https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services. What are we
meant to call the people who work on the fire engines, I wonder?
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 14:20:43 +0000, The Todal wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
?
A few years ago my boss insisted on calling his girlfriend "partner" in
his bio on the company website.
Let's put it this way, it was the source of a lot of confusion. Firstly because (cf American Beauty) there seemed to be an expectation of a
business partner. And secondly because there was an expectation she was a
he.
James Acaster did a very amusing routine about "he ... or they".
Am 18/11/2023 um 14:20 schrieb The Todal:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Who decides what is demeaning, offending, sensible? Do you know think it
is exactly this self-righteous attitude that makes the right wing win
most national elections in the Western world?
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than
"police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police
officer" in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly
widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
It's high time everyone rebelled against such nonsense while we still
have the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR.
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
It's high time everyone rebelled against such nonsense while we still
have the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR.
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
It's high time everyone rebelled against such nonsense while we still
have the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR.
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
--
Iain
On 18/11/2023 14:37, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 14:20:43 +0000, The Todal wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
?
A few years ago my boss insisted on calling his girlfriend "partner" in
his bio on the company website.
Let's put it this way, it was the source of a lot of confusion. Firstly
because (cf American Beauty) there seemed to be an expectation of a
business partner. And secondly because there was an expectation she was a
he.
James Acaster did a very amusing routine about "he ... or they".
I agree there can be confusion when one speaks of one's partner without making it clear what the context is. A couple of years ago my former
partner died and I mentioned to people that I was grieving. I felt I had
to keep explaining that he was "only" my business partner in the firm we
used to run, and not a person I was ever in love with or shared a home
with.
But if the police are investigating a crime it makes very good sense to
ask if a specific person is your partner, rather than
husband/wife/friend with benefits.
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed
is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and
(c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed
your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the emergency services?
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed
is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and
(c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed
your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the emergency services?
On 18/11/2023 15:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than
"police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a
police officer" in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly
widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
I think you've misunderstood the important nuance here. The police
officer was calling him "boy" in a contemptuous tone, and Tibbs wanted
to assert that he expected to be addressed in respectful terms, as Mr
Tibbs.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Now you're just being playful. The old fashioned attitude from the 1950s
and 1960s was that the "air hostess" was a good looking woman whose
purpose was to wait on the passengers, sell them drinks and fags, give a friendly smile at all times even when a passenger tried to grope them.
In fact, cabin crew's main purpose is to ensure the safety of passengers
in the event of an in-flight emergency or a crash.
Quite apart from the fact that many cabin crew are male, of course.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
It's high time everyone rebelled against such nonsense while we still
have the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR.
If you just think about it for long enough, you'll see that the main
purpose is to ensure that the public are treated with respect and
courtesy. Not at all easy when there is a longstanding culture of
bigotry and racism within many police forces.
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed
is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and
(c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed
your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the emergency services?
On 18/11/2023 15:17, The Todal wrote:
In fact, cabin crew's main purpose is to ensure the safety of
passengers in the event of an in-flight emergency or a crash.
No it isn't. When was the last time any of them had to perform that function on a flight you were on, or even on a flight they were on?
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
He was not emphasising his gender!!
Just his equal humanity. He didn't want to
be called by his first name or "boy". Mutatis mutandis, he could have said exactly the same thing if he were a woman.
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
We've always done this where the grammatical context required; it is no effort
to do it more widely. E.g. "Anyone in the group could have objected if they wanted to." It is neater than "he or she" in this sentence, and quite normal English.
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting gender-neutral >> language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police officer". Back in the
1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" in the role of Virgil Tibbs.
In fact, it's now fairly widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly emphasised
his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just pandering to
those who seek to control the rest of us through the language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
  What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
  engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're
called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed
is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and
(c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed
your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the
emergency services?
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if
he hadn't understood the first time. I have it recorded so I could back
it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was posturing to
be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a character trait of
the English.
On 18/11/2023 16:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police >>>> officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" >>>> in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
We've always done this where the grammatical context required; it is no effort
to do it more widely. E.g. "Anyone in the group could have objected if they >> wanted to." It is neater than "he or she" in this sentence, and quite normal >> English.
Where it's a particular identifiable person, that does not apply, and
that's where they/them as preferred pronouns becomes an absurd
affectation we should have no part in accommodating.
On 18/11/2023 16:39, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're >>> called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speedOn 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>
is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and
(c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed
your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the
emergency services?
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if
he hadn't understood the first time. I have it recorded so I could back
it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was posturing to
be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a character trait of
the English.
Most likely he didn't hear you properly the first time, perhaps because
you had an accent or it was a bad line. You're supposed to ask for Fire, Police or Ambulance. Not for a "brigade" - of Guards or anything else.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, >boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
On 18/11/2023 15:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than
"police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a
police officer" in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly
widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
I happily refer to male cabin crew staff as trolley dollies too. No
reason why all dolls have to be girls.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
I don't understand why it is demeaning to refer to women in terms that
imply they are, erm, not men.
On 18 Nov 2023 at 19:33:36 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 16:39, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're >>>> called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed >>>> is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and >>>> (c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed >>>> your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the >>>> emergency services?On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said >>>>> they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>>
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if >>> he hadn't understood the first time. I have it recorded so I could back
it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was posturing to
be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a character trait of
the English.
Most likely he didn't hear you properly the first time, perhaps because
you had an accent or it was a bad line. You're supposed to ask for Fire,
Police or Ambulance. Not for a "brigade" - of Guards or anything else.
It would have to be "fire service" or "fire and rescue" or something. Asking for "fire" is just silly.
So probably better to reserve "partner" for business partners (and use
those other terms for other, quite different, sorts of relationship, at
least at first?
On 18/11/2023 05:47, Iain wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
It's been "firefighters" for many years. So we realise they aren't there
to make fire, like the firemen on steam engines.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 14:20:43 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in particular a member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones Solicitors
LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 15:20:58 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
So probably better to reserve "partner" for business partners (and use
those other terms for other, quite different, sorts of relationship, at
least at first?
I would agree with that. My wife is my wife, not my partner, and before that she was my fiancee, and before that my girlfriend. I don't think there was ever a time when I'd have described her as my partner.
I think the main problem is that we don't have a single, widely-accepted
term to describe someone as being in a romantic relationship if you don't know the legal status of that relationship. "Significant other" is a common colloquialism, but it doesn't work in a more formal context. So "partner"
has become that word, almost by default. But I think it's a long way from being an appropriate one.
Mark
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 19:33:36 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 16:39, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're >>>>> called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed >>>>> is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and >>>>> (c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed >>>>> your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the >>>>> emergency services?On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering >>>>>>>>> somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services. >>>>>>>> What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said >>>>>> they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>>>
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if >>>> he hadn't understood the first time. I have it recorded so I could back >>>> it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was posturing to >>>> be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a character trait of >>>> the English.
Most likely he didn't hear you properly the first time, perhaps because
you had an accent or it was a bad line. You're supposed to ask for Fire, >>> Police or Ambulance. Not for a "brigade" - of Guards or anything else.
It would have to be "fire service" or "fire and rescue" or something. Asking >> for "fire" is just silly.
Ah, but is it the correct thing to say despite seeming silly?
https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/safety/calling-999/
The BT operator will be able to see your number; even if you’ve blocked
it. This is a safety feature which allows us to work out the rough
location of the fire.
If you ask for Fire, you will be put through to a fire control room,
where you will speak to a fire control room operator. You will not be
passed to your local fire station.
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire engines, >>>>> I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the Fire
Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than
"police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police
officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
He was not emphasising his gender!! Just his equal humanity. He didn't
want to be called by his first name or "boy". Mutatis mutandis, he could
have said exactly the same thing if he were a woman.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
It's high time everyone rebelled against such nonsense while we still
have the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR.
On 18 Nov 2023 at 18:44:47 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 16:58, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police >>>>> officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" >>>>> in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for >>>>> offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, >>>>> boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
We've always done this where the grammatical context required; it is no effort
to do it more widely. E.g. "Anyone in the group could have objected if they >>> wanted to." It is neater than "he or she" in this sentence, and quite normal
English.
Where it's a particular identifiable person, that does not apply, and
that's where they/them as preferred pronouns becomes an absurd
affectation we should have no part in accommodating.
So you are going to use he or she whether they like it or not?
You are going
to apply the Official Norman Allocation of gender to them, whether they like it or not?
Are your criteria published, and do they involve undressing for
your inspection? Or will you accept a medical report from a Norman Approved doctor?
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 14:20:43 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in particular a
member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones Solicitors
LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably
doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
Yes, a point I made earlier.
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public the
word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into
sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements especially if that is not relevant to the current investigation.
On 18/11/2023 15:58, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 15:17, The Todal wrote:
In fact, cabin crew's main purpose is to ensure the safety of
passengers in the event of an in-flight emergency or a crash.
No it isn't. When was the last time any of them had to perform that
function on a flight you were on, or even on a flight they were on?
On every single flight. That is why they explain where the exits are and
how to put on your lifejacket.
That is why they are trained in how to
respond if a passenger becomes ill on a flight, or becomes belligerent
with other passengers.
So probably better to reserve "partner" for business partners (and
use those other terms for other, quite different, sorts of relationship, at >least at first?
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
We've always done this where the grammatical context required; it is no effort
to do it more widely. E.g. "Anyone in the group could have objected if they wanted to." It is neater than "he or she" in this sentence, and quite normal English....
It's high time everyone rebelled against such nonsense while we still
have the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR.
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:15:44 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:47, Iain wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
It's been "firefighters" for many years. So we realise they aren't there
to make fire, like the firemen on steam engines.
Is there a gender-neutral term for the person who shovels the coal on a
steam locomotive these days? I suppose we could always adopt the American term of "stoker".
On 18 Nov 2023 at 20:13:56 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 19:33:36 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 18/11/2023 16:39, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're >>>>>> called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed >>>>>> is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and >>>>>> (c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed >>>>>> your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the >>>>>> emergency services?On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/ >>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering >>>>>>>>>> somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services. >>>>>>>>> What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire >>>>>>>>> engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the >>>>>>>> Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said >>>>>>> they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>>>>
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if >>>>> he hadn't understood the first time. I have it recorded so I could back >>>>> it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was posturing to >>>>> be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a character trait of >>>>> the English.
Most likely he didn't hear you properly the first time, perhaps because >>>> you had an accent or it was a bad line. You're supposed to ask for Fire, >>>> Police or Ambulance. Not for a "brigade" - of Guards or anything else.
It would have to be "fire service" or "fire and rescue" or something. Asking
for "fire" is just silly.
Ah, but is it the correct thing to say despite seeming silly?
https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/safety/calling-999/
The BT operator will be able to see your number; even if you’ve blocked
it. This is a safety feature which allows us to work out the rough
location of the fire.
If you ask for Fire, you will be put through to a fire control room,
where you will speak to a fire control room operator. You will not be
passed to your local fire station.
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
On 18/11/2023 19:30, kat wrote:
On 18/11/2023 15:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than
"police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a
police officer" in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now
fairly widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
I happily refer to male cabin crew staff as trolley dollies too. No
reason why all dolls have to be girls.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
I don't understand why it is demeaning to refer to women in terms that
imply they are, erm, not men.
I don't think that's the issue. A "hostess" is someone who works in a
casino or a seedy club in Soho. Other meanings are available, of course.
It doesn't sound like a role that requires training or deserves respect,
and nor does "trolley dolly" which sounds like a phrase out of a 1970s
Robin Askwith film.
It's all about gaining respect from the customers and colleagues.
Consider the job title of "secretary" which for the older generation
might suggest bringing pots of tea to the boss, then sitting on his knee while you take shorthand dictation and gently but firmly remove his hand which is creeping into your knickers. Or at least that is the fantasy
which, though rarely happening in real life, makes it difficult for a secretary to be taken seriously in any business meeting - at least, by
any old codgers present.
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:15:44 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:47, Iain wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
It's been "firefighters" for many years. So we realise they aren't there
to make fire, like the firemen on steam engines.
Is there a gender-neutral term for the person who shovels the coal on a
steam locomotive these days? I suppose we could always adopt the American term of "stoker".
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:r
How about the american expression coworker? I'm sure that we would
So probably better to reserve "partner" for business partners (and
use those other terms for other, quite different, sorts of relationship, at >> least at first?
write it as co-worker.
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in particular a
member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones Solicitors
LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably
doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
Yes, a point I made earlier.
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public the
word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into
sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements especially if that is not relevant to the current investigation.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
On 18/11/2023 04:58 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police >>>> officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" >>>> in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
We've always done this where the grammatical context required; it is no effort
to do it more widely. E.g. "Anyone in the group could have objected if they >> wanted to." It is neater than "he or she" in this sentence, and quite normal >> English....
...but in the cited use "more widely", counter to the standard form and
usage of the language with which we (and that includes you) were brought up.
As for those who want us all to change on their peremptory say-so - who
DO they think they are?
Do you always do just as you are told by anyone and everyone who thinks
they know better and more than you?
No. Me neither.
It's high time everyone rebelled against such nonsense while we still
have the protection of Article 10 of the ECHR.
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:r
So probably better to reserve "partner" for business partners (and
use those other terms for other, quite different, sorts of relationship, at >> least at first?
How about the american expression coworker? I'm sure that we would
write it as co-worker.
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
I shared a flat with several Freddy Laker air hostesses in the 1970s,
and none of them objected to the term.
On 18/11/2023 08:09 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend,
boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in particular a >>> member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones Solicitors >>> LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably
doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
Yes, a point I made earlier.
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public the
word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into
sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements especially if that is not
relevant to the current investigation.
In such circumstances, and at a minimum, the unmarried cohabitation
status of the person(s) involved will be known to the officer, otherwise
the issue does not arise.
If he or she is aware of the sex of the person being referenced, and
knows that the interviewee is married to that person, then "he" or "she"
is the only correct usage.
Remember that for many married people, being referred to as a "partner"
(with the implication that they are not married) is perceived as a
slight, if not an insult.
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:34:35 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police
officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer"
in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
I shared a flat with several Freddy Laker air hostesses in the 1970s,
and none of them objected to the term.
Can I draw your attention to the fact that half a century has elapsed since the 1970s, and most of the current cabin crew had not been born then?
On 19/11/2023 12:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:34:35 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police >>>> officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" >>>> in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
I shared a flat with several Freddy Laker air hostesses in the 1970s,
and none of them objected to the term.
Can I draw your attention to the fact that half a century has elapsed
since
the 1970s, and most of the current cabin crew had not been born then?
Back in the 1970s, to be recruited as an air hostess you had to be
physically attractive. One might justify not being overweight as somehow relevant to the cost of aviation fuel, but they were inevitably young,
well groomed and expected to be sexy.
It might be said that girls enjoyed being air hostesses because of all
the benefits of travelling the world and perhaps finding a marriage
partner among the pilots and wealthy passengers. But that didn't make
the work less demeaning.
One interesting article on this topic: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10880403/When-airline-cabins-sexist-workplaces-complete-Charm-Farm-skimpy-outfits.html
quote [JN: That's the way to do it!]
Marketed by their employers as not only desirable but available, air stewardesses were virtual airborne Playboy Bunnies.
If women were selected for stewardess training — after filling out an application that included questions about their weight, and hip, waist
and bust measurements — they were sent to de facto boarding schools,
where they slept in dormitories, took classes in applying nail varnish
and gluing on fake eyelashes, and were weighed up to twice a day. They
even had to adopt whatever hairstyle the airline had specified that year.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? Not that anything can be done about it.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:10:02 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 04:58 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 15:06:17 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 13:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police >>>>> officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" >>>>> in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for >>>>> offficers to say "I'm police".
He also said 'They call me *Mister* Tibbs' in such a way that clearly
emphasised his gender, so it's not exactly the best example from your
point of view.
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
For a 'trolley dolly' you mean? Calling them anything else is just
pandering to those who seek to control the rest of us through the
language we may use.
Any offence taken is entirely synthetic.
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, >>>>> boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
How very wet.
As is calling any singular person 'them'.
We've always done this where the grammatical context required; it is no effort
to do it more widely. E.g. "Anyone in the group could have objected if they >>> wanted to." It is neater than "he or she" in this sentence, and quite normal
English....
...but in the cited use "more widely", counter to the standard form and
usage of the language with which we (and that includes you) were brought up. >>
As for those who want us all to change on their peremptory say-so - who
DO they think they are?
Do you always do just as you are told by anyone and everyone who thinks
they know better and more than you?
No. Me neither.
But, like the almost universal adoption of American idioms in this country, it
is isn't happening because "someone told us to", but because the language is evolving in that direction. Just because tedious old Brexiteers don't like the
way the language is changing will not stop it happening.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:22:05 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 08:09 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, >>>>> boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in particular a >>>> member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones Solicitors >>>> LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably >>>> doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
Yes, a point I made earlier.
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public the >>> word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into
sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements especially if that is not
relevant to the current investigation.
In such circumstances, and at a minimum, the unmarried cohabitation
status of the person(s) involved will be known to the officer, otherwise
the issue does not arise.
If he or she is aware of the sex of the person being referenced, and
knows that the interviewee is married to that person, then "he" or "she"
is the only correct usage.
Remember that for many married people, being referred to as a "partner"
(with the implication that they are not married) is perceived as a
slight, if not an insult.
But in ordinary usage a husband or wife is regarded as subset of partners, and
I don't think this implication really exists.
JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> Wrote in message:r
How about the american expression coworker? I'm sure that we would
So probably better to reserve "partner" for business partners (and
use those other terms for other, quite different, sorts of relationship, at >> least at first?
write it as co-worker.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? Not that anything can be done about it.
On 19/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:Along with that awful "meet with" or worse "meet up with", instead of
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? >> Not that anything can be done about it.
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow. >>
just "meet"
On 19/11/2023 12:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:34:35 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police >>>> officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" >>>> in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for
offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
I shared a flat with several Freddy Laker air hostesses in the 1970s,
and none of them objected to the term.
Can I draw your attention to the fact that half a century has elapsed
since
the 1970s, and most of the current cabin crew had not been born then?
Back in the 1970s, to be recruited as an air hostess you had to be
physically attractive. One might justify not being overweight as somehow relevant to the cost of aviation fuel, but they were inevitably young,
well groomed and expected to be sexy.
It might be said that girls enjoyed being air hostesses because of all
the benefits of travelling the world and perhaps finding a marriage
partner among the pilots and wealthy passengers. But that didn't make
the work less demeaning.
On 19/11/2023 12:49 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not >>>> the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than
yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language
now?
Not that anything can be done about it.
Can I get a cheeseburger, fries and a soda?
On 19/11/2023 13:09, The Todal wrote:
On 19/11/2023 12:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:34:35 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:20, The Todal wrote:
Yes. And there are often perfectly good reasons for adopting
gender-neutral language. No need to say "policeman" rather than "police >>>>> officer". Back in the 1960s, Sidney Poitier says "I'm a police officer" >>>>> in the role of Virgil Tibbs. In fact, it's now fairly widespread for >>>>> offficers to say "I'm police".
It's demeaning to say "air hostess" instead of "cabin crew".
I shared a flat with several Freddy Laker air hostesses in the 1970s,
and none of them objected to the term.
Can I draw your attention to the fact that half a century has elapsed
since
the 1970s, and most of the current cabin crew had not been born then?
Back in the 1970s, to be recruited as an air hostess you had to be
physically attractive. One might justify not being overweight as somehow
relevant to the cost of aviation fuel, but they were inevitably young,
well groomed and expected to be sexy.
It might be said that girls enjoyed being air hostesses because of all
the benefits of travelling the world and perhaps finding a marriage
partner among the pilots and wealthy passengers. But that didn't make
the work less demeaning.
They didn't regard it as demeaning. Who knows what people might regard
as demeaning in the future? Maybe all paid work will be regarded as demeaning, as a kind of slavery. Or childbearing. Or anything.
On 19/11/2023 13:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/11/2023 12:49 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>>>> either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not >>>>> the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating >>>> from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than
yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language
now?
Not that anything can be done about it.
Can I get a cheeseburger, fries and a soda?
No, you can *ask for" a Hamburger with a sliver of processed cheese on
top, some thin chips and a fizzy drink.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 15:54:38 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 19/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:Along with that awful "meet with" or worse "meet up with", instead of
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? >>> Not that anything can be done about it.
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>>>> either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not >>>>> the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating >>>> from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow. >>>
just "meet"
And "talk with", which only makes sense if a ventriloquist's dummy is involved.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 15:54:38 GMT, ""Les. Hayward"" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote:
On 19/11/2023 12:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:Along with that awful "meet with" or worse "meet up with", instead of
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>>>> either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not >>>>> the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating >>>> from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler
than yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? >>> Not that anything can be done about it.
just "meet"
And "talk with", which only makes sense if a ventriloquist's dummy is involved.
Although, ObLegal, one of my favourites is "redact", which even judges
get wrong, as in "redact the confidential parts of the document", which strictly speaking means "select the confidential parts of the document
and prepare them for publication".
On 19/11/2023 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Although, ObLegal, one of my favourites is "redact", which even judges
get wrong, as in "redact the confidential parts of the document", which
strictly speaking means "select the confidential parts of the document
and prepare them for publication".
Not according to any definition I've read.
What is the one you're using?
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" either. It
probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? >Not that anything can be done about it.
In message <krueivFfmv3U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> writes
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:It's certainly 'railway station' in 'Home in Pasadena'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0UdkKH-0Es
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? >> Not that anything can be done about it.
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not
the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow. >>
On 19/11/2023 13:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/11/2023 12:49 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>>>> either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not >>>>> the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating >>>> from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler
than yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language
now?
Not that anything can be done about it.
Can I get a cheeseburger, fries and a soda?
No, you can *ask for" a Hamburger with a sliver of processed cheese on
top, some thin chips and a fizzy drink.
In message <krueivFfmv3U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> writes
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:It's certainly 'railway station' in 'Home in Pasadena'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0UdkKH-0Es
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station"
either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not >>>> the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating
from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than
yow.
You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language
now?
Not that anything can be done about it.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 21:47:02 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/11/2023 21:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Although, ObLegal, one of my favourites is "redact", which even judges
get wrong, as in "redact the confidential parts of the document", which
strictly speaking means "select the confidential parts of the document
and prepare them for publication".
Not according to any definition I've read.
What is the one you're using?
Read your dictionaries more carefully. It is the *whole document* which is redacted to a smaller size by *removing* the confidential bits. So it is not the confidential bits that are redacted, but the final document that has been redacted to exclude them. A selection of online dictionaries I have just scanned confirm this, so I'm certainly not going to discuss it further if you choose to disagree.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 17:02:29 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/11/2023 13:09, The Todal wrote:
Back in the 1970s, to be recruited as an air hostess you had to be
physically attractive. One might justify not being overweight as somehow >>> relevant to the cost of aviation fuel, but they were inevitably young,
well groomed and expected to be sexy.
It might be said that girls enjoyed being air hostesses because of all
the benefits of travelling the world and perhaps finding a marriage
partner among the pilots and wealthy passengers. But that didn't make
the work less demeaning.
They didn't regard it as demeaning. Who knows what people might regard
as demeaning in the future? Maybe all paid work will be regarded as
demeaning, as a kind of slavery. Or childbearing. Or anything.
To get back to the point, the majority of a similar sample of women considering working as cabin crew now would almost certainly regard it as demeaning. We *were* talking about current usage, not historic. It's only about a century since married women were allowed to own their own property. And half a century since anyone remembers women liking to be called air hostesses. We old people have to move with the times.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in particular a
member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones Solicitors
LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably
doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
Yes, a point I made earlier.
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public the
word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into
sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
On 19/11/2023 17:52, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 17:02:29 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 19/11/2023 13:09, The Todal wrote:
Back in the 1970s, to be recruited as an air hostess you had to be
physically attractive. One might justify not being overweight as somehow >>>> relevant to the cost of aviation fuel, but they were inevitably young, >>>> well groomed and expected to be sexy.
It might be said that girls enjoyed being air hostesses because of all >>>> the benefits of travelling the world and perhaps finding a marriage
partner among the pilots and wealthy passengers. But that didn't make
the work less demeaning.
They didn't regard it as demeaning. Who knows what people might regard
as demeaning in the future? Maybe all paid work will be regarded as
demeaning, as a kind of slavery. Or childbearing. Or anything.
To get back to the point, the majority of a similar sample of women
considering working as cabin crew now would almost certainly regard it as
demeaning. We *were* talking about current usage, not historic. It's only
about a century since married women were allowed to own their own property. >> And half a century since anyone remembers women liking to be called air
hostesses. We old people have to move with the times.
IOW "get down with the kids".
Am 18/11/2023 um 17:00 schrieb Max Demian:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to
know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
The operator just wasted valuable time. He (it was a he) understood but decided to lecture me. In a real fire (likely it turned out it wasn't),
a few seconds more or less could make a difference between life and
death, but apparently lecturing a caller with a (shock! horror!) foreign accent is apparently more important.
On 20/11/2023 10:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 17:00 schrieb Max Demian:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>
know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
The operator just wasted valuable time. He (it was a he) understood but
decided to lecture me. In a real fire (likely it turned out it wasn't),
a few seconds more or less could make a difference between life and
death, but apparently lecturing a caller with a (shock! horror!) foreign
accent is apparently more important.
If you think what he said was "lecturing" I do wonder whether your grasp
of the English language is too slender.
On 20 Nov 2023 at 14:08:25 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 10:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 17:00 schrieb Max Demian:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said >>>>> they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>>
know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
The operator just wasted valuable time. He (it was a he) understood but
decided to lecture me. In a real fire (likely it turned out it wasn't),
a few seconds more or less could make a difference between life and
death, but apparently lecturing a caller with a (shock! horror!) foreign >>> accent is apparently more important.
If you think what he said was "lecturing" I do wonder whether your grasp
of the English language is too slender.
I disagree. He already knew what Mr Caruso meant. And no amount of mission statements, business plans, protocols, guidelines and policies written by idiots are going make a normal, literate person ask for "fire" when they've already got one. Lecturing people about what they have concluded in their moronic, management-speak bubble is not welcome. If they really want to standardise what people say in a highly stressful emergency, which, after all,
is a ridiculously unattainable objective anyway, they need to invent a literate and meaningful phrase to request the fire and rescue service which people stand a chance of remembering.
And don't waste time telling them what they should have said once you have found out what you mean. Leave that to the vast army of PR specialists to do via the media when they *don't* have an emergency. In fact they should put that in their standardised protocol - "never tell the customer what they should have said, this is the Wrong Time to do so". And it is rude.
On 20/11/2023 10:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 17:00 schrieb Max Demian:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator
said they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West
Midlands thing.
That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to
know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
The operator just wasted valuable time. He (it was a he) understood
but decided to lecture me. In a real fire (likely it turned out it
wasn't), a few seconds more or less could make a difference between
life and death, but apparently lecturing a caller with a (shock!
horror!) foreign accent is apparently more important.
If you think what he said was "lecturing" I do wonder whether your grasp
of the English language is too slender.
On 20/11/2023 16:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Nov 2023 at 14:08:25 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 10:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 17:00 schrieb Max Demian:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering >>>>>>>>> somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services. >>>>>>>> What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said >>>>>> they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>>>
know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
The operator just wasted valuable time. He (it was a he) understood but >>>> decided to lecture me. In a real fire (likely it turned out it wasn't), >>>> a few seconds more or less could make a difference between life and
death, but apparently lecturing a caller with a (shock! horror!) foreign >>>> accent is apparently more important.
If you think what he said was "lecturing" I do wonder whether your grasp >>> of the English language is too slender.
I disagree. He already knew what Mr Caruso meant. And no amount of mission >> statements, business plans, protocols, guidelines and policies written by
idiots are going make a normal, literate person ask for "fire" when they've >> already got one. Lecturing people about what they have concluded in their
moronic, management-speak bubble is not welcome. If they really want to
standardise what people say in a highly stressful emergency, which, after all,
is a ridiculously unattainable objective anyway, they need to invent a
literate and meaningful phrase to request the fire and rescue service which >> people stand a chance of remembering.
And don't waste time telling them what they should have said once you have >> found out what you mean. Leave that to the vast army of PR specialists to do >> via the media when they *don't* have an emergency. In fact they should put >> that in their standardised protocol - "never tell the customer what they
should have said, this is the Wrong Time to do so". And it is rude.
If Mr Caruso was able to provide a reliable transcript of the
conversation, I would have some sympathy for the views you have
expressed. Actually, he says he has it recorded so a transcript ought
to be possible.
The likelihood is that the line was bad or Mr Caruso's accent was
unclear, so the operator asked for clarification. I don't believe that "lecturing" was a valid description of what took place.
I'll quote what he said in an earlier post:
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if
he hadn't understood the first time.
On 20 Nov 2023 at 17:16:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 20/11/2023 16:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Nov 2023 at 14:08:25 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 20/11/2023 10:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 17:00 schrieb Max Demian:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in
message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/ >>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of
misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue
Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire >>>>>>>>> engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word
the Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The
operator said they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be
a West Midlands thing.
That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting
to know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
The operator just wasted valuable time. He (it was a he)
understood but decided to lecture me. In a real fire (likely it
turned out it wasn't), a few seconds more or less could make a
difference between life and death, but apparently lecturing a
caller with a (shock! horror!) foreign accent is apparently more
important.
If you think what he said was "lecturing" I do wonder whether your
grasp of the English language is too slender.
I disagree. He already knew what Mr Caruso meant. And no amount of
mission statements, business plans, protocols, guidelines and
policies written by idiots are going make a normal, literate person
ask for "fire" when they've already got one. Lecturing people about
what they have concluded in their moronic, management-speak bubble
is not welcome. If they really want to standardise what people say
in a highly stressful emergency, which, after all, is a
ridiculously unattainable objective anyway, they need to invent a
literate and meaningful phrase to request the fire and rescue
service which people stand a chance of remembering.
And don't waste time telling them what they should have said once
you have found out what you mean. Leave that to the vast army of PR
specialists to do via the media when they *don't* have an
emergency. In fact they should put that in their standardised
protocol - "never tell the customer what they should have said,
this is the Wrong Time to do so". And it is rude.
If Mr Caruso was able to provide a reliable transcript of the
conversation, I would have some sympathy for the views you have
expressed. Actually, he says he has it recorded so a transcript
ought to be possible.
The likelihood is that the line was bad or Mr Caruso's accent was
unclear, so the operator asked for clarification. I don't believe
that "lecturing" was a valid description of what took place.
I'll quote what he said in an earlier post:
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?",
as if he hadn't understood the first time.
Ok, either interpretation is certainly possible.
On 18/11/2023 08:29 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 20:13:56 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Roger Hayter wrote:I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>either. It
On 18 Nov 2023 at 19:33:36 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 18/11/2023 16:39, Ottavio Caruso wrote:It would have to be "fire service" or "fire and rescue" or
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/ >>>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering >>>>>>>>>>> somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services. >>>>>>>>>> What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire >>>>>>>>>> engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the >>>>>>>>> Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said >>>>>>>> they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", they're
called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an emergency call speed >>>>>>> is obviously of the essence and so abbreviations seem appropriate, and >>>>>>> (c) - bearing (b) in mind - you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed >>>>>>> your emergency call to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the >>>>>>> emergency services?
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied >>>>>> "Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if >>>>>> he hadn't understood the first time. I have it recorded so I could back >>>>>> it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was posturing to >>>>>> be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a character trait of >>>>>> the English.
Most likely he didn't hear you properly the first time, perhaps because >>>>> you had an accent or it was a bad line. You're supposed to ask for Fire, >>>>> Police or Ambulance. Not for a "brigade" - of Guards or anything else. >>>>
something. Asking
for "fire" is just silly.
Ah, but is it the correct thing to say despite seeming silly?
https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/safety/calling-999/
The BT operator will be able to see your number; even if you’ve blocked >>> it. This is a safety feature which allows us to work out the rough
location of the fire.
If you ask for Fire, you will be put through to a fire control room,
where you will speak to a fire control room operator. You will not be
passed to your local fire station.
probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
I agree on this "train station" business of recent times.
Trains aren't stationed there (unless temporarily when the station is a >terminus).
The railway IS stationed there (at least, part of it is) and the
station is one of many along the railway.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 23:38:25 GMT, "Ian Jackson" ><ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <krueivFfmv3U1@mid.individual.net>, Roger Hayter
<roger@hayter.org> writes
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:29:22 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:It's certainly 'railway station' in 'Home in Pasadena'.
On 18/11/2023 09:14 pm, Norman Wells wrote:You realise it is simply an Americanism, along with half our language now? >>> Not that anything can be done about it.
On 18/11/2023 20:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>>>> either. It probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
It matters to me. And probably to most denizens of uk.railway.
The logic is linguistic. It's the train that becomes stationary, not >>>>> the railway.
Is a bus station a road station where you come from?
"Railway station" = traditional usage, coined in and dating from the
second quarter of the nineteenth century, if not slightly earlier.
"Bus-stop" (plus "tram-stop") = traditional usage, coined in and dating >>>> from the mid nineteenth century if not earlier.
"Train station" = very recent and totally unnecessary neologism,
possibly coined by someone who thought it made them sound cooler than yow. >>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0UdkKH-0Es
Interesting. It appears the Americans invented "train station" in the 1930s >and we took it up about fifty years later.
https://bridgingtheunbridgeable.com/2014/11/12/railway-station-or-train- >station/
In message <krud3hFfb70U2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jnugent@mail.com> writes
On 18/11/2023 08:29 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:But a bus station is where buses are parked or stationed (ie where they
On 18 Nov 2023 at 20:13:56 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Roger Hayter wrote:I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>either. It
On 18 Nov 2023 at 19:33:36 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>Ah, but is it the correct thing to say despite seeming silly?
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 16:39, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:Most likely he didn't hear you properly the first time, perhaps
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/ >>>>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering >>>>>>>>>>>> somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue
Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire >>>>>>>>>>> engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the >>>>>>>>>> Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator >>>>>>>>> said they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West >>>>>>>>> Midlands thing.
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", >>>>>>>> they're called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an
emergency call speed is obviously of the essence and so
abbreviations seem appropriate, and (c) - bearing (b) in mind - >>>>>>>> you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed your emergency call >>>>>>>> to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the emergency
services?
replied "Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean >>>>>>> FIRE?", as if he hadn't understood the first time. I have it
recorded so I could back it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was
posturing to be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a >>>>>>> character trait of the English.
because you had an accent or it was a bad line. You're supposed to >>>>>> ask for Fire,
Police or Ambulance. Not for a "brigade" - of Guards or anything
else.
It would have to be "fire service" or "fire and rescue" or >>>>>something. Asking
for "fire" is just silly.
https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/safety/calling-999/
The BT operator will be able to see your number; even if you’ve
blocked it. This is a safety feature which allows us to work out the
rough location of the fire.
If you ask for Fire, you will be put through to a fire control room,
where you will speak to a fire control room operator. You will not be
passed to your local fire station.
probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
I agree on this "train station" business of recent times.
Trains aren't stationed there (unless temporarily when the station is a >>terminus).
The railway IS stationed there (at least, part of it is) and the station
is one of many along the railway.
are to be found stationary, and almost always off the highway). On the
other hand, most railway stations are on a railway line which carries
through traffic (more like a bus stop on a road). OK, there are sidings
where engines, coaches and trucks get parked, but that is not usually referred to as part of the station (where passengers get on and off).
On 20 Nov 2023 at 17:16:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 16:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Nov 2023 at 14:08:25 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 20/11/2023 10:52, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 17:00 schrieb Max Demian:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to >>>>>> know whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/ >>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering >>>>>>>>>> somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services. >>>>>>>>> What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire >>>>>>>>> engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the >>>>>>>> Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said >>>>>>> they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>>>>
The operator just wasted valuable time. He (it was a he) understood but >>>>> decided to lecture me. In a real fire (likely it turned out it wasn't), >>>>> a few seconds more or less could make a difference between life and
death, but apparently lecturing a caller with a (shock! horror!) foreign >>>>> accent is apparently more important.
If you think what he said was "lecturing" I do wonder whether your grasp >>>> of the English language is too slender.
I disagree. He already knew what Mr Caruso meant. And no amount of mission >>> statements, business plans, protocols, guidelines and policies written by >>> idiots are going make a normal, literate person ask for "fire" when they've >>> already got one. Lecturing people about what they have concluded in their >>> moronic, management-speak bubble is not welcome. If they really want to
standardise what people say in a highly stressful emergency, which, >>>after all,
is a ridiculously unattainable objective anyway, they need to invent a
literate and meaningful phrase to request the fire and rescue service which >>> people stand a chance of remembering.
And don't waste time telling them what they should have said once you have >>> found out what you mean. Leave that to the vast army of PR specialists to do
via the media when they *don't* have an emergency. In fact they should put >>> that in their standardised protocol - "never tell the customer what they >>> should have said, this is the Wrong Time to do so". And it is rude.
If Mr Caruso was able to provide a reliable transcript of the
conversation, I would have some sympathy for the views you have
expressed. Actually, he says he has it recorded so a transcript ought
to be possible.
The likelihood is that the line was bad or Mr Caruso's accent was
unclear, so the operator asked for clarification. I don't believe that
"lecturing" was a valid description of what took place.
I'll quote what he said in an earlier post:
I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I replied
"Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You mean FIRE?", as if
he hadn't understood the first time.
Ok, either interpretation is certainly possible.
On 18/11/2023 19:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:15:44 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:47, Iain wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
It's been "firefighters" for many years. So we realise they aren't there >>> to make fire, like the firemen on steam engines.
Is there a gender-neutral term for the person who shovels the coal on a
steam locomotive these days? I suppose we could always adopt the American
term of "stoker".
And call the driver an "engineer"?
(I doubt that a biological woman would have been capable of stoking a
main line steam engine, unless fed with hormones like a Russian >weightlifter.)
On 18/11/2023 05:00 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing.
That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to know
whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
Or maybe know whether a fire is being reported, as that might require
all three.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 12:10:57 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:00 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to know >>> whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>
Or maybe know whether a fire is being reported, as that might require
all three.
They can still only put you through to one, though.
I was taught (many years ago) that if the situation you are reporting requires the attendance of multiple services, then you call the one that deals with the major issue. So if there's a fire, you call the fire service, and they in turn will alert the ambulance service and police if they think it's necessary (which they can generally determine on the basis of their conversation with you). If it doesn't need fire and rescue, but someone is hurt, call the ambulance service, and they will call the police if
necessary. It's only if nobody needs immediate medical attention and there's no need for fire or rescue that you call the police yourself.
The other thing I was taught is that if you do ever need to call the emergency services, you start by stating the problem and the location, and only then go into any secondary information. That may sound obvious, but a lot of people are unnecessarily apologetic when making what is possibly a borderline call, and feel the need to justify themselves before giving the necessary details. That wastes valuable time, and can make it harder for the call handler to get a good understanding of the situation. Once you've made the decision to make the call, make it clearly and firmly. Leave the background information until the call handler asks you for it. Which they will. But only after they've dispatched the fire engine, ambulance or police car. If it really turns out to be unnecessary they can always recall them.
Mark
I think that both sets of terminology are half right and half wrong. It
seems clear to me that "driver" is a better term for the person who is in charge of the controls, not "engineer", because what they are doing is driving, not engineering.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 20:11:45 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <krud3hFfb70U2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jnugent@mail.com> writes
On 18/11/2023 08:29 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:But a bus station is where buses are parked or stationed (ie where they
On 18 Nov 2023 at 20:13:56 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Roger Hayter wrote:I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>>either. It
On 18 Nov 2023 at 19:33:36 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:Ah, but is it the correct thing to say despite seeming silly?
On 18/11/2023 16:39, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 15:39 schrieb Jon Ribbens:Most likely he didn't hear you properly the first time, perhaps
On 2023-11-18, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:I am claiming that the operator asked "What service?" and I
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of
misgendering somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue
Services.
What are we meant to call the people who work on the >>>>>>>>>>>> fire engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word >>>>>>>>>>> the Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The
operator said they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be >>>>>>>>>> a West Midlands thing.
Three problems with that are that (a) they're not called "Fire", >>>>>>>>> they're called the "West Midlands Fire Service", (b) on an
emergency call speed is obviously of the essence and so
abbreviations seem appropriate, and (c) - bearing (b) in mind - >>>>>>>>> you're claiming that a 999 operator delayed your emergency call >>>>>>>>> to lecture you about the proper nomenclature of the emergency >>>>>>>>> services?
replied "Fire Brigade" twice before the operator replied "You
mean FIRE?", as if he hadn't understood the first time. I have it >>>>>>>> recorded so I could back it up in court.
It's not the end of the world, but it sounded to me he was
posturing to be as fiscal as possible. I don't blame him. It is a >>>>>>>> character trait of the English.
because you had an accent or it was a bad line. You're supposed to >>>>>>> ask for Fire,
Police or Ambulance. Not for a "brigade" - of Guards or anything >>>>>>> else.
It would have to be "fire service" or "fire and rescue" or >>>>>>something. Asking
for "fire" is just silly.
https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/safety/calling-999/
The BT operator will be able to see your number; even if you’ve
blocked it. This is a safety feature which allows us to work out the >>>>> rough location of the fire.
If you ask for Fire, you will be put through to a fire control room, >>>>> where you will speak to a fire control room operator. You will not
be passed to your local fire station.
probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
I agree on this "train station" business of recent times.
Trains aren't stationed there (unless temporarily when the station is a >>>terminus).
The railway IS stationed there (at least, part of it is) and the
station is one of many along the railway.
are to be found stationary, and almost always off the highway). On the
other hand, most railway stations are on a railway line which carries
through traffic (more like a bus stop on a road). OK, there are sidings
where engines, coaches and trucks get parked, but that is not usually
referred to as part of the station (where passengers get on and off).
So it should be a train stop then!?
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 12:10:57 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:00 pm, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/11/2023 14:29, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 18/11/2023 um 13:03 schrieb Jon Ribbens:That's not what they are called. It's just the responder wanting to know >>> whether you want fire, ambulance or police.
On 2023-11-18, Iain <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>>> https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
 What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
 engines, I wonder?
"Firefighter" is not only the obvious answer, it's the word the
Fire Brigade uses.
People do love inventing problems where there are none.
I rang the 999 asking to speak to the Fire Brigade. The operator said
they are just called "Fire" nowadays. It must be a West Midlands thing. >>>
Or maybe know whether a fire is being reported, as that might require
all three.
They can still only put you through to one, though.
I was taught (many years ago) that if the situation you are reporting requires the attendance of multiple services, then you call the one that deals with the major issue. So if there's a fire, you call the fire service, and they in turn will alert the ambulance service and police if they think it's necessary (which they can generally determine on the basis of their conversation with you).
If it doesn't need fire and rescue, but someone is
hurt, call the ambulance service, and they will call the police if
necessary. It's only if nobody needs immediate medical attention and there's no need for fire or rescue that you call the police yourself.
The other thing I was taught is that if you do ever need to call the emergency services, you start by stating the problem and the location, and only then go into any secondary information. That may sound obvious, but a lot of people are unnecessarily apologetic when making what is possibly a borderline call, and feel the need to justify themselves before giving the necessary details. That wastes valuable time, and can make it harder for the call handler to get a good understanding of the situation. Once you've made the decision to make the call, make it clearly and firmly. Leave the background information until the call handler asks you for it. Which they will. But only after they've dispatched the fire engine, ambulance or police car.
If it really turns out to be unnecessary they can always recall them.
Mark
The likelihood is that the line was bad or Mr Caruso's accent was
unclear, so the operator asked for clarification.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 12:29:22 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:15:44 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:47, Iain wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
It's been "firefighters" for many years. So we realise they aren't there >>>> to make fire, like the firemen on steam engines.
Is there a gender-neutral term for the person who shovels the coal on a
steam locomotive these days? I suppose we could always adopt the American >>> term of "stoker".
And call the driver an "engineer"?
No, that would be a step too far :-)
I think that both sets of terminology are half right and half wrong. It
seems clear to me that "driver" is a better term for the person who is in charge of the controls, not "engineer", because what they are doing is driving, not engineering. But "stoker" is a better term for the person who shovels the coal, because "fireman" means completely the opposite in a different context.
(I doubt that a biological woman would have been capable of stoking a
main line steam engine, unless fed with hormones like a Russian
weightlifter.)
I don't think it's necessarily that demanding. A lot of it is about skill
and stamina rather than brute force, and women who work in agriculture will be familiar with doing a hard, manual job. It's more about culture than anything else.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 20:16:26 +0000, nib wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2023 20:11:45 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <krud3hFfb70U2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jnugent@mail.com> writes
On 18/11/2023 08:29 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Nov 2023 at 20:13:56 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
But a bus station is where buses are parked or stationed (ie where theyIf you ask for Fire, you will be put through to a fire control room, >>>>>> where you will speak to a fire control room operator. You will not >>>>>> be passed to your local fire station.I'm not going to say "train station" when I mean "railway station" >>>>> either. It
probably doesn't matter to anyone but myself.
I agree on this "train station" business of recent times.
Trains aren't stationed there (unless temporarily when the station is a >>>> terminus).
The railway IS stationed there (at least, part of it is) and the
station is one of many along the railway.
are to be found stationary, and almost always off the highway). On the
other hand, most railway stations are on a railway line which carries
through traffic (more like a bus stop on a road). OK, there are sidings
where engines, coaches and trucks get parked, but that is not usually
referred to as part of the station (where passengers get on and off).
So it should be a train stop then!?
Or "Halt"
On 20/11/2023 21:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 12:29:22 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
(I doubt that a biological woman would have been capable of stoking a
main line steam engine, unless fed with hormones like a Russian
weightlifter.)
I don't think it's necessarily that demanding. A lot of it is about skill
and stamina rather than brute force, and women who work in agriculture will >> be familiar with doing a hard, manual job. It's more about culture than
anything else.
The fireman has to shovel literally tons of coal into the firebox. I've
heard that he only becomes a driver when he is too knackered to do the job.
On 20 Nov 2023 at 21:44:27 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
The other thing I was taught is that if you do ever need to call the
emergency services, you start by stating the problem and the location, and >> only then go into any secondary information. That may sound obvious, but a >> lot of people are unnecessarily apologetic when making what is possibly a
borderline call, and feel the need to justify themselves before giving the >> necessary details. That wastes valuable time, and can make it harder for the >> call handler to get a good understanding of the situation. Once you've made >> the decision to make the call, make it clearly and firmly. Leave the
background information until the call handler asks you for it. Which they
will. But only after they've dispatched the fire engine, ambulance or police >> car. If it really turns out to be unnecessary they can always recall them.
I'm assuming they still answer the phone with something along the lines of: >"Emergency, which service do you require?" If they now ask you to describe >the problem first, then that would need a very different approach.
On 20/11/2023 09:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
I was taught (many years ago) that if the situation you are reporting
requires the attendance of multiple services, then you call the one that
deals with the major issue. So if there's a fire, you call the fire service, >> and they in turn will alert the ambulance service and police if they think >> it's necessary (which they can generally determine on the basis of their
conversation with you).
?????
You ring one person only, irrespective of the nature of the emergency -
the 999 operator.
On 20 Nov 2023 22:48:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Nov 2023 at 21:44:27 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
The other thing I was taught is that if you do ever need to call theI'm assuming they still answer the phone with something along the lines of: >> "Emergency, which service do you require?" If they now ask you to describe >> the problem first, then that would need a very different approach.
emergency services, you start by stating the problem and the location, and >>> only then go into any secondary information. That may sound obvious, but a >>> lot of people are unnecessarily apologetic when making what is possibly a >>> borderline call, and feel the need to justify themselves before giving the >>> necessary details. That wastes valuable time, and can make it harder for the
call handler to get a good understanding of the situation. Once you've made >>> the decision to make the call, make it clearly and firmly. Leave the
background information until the call handler asks you for it. Which they >>> will. But only after they've dispatched the fire engine, ambulance or police
car. If it really turns out to be unnecessary they can always recall them. >>
The 999 call handler will ask you that. But they then put you through to the control centre of whichever service you ask for. That's the point at which you clearly and succinctly state the reason for the call.
Mark
On 21 Nov 2023 at 20:13:02 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 Nov 2023 22:48:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I'm assuming they still answer the phone with something along the
lines of: "Emergency, which service do you require?" If they now
ask you to describe the problem first, then that would need a very
different approach.
The 999 call handler will ask you that. But they then put you through
to the control centre of whichever service you ask for. That's the
point at which you clearly and succinctly state the reason for the call.
That is what I thought, and what made the response Mr Caruso received
from the original 999 operator so unreasonable.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 01:35:51 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 09:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
I was taught (many years ago) that if the situation you are reporting
requires the attendance of multiple services, then you call the one that >>> deals with the major issue. So if there's a fire, you call the fire service,
and they in turn will alert the ambulance service and police if they think >>> it's necessary (which they can generally determine on the basis of their >>> conversation with you).
?????
You ring one person only, irrespective of the nature of the emergency -
the 999 operator.
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 11:51:28 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 21:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 12:29:22 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
(I doubt that a biological woman would have been capable of stoking a
main line steam engine, unless fed with hormones like a Russian
weightlifter.)
I don't think it's necessarily that demanding. A lot of it is about skill >>> and stamina rather than brute force, and women who work in agriculture will >>> be familiar with doing a hard, manual job. It's more about culture than
anything else.
The fireman has to shovel literally tons of coal into the firebox. I've
heard that he only becomes a driver when he is too knackered to do the job.
That's not true in reality, although I suspect it may well be a
long-standing railway in-joke.
The traditional footplate career path was always cleaner->fireman->driver, with everybody starting off doing the most basic and menial work and then progressing through to firing and then driving. But what that meant was that all drivers had once been firemen - firing wasn't a job reserved for the strongest and fittest, it was something they all did. Firing was hard physical labour in a way that driving wasn't, but it wasn't so hard that
only a subset of recruits would be capable of doing it. Any fit and healthy adult, male or female, should normally be capable of the workload involved
in firing a steam locomotive.
On 2023-11-21, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 20:13:02 GMT, "Mark Goodge" >><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 20 Nov 2023 22:48:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I'm assuming they still answer the phone with something along the
lines of: "Emergency, which service do you require?" If they now
ask you to describe the problem first, then that would need a very
different approach.
The 999 call handler will ask you that. But they then put you through
to the control centre of whichever service you ask for. That's the
point at which you clearly and succinctly state the reason for the call.
That is what I thought, and what made the response Mr Caruso received
from the original 999 operator so unreasonable.
... and also what makes the suggestion that the operator understood
what service was required but decided to delay things by lecturing
him on the correct terminology so implausible.
On 20/11/2023 21:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 19 Nov 2023 12:29:22 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:59, Mark Goodge wrote:No, that would be a step too far :-)
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:15:44 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:47, Iain wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message: >>>>>
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering somebody. >>>>>>
What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
engines, I wonder?
It's been "firefighters" for many years. So we realise they aren't there >>>>> to make fire, like the firemen on steam engines.
Is there a gender-neutral term for the person who shovels the coal on a >>>> steam locomotive these days? I suppose we could always adopt the American >>>> term of "stoker".
And call the driver an "engineer"?
I think that both sets of terminology are half right and half wrong.
It
seems clear to me that "driver" is a better term for the person who is in
charge of the controls, not "engineer", because what they are doing is
driving, not engineering. But "stoker" is a better term for the person who >> shovels the coal, because "fireman" means completely the opposite in a
different context.
(I doubt that a biological woman would have been capable of stokingI don't think it's necessarily that demanding. A lot of it is about
main line steam engine, unless fed with hormones like a Russian
weightlifter.)
skill
and stamina rather than brute force, and women who work in agriculture will >> be familiar with doing a hard, manual job. It's more about culture than
anything else.
The fireman has to shovel literally tons of coal into the firebox. I've
heard that he only becomes a driver when he is too knackered to do the
job.
(Engine driver used to be what every working class boy aspired to be
(apart from a professional footballer). Kids these days!)
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 01:35:51 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 09:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
I was taught (many years ago) that if the situation you are reporting
requires the attendance of multiple services, then you call the one that >>> deals with the major issue. So if there's a fire, you call the fire service,
and they in turn will alert the ambulance service and police if they think >>> it's necessary (which they can generally determine on the basis of their >>> conversation with you).
?????
You ring one person only, irrespective of the nature of the emergency -
the 999 operator.
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
In message <rq3qli98lfqu21j9jttasnp6k02methq89@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 01:35:51 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 09:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
I was taught (many years ago) that if the situation you are reporting
requires the attendance of multiple services, then you call the one that >>>> deals with the major issue. So if there's a fire, you call the fire
service, and they in turn will alert the ambulance service and
police if they think it's necessary (which they can generally
determine on the basis of their conversation with you).
?????
You ring one person only, irrespective of the nature of the emergency - >>>the 999 operator.
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >>only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
Why should you only get to make one choice?
On 21/11/2023 20:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
The traditional footplate career path was always cleaner->fireman->driver, >> with everybody starting off doing the most basic and menial work and then
progressing through to firing and then driving. But what that meant was that >> all drivers had once been firemen - firing wasn't a job reserved for the
strongest and fittest, it was something they all did. Firing was hard
physical labour in a way that driving wasn't, but it wasn't so hard that
only a subset of recruits would be capable of doing it. Any fit and healthy >> adult, male or female, should normally be capable of the workload involved >> in firing a steam locomotive.
What did the "cleaner" do? Did he ride on the footplate?
I've heard that
they sometimes has a third man there to open and close the firebox doors
as the fireman shovelled in the coal.
On 21/11/2023 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can
only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
What if it is obvious that more than one, perhaps all three are
required? If it's necessary for the first one to ask for the other two
that could cause a delay.
On 2023-11-22, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <rq3qli98lfqu21j9jttasnp6k02methq89@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge >><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 01:35:51 +0000, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/11/2023 09:44 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
I was taught (many years ago) that if the situation you are reporting >>>>> requires the attendance of multiple services, then you call the one that >>>>> deals with the major issue. So if there's a fire, you call the fire
service, and they in turn will alert the ambulance service and
police if they think it's necessary (which they can generally
determine on the basis of their conversation with you).
?????
You ring one person only, irrespective of the nature of the emergency - >>>>the 999 operator.
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >>>only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
Why should you only get to make one choice?
Eh? What are you suggesting? That the operator says "What service do you >require?" and you say "fire *and* police" and the operator would, what, >instantly set up a conference call between you, the fire brigade, and
the police? That sounds, um, suboptimal.
Or do you mean you dial 999, ask for one service, talk to them, and then
dial 999 again and ask for a different service? You can of course do that, >but you still have to decide which one to ask for first. And since you'll >have to go through the whole description of everything that's happening
all over again, it's probably best to let the services call each other if >necessary, as Mark described.
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2023 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >> only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
What if it is obvious that more than one, perhaps all three are
required? If it's necessary for the first one to ask for the other two
that could cause a delay.
The system isn't designed to do conference calls. You have to pick one of them to talk to.
In message <slrnuls7uo.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
On 2023-11-22, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Why should you only get to make one choice?
Eh? What are you suggesting? That the operator says "What service do you >>require?" and you say "fire *and* police" and the operator would, what, >>instantly set up a conference call between you, the fire brigade, and
the police? That sounds, um, suboptimal.
Or do you mean you dial 999, ask for one service, talk to them, and then >>dial 999 again and ask for a different service? You can of course do that, >>but you still have to decide which one to ask for first. And since you'll >>have to go through the whole description of everything that's happening
all over again, it's probably best to let the services call each other if >>necessary, as Mark described.
Would a likely scenario not be for the 999 operator to put you through
to one service, but keep you on the line and quickly alert the other
that they also have a customer who needs to talk to them?
In message <uji5jv$qihk$1@dont-email.me>, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
The fireman has to shovel literally tons of coal into the firebox.At typically £60k pa for a 4-day, 34(?) hour week, it's probably not a
I've heard that he only becomes a driver when he is too knackered to
do the job.
(Engine driver used to be what every working class boy aspired to be
(apart from a professional footballer). Kids these days!)
bad career move.
OK. I see an unknown man half in and half out of a first floor window of a block of
flats. Bystanders are busy videoing him on their phones. Which service do I ask for?
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2023 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >>> only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
What if it is obvious that more than one, perhaps all three are
required? If it's necessary for the first one to ask for the other two
that could cause a delay.
The system isn't designed to do conference calls. You have to pick one of them to talk to.
On 22/11/2023 16:00, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 21/11/2023 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >>>> only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
What if it is obvious that more than one, perhaps all three are
required? If it's necessary for the first one to ask for the other two
that could cause a delay.
The system isn't designed to do conference calls. You have to pick one of
them to talk to.
OK. I see an unknown man half in and half out of a first floor window of
a block of flats. Bystanders are busy videoing him on their phones.
Which service do I ask for?
Suppose you were strolling along a coastal clifftop, and spotted
some children being blown out to sea on a lilo, would you want
a lifeguard, the coastguard, the lifeboat, air-sea rescue ...?
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 4:03:16 PM UTC, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/11/2023 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >>>> only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
What if it is obvious that more than one, perhaps all three are
required? If it's necessary for the first one to ask for the other two
that could cause a delay.
The system isn't designed to do conference calls. You have to pick one of
them to talk to.
Suppose you were strolling along a coastal clifftop, and spotted
some children being blown out to sea on a lilo, would you want
a lifeguard, the coastguard, the lifeboat, air-sea rescue ...?
On 2023-11-22, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnuls7uo.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
On 2023-11-22, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Why should you only get to make one choice?
Eh? What are you suggesting? That the operator says "What service do you >>>require?" and you say "fire *and* police" and the operator would, what, >>>instantly set up a conference call between you, the fire brigade, and
the police? That sounds, um, suboptimal.
Or do you mean you dial 999, ask for one service, talk to them, and then >>>dial 999 again and ask for a different service? You can of course do that, >>>but you still have to decide which one to ask for first. And since you'll >>>have to go through the whole description of everything that's happening >>>all over again, it's probably best to let the services call each other if >>>necessary, as Mark described.
Would a likely scenario not be for the 999 operator to put you through
to one service, but keep you on the line and quickly alert the other
that they also have a customer who needs to talk to them?
Why would that be better? It's basically the second option above except
you don't have to dial 999 again and say a single word - which would
save almost no noticeable time, and still isn't obviously better than
"the services notify each other" as previously mentioned.
On 22/11/2023 16:00, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 21/11/2023 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >>>> only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
What if it is obvious that more than one, perhaps all three are
required? If it's necessary for the first one to ask for the other two
that could cause a delay.
The system isn't designed to do conference calls. You have to pick one of
them to talk to.
OK. I see an unknown man half in and half out of a first floor window of
a block of flats. Bystanders are busy videoing him on their phones.
Which service do I ask for?
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 23:17:18 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-11-22, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
In message <slrnuls7uo.660.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>, Jon
Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> writes
On 2023-11-22, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
Why should you only get to make one choice?
Eh? What are you suggesting? That the operator says "What service do >>>>you require?" and you say "fire *and* police" and the operator would, >>>>what, instantly set up a conference call between you, the fire
brigade, and the police? That sounds, um, suboptimal.
Or do you mean you dial 999, ask for one service, talk to them, and >>>>then dial 999 again and ask for a different service? You can of course >>>>do that,
but you still have to decide which one to ask for first. And since >>>>you'll have to go through the whole description of everything that's >>>>happening all over again, it's probably best to let the services call >>>>each other if necessary, as Mark described.
Would a likely scenario not be for the 999 operator to put you through
to one service, but keep you on the line and quickly alert the other
that they also have a customer who needs to talk to them?
Why would that be better? It's basically the second option above except
you don't have to dial 999 again and say a single word - which would
save almost no noticeable time, and still isn't obviously better than
"the services notify each other" as previously mentioned.
I would hope it comes as no surprise to anyone that multi-agency
coordination is one of the key responsibilities of the emergency
services. Because it isn't just the emergency services that need to get involved in a major incident. For example, a major road accident will
require the attendance of the ambulance service, the police, possibly
fire and rescue (if anyone is trapped in a vehicle), and the highway authority. A serious premises fire will require the fire service,
ambulance, police, possibly highways if it's affecting the highway, and
the utilities (particularly gas,
but possibly others as well) to attend.
It would just be silly to expect the person reporting the incident to
alert all of these, or even to know which of these need to be alerted.
So all of the emergency services have established procedures for communicating with each other and establishing a central control point
where necessary.
Mark
Lifeguards aren't an emergency service, they patrol the beaches and either help swimmers in distress themselves or, if necessary, call the coastguard.
I want to be wrong so badly on this, but I think this is not the case in
UK.
Am 23/11/2023 um 12:01 schrieb Mark Goodge:
Lifeguards aren't an emergency service, they patrol the beaches and either >> help swimmers in distress themselves or, if necessary, call the coastguard.
On a side note, American hams (= amateur radio operators) are considered >emergency services in USA. Not only do they have the right and the duty
to transmit on any frequencies, even outside the ham bands, to send a >distress message; they also have the legal duty to activate themselves
in case they pick a distress message.
I want to be wrong so badly on this, but I think this is not the case in
UK. There is a Raynet, but it looks more like of a joke to me, at least >compared to the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES).
The USA is somewhat different, being both less densely populated and
being well behind the UK and Europe in terms of mobile technology penetration. So there are large tracts of rural USA where older
technology is still the most practical form of distance communication.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:02:35 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
The USA is somewhat different, being both less densely populated and
being well behind the UK and Europe in terms of mobile technology
penetration. So there are large tracts of rural USA where older
technology is still the most practical form of distance communication.
My brother tells me pagers are still a thing.
On 24/11/2023 15:38, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:02:35 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
The USA is somewhat different, being both less densely populated and
being well behind the UK and Europe in terms of mobile technology
penetration. So there are large tracts of rural USA where older
technology is still the most practical form of distance communication.
My brother tells me pagers are still a thing.
yes there is only one pager network left which I think is PageOne that
runs over the Vodafone netowkr using 2g technology.  I can;t see it lasting for much longer as the roll out of 5g will want to reuse
frequencies from previous generations
yes there is only one pager network left which I think is PageOne that
runs over the Vodafone netowkr using 2g technology.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:24:58 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
I want to be wrong so badly on this, but I think this is not the case in
UK.
Why ! It's *almost* like we are different country ! Where they do things that suit their situation.
The UK is a small, densely populated and technologically advanced country where few people lack the ability to make an emergency call with their
phone.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:02:35 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
The USA is somewhat different, being both less densely populated and
being well behind the UK and Europe in terms of mobile technology
penetration. So there are large tracts of rural USA where older
technology is still the most practical form of distance communication.
My brother tells me pagers are still a thing.
Am 24/11/2023 um 13:02 schrieb Mark Goodge:
The UK is a small, densely populated and technologically advanced country
where few people lack the ability to make an emergency call with their
phone.
... but emergency services in UK are overwhelmed. Wouldn't it be in >everybody's interest to shift part of the burden to the so called >"community"? An earthquake, a landslide, a flood or a snow storm can
knock down repeaters and mobile masts.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 14:32:28 +0000, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Am 24/11/2023 um 13:02 schrieb Mark Goodge:
The UK is a small, densely populated and technologically advanced country >>> where few people lack the ability to make an emergency call with their
phone.
... but emergency services in UK are overwhelmed. Wouldn't it be in
everybody's interest to shift part of the burden to the so called
"community"? An earthquake, a landslide, a flood or a snow storm can
knock down repeaters and mobile masts.
However you make the call, it still has to go to one of the emergency services for a response. Having a different means of contacting them doesn't change that.
Mark
Am 24/11/2023 um 15:38 schrieb Jethro_uk:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:02:35 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:What is that supposed to mean? That amateur radio is obsolete? They used
The USA is somewhat different, being both less densely populated and
being well behind the UK and Europe in terms of mobile technology
penetration. So there are large tracts of rural USA where older
technology is still the most practical form of distance communication.
My brother tells me pagers are still a thing.
to say that in the 1920s.
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:40:29 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2023 20:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
Yes, but the 999 operator asks you which service you require, and you can >>> only choose one. So you need to make the right choice.
What if it is obvious that more than one, perhaps all three are
required? If it's necessary for the first one to ask for the other two
that could cause a delay.
The system isn't designed to do conference calls. You have to pick one of them to talk to.
Am 24/11/2023 um 13:02 schrieb Mark Goodge:
The UK is a small, densely populated and technologically advanced country
where few people lack the ability to make an emergency call with their
phone.
... but emergency services in UK are overwhelmed. Wouldn't it be in everybody's interest to shift part of the burden to the so called "community"? An earthquake, a landslide, a flood or a snow storm can
knock down repeaters and mobile masts.
It was only 7 years ago that a Bristol ham saved a girl's life in a
remote area with no mobile coverage:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/how-bristol-amateur-radio-enthusiast-364577
On 24 Nov 2023 at 23:24:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However you make the call, it still has to go to one of the emergency
services for a response. Having a different means of contacting them doesn't >> change that.
In situations where the standard comms are down ad hoc radio contacts between >different emergency services or between different teams of the same service in >the field may be beneficial. I am not sure how often this happens in this >country.
On 25 Nov 2023 00:07:29 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 23:24:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However you make the call, it still has to go to one of the emergency
services for a response. Having a different means of contacting them doesn't
change that.
In situations where the standard comms are down ad hoc radio contacts between
different emergency services or between different teams of the same service in
the field may be beneficial. I am not sure how often this happens in this
country.
It's extremely rare, particularly given that 999 calls will always roam onto any available network and will work over the lowest grade signal.
Mark
Am 24/11/2023 um 10:39 schrieb Jethro_uk:
[quoted text muted]
But I think it would be cool and useful. We might not have as many
hurricanes and tornados and wildfires but we have constant floods. There
are a lot of licenced hams here, most of them on a M6 or M7 (=
foundation)
licence wasted on dead FM frequencies.
On 18/11/2023 19:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2023 12:15:44 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 18/11/2023 05:47, Iain wrote:
Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/police-told-dont-say-policeman/
I wanted to add a comment but I am too afraid of misgendering
somebody.
Hmm - in the article it mentions Kent Fire and Rescue Services.
  What are we meant to call the people who work on the fire
  engines, I wonder?
It's been "firefighters" for many years. So we realise they aren't there >>> to make fire, like the firemen on steam engines.
Is there a gender-neutral term for the person who shovels the coal on a
steam locomotive these days? I suppose we could always adopt the American
term of "stoker".
And call the driver an "engineer"?
(I doubt that a biological woman would have been capable of stoking a
main line steam engine, unless fed with hormones like a Russian weightlifter.)
Now you're just being playful. The old fashioned attitude from the 1950s
and 1960s was that the "air hostess" was a good looking woman whose
purpose was to wait on the passengers, sell them drinks and fags, give a friendly smile at all times even when a passenger tried to grope them.
In fact, cabin crew's main purpose is to ensure the safety of passengers
in the event of an in-flight emergency or a crash.
Quite apart from the fact that many cabin crew are male, of course.
Am 24/11/2023 um 10:39 schrieb Jethro_uk:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:24:58 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
I want to be wrong so badly on this, but I think this is not the case in >>> UK.
Why ! It's *almost* like we are different country ! Where they do things
that suit their situation.
But I think it would be cool and useful. We might not have as many
hurricanes and tornados and wildfires but we have constant floods. There
are a lot of licenced hams here, most of them on a M6 or M7 (=
foundation) licence wasted on dead FM frequencies.
I tried to join Raynet back in the day. It was as difficult as joining
the French foreign legion. First you need to join the RSGB, then you
need to find a local RSGB club that is part of Raynet (good luck with
that) and join it, then become pals with whoever pulls the strings at
the club and have him recommend you for Raynet, then join Raynet.
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 16:35:26 +0000, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Am 24/11/2023 um 15:38 schrieb Jethro_uk:
On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 13:02:35 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:What is that supposed to mean? That amateur radio is obsolete? They used
The USA is somewhat different, being both less densely populated and
being well behind the UK and Europe in terms of mobile technology
penetration. So there are large tracts of rural USA where older
technology is still the most practical form of distance communication.
My brother tells me pagers are still a thing.
to say that in the 1920s.
It means *exactly* what it said. It makes no reference or judgement on
any other communications methods that you have imagined, and was merely mentioned to compare with the UK where pagers are usually seen in the
drawers on long standing managers.
On 25 Nov 2023 at 10:53:24 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 25 Nov 2023 00:07:29 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 24 Nov 2023 at 23:24:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
However you make the call, it still has to go to one of the emergency
services for a response. Having a different means of contacting them doesn't
change that.
In situations where the standard comms are down ad hoc radio contacts between
different emergency services or between different teams of the same service in
the field may be beneficial. I am not sure how often this happens in this >>> country.
It's extremely rare, particularly given that 999 calls will always roam onto >> any available network and will work over the lowest grade signal.
But the main point is not 999 calls, but coordination of response to >disasters. Neither is likely to be a problem in this country, but they are >totally different tasks.
On 22/11/2023 16:00, Mark Goodge wrote:
The system isn't designed to do conference calls. You have to pick one of
them to talk to.
An alternative arrangement would be for the 999 responder to ask the
caller what the problem is and decide which service(s) are required. But
I suspect that the responder is a telephone operator not a emergency expert.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:22:05 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 08:09 pm, The Todal wrote:
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public the >>> word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into
sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements especially if that is not
relevant to the current investigation.
In such circumstances, and at a minimum, the unmarried cohabitation
status of the person(s) involved will be known to the officer, otherwise
the issue does not arise.
If he or she is aware of the sex of the person being referenced, and
knows that the interviewee is married to that person, then "he" or "she"
is the only correct usage.
Remember that for many married people, being referred to as a "partner"
(with the implication that they are not married) is perceived as a
slight, if not an insult.
But in ordinary usage a husband or wife is regarded as subset of partners, and
I don't think this implication really exists.
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:22:05 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 08:09 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, >>>>> boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in particular a >>>> member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones Solicitors >>>> LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably >>>> doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
Yes, a point I made earlier.
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public the >>> word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into
sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements especially if that is not
relevant to the current investigation.
In such circumstances, and at a minimum, the unmarried cohabitation
status of the person(s) involved will be known to the officer, otherwise
the issue does not arise.
If he or she is aware of the sex of the person being referenced, and
knows that the interviewee is married to that person, then "he" or "she"
is the only correct usage.
Remember that for many married people, being referred to as a "partner"
(with the implication that they are not married) is perceived as a
slight, if not an insult.
But in ordinary usage a husband or wife is regarded as subset of partners, and
I don't think this implication really exists.
On 19/11/2023 12:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Nov 2023 at 12:22:05 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/11/2023 08:09 pm, The Todal wrote:
On 18/11/2023 19:46, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It's sensible to say "partner" instead of wife, husband, girlfriend, >>>>>> boyfriend. It avoids sounding judgmental about whether someone is
married or not, or jumping to conclusions about whether they are
heterosexual or not.
Except that "partner" also means a business partner, and in
particular a
member of a partnership. So when John Smith of Smith and Jones
Solicitors
LLP introduces someone as "This is Alun Jones, my partner" he probably >>>>> doesn't mean a romantic relationship.
Yes, a point I made earlier.
However, you can introduce your fuck-buddy in whatever language you
like, but if a police officer is interviewing a member of the public
the
word "partner" is neutral and does not imply an intrusive inquiry into >>>> sexual orientation and bedroom arrangements especially if that is not
relevant to the current investigation.
In such circumstances, and at a minimum, the unmarried cohabitation
status of the person(s) involved will be known to the officer, otherwise >>> the issue does not arise.
If he or she is aware of the sex of the person being referenced, and
knows that the interviewee is married to that person, then "he" or "she" >>> is the only correct usage.
Remember that for many married people, being referred to as a "partner"
(with the implication that they are not married) is perceived as a
slight, if not an insult.
But in ordinary usage a husband or wife is regarded as subset of
partners, and
I don't think this implication really exists.
Other "subsets" include "live in girl/boyfriend" "mistress", "fancy
man", "friend with benefits", "one night stand who has overstayed
his/her welcome"...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:21:48 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,353,838 |