked him why he didn't stay there, "I couldn't get a decent job or a place to live".
There are certainly some crashing expat bores. I suppose it is when you are on your first tour that you are a bit like that. I used to swear I would never leave Thailand....and then I lost my job. And my apartment with swimming pool. And it was back to UK or TEFL.....
 
I remember ages ago I was on stag do & one of the attendees was an archetypal 'i've been travelling' types, he kept banging on a out how great Canada was, miles better than UK etc etc. I asked him why he didn't stay there, "I couldn't get a decent job or a place to live".
You should have told him to get montreal.
 
There is plenty of precedent for honours being subsequently removed when bad stuff comes to light, the most obvious being Savile. In his case, there was evidently some disquiet about the granting of the honours in the first place, among some who knew him, or knew his reputation. It is right, I think, that the nation shouldn't honour a person who has been found to have significant flaws, despite whatever positive acts led to their nomination. There's a balance to be struck, so there's a line to be drawn.

The question, then, is where is the line to be drawn. Clearly predatory sexual behaviour is way beyond the line, as would be embezzlement or a flagrant disregard for the law, IMV. Less clear-cut are the sort of character flaws which seem to drive some people to particular success.

In the case of Boycott, there is a specific incident for which he was tried and found guilty. There is also a tendency toward aggression, verbal and otherwise, which might lead one to reasonably wonder whether the incident in question was an isolated one. People honoured by the state are, in a sense, being held up as role models. It is not simply a transactional process - reward for services rendered. That's why it is right to remove honours, even if the services were indeed rendered.

So the question here is whether, given the history, you could or would hold Boycott up to be a role model. My feeling is that, since he continues to deny the offence, and has continued in his irascibility, he falls short of the standards required of a role model, so the honour is inappropriate.
Do we expect the same standards of other public role models such as rock stars for instance?
 
There is plenty of precedent for honours being subsequently removed when bad stuff comes to light, the most obvious being Savile. In his case, there was evidently some disquiet about the granting of the honours in the first place, among some who knew him, or knew his reputation. It is right, I think, that the nation shouldn't honour a person who has been found to have significant flaws, despite whatever positive acts led to their nomination. There's a balance to be struck, so there's a line to be drawn.

The question, then, is where is the line to be drawn. Clearly predatory sexual behaviour is way beyond the line, as would be embezzlement or a flagrant disregard for the law, IMV. Less clear-cut are the sort of character flaws which seem to drive some people to particular success.

In the case of Boycott, there is a specific incident for which he was tried and found guilty. There is also a tendency toward aggression, verbal and otherwise, which might lead one to reasonably wonder whether the incident in question was an isolated one. People honoured by the state are, in a sense, being held up as role models. It is not simply a transactional process - reward for services rendered. That's why it is right to remove honours, even if the services were indeed rendered.

So the question here is whether, given the history, you could or would hold Boycott up to be a role model. My feeling is that, since he continues to deny the offence, and has continued in his irascibility, he falls short of the standards required of a role model, so the honour is inappropriate.
What are you referring to when you say 'and otherwise'?
 
A chapati would never have made the distance, nor would it have had the same biblical impact on his bowl of slop.
I’ve got quite a good nose for trouble in pubs. A friend moved to a village and took me into his new local and within about five seconds I said to him this place is dodgy.....“nah, there’s no way there’d be trouble in here”. I think his jaw had only just shut when a guy got up and poured a pint over a woman’s head then another customer picked up a bar stool by the legs and was about to bring it down on the pourer’s head, when the barman who was obviously an adept behavioural therapist, stepped out and quietly took the stool out of his hands when it was vertically above his head and ready to come down. Bear in mind this was about 2pm on a Saturday afternoon.
 
I’ve got quite a good nose for trouble in pubs. A friend moved to a village and took me into his new local and within about five seconds I said to him this place is dodgy.....“nah, there’s no way there’d be trouble in here”. I think his jaw had only just shut when a guy got up and poured a pint over a woman’s head then another customer picked up a bar stool by the legs and was about to bring it down on the pourer’s head, when the barman who was obviously an adept behavioural therapist, stepped out and quietly took the stool out of his hands when it was vertically above his head and ready to come down. Bear in mind this was about 2pm on a Saturday afternoon.
Which part of Scotland was this in, Hugh?
 


advertisement


Back
Top