MoD language guide

enpointe

Old-Salt
Can I suggest you look back over this last page and see Sarastro and Gravelbelly having a sensible discussion/debate/argument? The fact that they are willing to engage with each other gives them a reasonable chance of changing the other's mind and the minds of people reading.

Then you come in, chuck around accusations of supporting fascism and genocide while sprinkling 'dumb' icons like confetti and wonder why no one takes you seriously. Do you understand that by making your points in such a hyperbolic way that you are actively turning people away from the ideals you want to promote? It's the equivalent of a child having a tantrum; stamping your feet and squealing doesn't help.
your utter ignorance is marked

 
Can I suggest you look back over this last page and see Sarastro and Gravelbelly having a sensible discussion/debate/argument? The fact that they are willing to engage with each other gives them a reasonable chance of changing the other's mind and the minds of people reading.

Then you come in, chuck around accusations of supporting fascism and genocide while sprinkling 'dumb' icons like confetti and wonder why no one takes you seriously. Do you understand that by making your points in such a hyperbolic way that you are actively turning people away from the ideals you want to promote? It's the equivalent of a child having a tantrum; stamping your feet and squealing doesn't help.
Don't tell him your name David! Oops, sorry.
 
If working in Abbeywood, it’s generally best to just say nothing to anybody except when you have to for a work purpose, then use only brief technical terms. Otherwise, head down and do nothing that could remotely offend somebody, somewhere, somehow and 5en go home. Spend evening fortifying yourself for the next day, sleep and repeat.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

StormsInAfrica

War Hero
If working in Abbeywood, it’s generally best to just say nothing to anybody except when you have to for a work purpose, then use only brief technical terms. Otherwise, head down and do nothing that could remotely offend somebody, somewhere, somehow and 5en go home. Spend evening fortifying yourself for the next day, sleep and repeat.

I see you've some recent lived experience!
 

Glad_its_all_over

ADC
Book Reviewer
I am thoroughly enjoying the debate and am far better informed than I was. Shabash Messrs @Gravelbelly and @Sarastro for a courteous, measured and illuminating exchange.

Where I find myself, though, is in the 'meh' camp. Even working for an intensely 'woke' organisation, as I do, this isn't, really, something I need to worry about overmuch, provided I continue to treat colleagues with respect and courtesy and observe any reasonable requirements they might have in re terms of address and the like. It does me no harm and, if it makes folk happier, why not.

It is slighly odd that our entire society is finding itself and its use of language policed and constrained by the opinions of, what, a few thousand, a few tens of thousands, activists with a specific agenda and it might be worth considering two things:

  • You can't change opinion or sentiment through enforcement, only through argument and persuasion. It's possible to change expression of same through speech or behaviour, but the underlying opinion or prejudice remains.
  • Exclusion of issues from public debate means that discussion of them will proceed, unchallenged, in private debate and sometimes unhelpful or destructive views will emerge from this.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I am thoroughly enjoying the debate and am far better informed than I was. Shabash Messrs @Gravelbelly and @Sarastro for a courteous, measured and illuminating exchange.

Where I find myself, though, is in the 'meh' camp. Even working for an intensely 'woke' organisation, as I do, this isn't, really, something I need to worry about overmuch, provided I continue to treat colleagues with respect and courtesy and observe any reasonable requirements they might have in re terms of address and the like. It does me no harm and, if it makes folk happier, why not.

It is slighly odd that our entire society is finding itself and its use of language policed and constrained by the opinions of, what, a few thousand, a few tens of thousands, activists with a specific agenda and it might be worth considering two things:

  • You can't change opinion or sentiment through enforcement, only through argument and persuasion. It's possible to change expression of same through speech or behaviour, but the underlying opinion or prejudice remains.
  • Exclusion of issues from public debate means that discussion of them will proceed, unchallenged, in private debate and sometimes unhelpful or destructive views will emerge from this.
I'd further recommend listening to the Nolan Investigates podcast into Stonewall's activism and lobbying released this week, long (10 episodes) but they have done some sterling work. Purely on questions about public & government accountability in the UK it is an important and often shocking investigation.

If you've found this interesting and have a regular podcast slot in your schedule, well worth the effort:


Brought to you by that well known fascist / far-right outlet, the BBC.
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
I'd further recommend listening to the Nolan Investigates podcast into Stonewall's activism and lobbying released this week, long (10 episodes) but they have done some sterling work. Purely on questions about public & government accountability in the UK it is an important and often shocking investigation.

If you've found this interesting and have a regular podcast slot in your schedule, well worth the effort:


Brought to you by that well known fascist / far-right outlet, the BBC.
the BBC are currently engaged in an attempt to appease the current Selfservative and Fascist regime in No 120
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
Can you please explain why that declaration (linked below for all) is "Genocidal"?

removal of legal recognition of personhood
removal of right to access clinically necessary and evidence based healthcare
removal of right of access to all healthcare
removal of access to employment, education and basic everyday activities of living

Shield Jeffreys has repeated stated that transgenderism must be morally mandated out of existence and that trans people should not be recognised as humans

the fact that there is no such thing as Sex based right , as the UK along with the developed world removed those between the end of WW1 and the turn of the millenium , the the majority of scuhc removals being i nthe 1960s and 1970s via the Equal pay act , the Sex Discrimination act and changes in finanacial regulation which allowed women to get credit in their own names independent of their father or husband

 

enpointe

Old-Salt
I am thoroughly enjoying the debate and am far better informed than I was. Shabash Messrs @Gravelbelly and @Sarastro for a courteous, measured and illuminating exchange.

Where I find myself, though, is in the 'meh' camp. Even working for an intensely 'woke' organisation, as I do, this isn't, really, something I need to worry about overmuch, provided I continue to treat colleagues with respect and courtesy and observe any reasonable requirements they might have in re terms of address and the like. It does me no harm and, if it makes folk happier, why not.

It is slighly odd that our entire society is finding itself and its use of language policed and constrained by the opinions of, what, a few thousand, a few tens of thousands, activists with a specific agenda and it might be worth considering two things:

  • You can't change opinion or sentiment through enforcement, only through argument and persuasion. It's possible to change expression of same through speech or behaviour, but the underlying opinion or prejudice remains.
  • Exclusion of issues from public debate means that discussion of them will proceed, unchallenged, in private debate and sometimes unhelpful or destructive views will emerge from this.
ignoring that the se topics were done, debates and put to bed in 1995, 2004 and 2010 , until the XRW and the Christian Right along with the Child abuse Cult of Rome 'lost' on equal Marriage in the mid 2010s so had to open a new front to attack women's rights and ensure the elimination of LGBTQ+ people
 
I see you've some recent lived experience!
Sadly so. I have been away from there for a few years now on other MoD projects but the atmosphere was a lot different by time I left from when I started there.

It’s crazy really, as it doesn’t have to be stupidly fluffy and full of this “tear down the institutions and start again” nonsense to be inclusive.

Equality of opportunity is all we really need. Society instead seems obsessed with somehow enforcing equality of outcomes, which requires active and massive discrimination to enact.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
removal of legal recognition of personhood
removal of right to access clinically necessary and evidence based healthcare
removal of right of access to all healthcare
removal of access to employment, education and basic everyday activities of living

Shield Jeffreys has repeated stated that transgenderism must be morally mandated out of existence and that trans people should not be recognised as humans

the fact that there is no such thing as Sex based right , as the UK along with the developed world removed those between the end of WW1 and the turn of the millenium , the the majority of scuhc removals being i nthe 1960s and 1970s via the Equal pay act , the Sex Discrimination act and changes in finanacial regulation which allowed women to get credit in their own names independent of their father or husband

This is remarkable for directly contradicting your own claims.

First, everyone can read the document and see it asks for no such things as you claim. Please point to (quote) where it asks for the removals you say.

Second, please quote and source/link what you claim about Jeffrey's.

Third, sex-based rights clearly exist, because they are defined in the same document and section you were quoting earlier. They are negative rights (i.e. freedom from, such as freedom from discrimination) rather than positive rights (i.e. freedom to, such as right to life) which, you are on this correct, tend to be human rather than group-specific.

But group-specific negative rights are all those defined as "protected characteristics" in the Equality Act Section 7 you kept referring to earlier. One of those characteristics is: sex. The rest of the act outlines places where a specific sex is protected from discrimination, in the same way it does for "gender reassignment".

So by denying that any sex-based rights exist, you similarly deny the legal rationale that guarantees trans rights, which you enthusiastically referenced earlier.

You don't understand what you are discussing.
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
You don't understand what you are discussing.
that is abundantly clear, that you have no clue what so ever

you are an abusive, wilfully ignorant liar.

you are incredibly boring in your ignorance and wilful hatred.

you have actively promoted people who have been proven to be absurd, wrong in law and who have faced or are facing Criminal sanction for their actions
 
Last edited:

TamH70

MIA
that is abundantly clear, that you have no clue what so ever

you are an abusive , wilfully ignorant liar.

you are incredibly boring in your ignorance and wilful hatred.

you have actively promoted people who have bene proven to be absurd, wrong in law and who have faced or are facing Criminal sanction for their actions

Argh! If you are going to continue to post stuff like that, please use correct spelling and punctuation.
Use an extension like Grammarly if you are using a desktop-based web browser, and that'll help you a lot.
 
that is abundantly clear, that you have no clue what so ever

you are an abusive , wilfully ignorant liar.

you are incredibly boring in your ignorance and wilful hatred.

you have actively promoted people who have bene proven to be absurd, wrong in law and who have faced or are facing Criminal sanction for their actions
Does anyone else see a certain irony in this post, given the matter under discussion?

Sarastro, Gravelbelly, thank you. This has been thoroughly interesting to follow.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
that is abundantly clear, that you have no clue what so ever

you are an abusive , wilfully ignorant liar.

you are incredibly boring in your ignorance and wilful hatred.

you have actively promoted people who have bene proven to be absurd, wrong in law and who have faced or are facing Criminal sanction for their actions
Acknowledged.

I'm now going to follow my own rule and stop talking to you, as you are quite clearly not capable of anything like the best form of the argument.
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
Argh! If you are going to continue to post stuff like that, please use correct spelling and punctuation.
Use an extension like Grammarly if you are using a desktop-based web browser, and that'll help you a lot.
ah SPaG flaming, the last resort of the Desperate when they know they cannot actually address the points that have been raised , so think that by SPaG flaming they are not engaging in Ad hominem
 

StormsInAfrica

War Hero
Sadly so. I have been away from there for a few years now on other MoD projects but the atmosphere was a lot different by time I left from when I started there.

It’s crazy really, as it doesn’t have to be stupidly fluffy and full of this “tear down the institutions and start again” nonsense to be inclusive.

Equality of opportunity is all we really need. Society instead seems obsessed with somehow enforcing equality of outcomes, which requires active and massive discrimination to enact.

If it doesn't directly further the goal of capability to the front line (cos that's what the taxpayer pay me to do) i'm not interested and have so far managed to avoid anything not "mandatory". I couldn't care less what your gender is or how you identify - that's your business and doesn't even need to enter into the conversation in a professional environment - now how's that ITEAP coming along?

What I would call "top down" E&D stuff comes very much from the upper echelons: the majority in my team just don't bother their arrse.

We've only had a single incidence of a member of the perpetually offended being introduced to our ranks: removed reasonably swiftly on (wholly justifiable) performance grounds.

I would wager though, if I pinged an email a week to my management informing them that i'd like to take one day per week to attend "diversity course X" not one of them would feel able to say "no, that's taking the piss - we cannot afford you being unproductive (for that is what it is) for 4 days in the month".

I could even write it into my PAR objectives for teflon top cover.
 

Latest Threads

Top