History is Bunk.... Insulting!

[A friend]

To all who witnessed Kelly Wade-Johnson being humiliated last night at the debate and did absolutely nothing to defend her you should be ashamed. Some of you call her your friend and you just sat by while she was personally insulted. If it had been any of the board of 10 about whom that was being said there would have been uproar! You wonder why not many people turn up to debates and its because you enforce all the stereotypes and preconceptions people have before they arrive. Last night you did nothing to stop those preconceptions being enforced!!

[lexicon]

Quoting A friend from 00:38, 20th Mar 2007
To all who witnessed Kelly Wade-Johnson being humiliated last night at the debate and did absolutely nothing to defend her you should be ashamed. Some of you call her your friend and you just sat by while she was personally insulted. If it had been any of the board of 10 about whom that was being said there would have been uproar! You wonder why not many people turn up to debates and its because you enforce all the stereotypes and preconceptions people have before they arrive. Last night you did nothing to stop those preconceptions being enforced!!

What was said, or is it not repeatable?

[Connie]

I made a speech as soon as I could catch Rachael's eye saying how insulting the comment was, and members of the board spoke to the speaker afterwards telling him we all expected an apology to be given.

I don't think any of us expected the speaker's speech to be as insulting when he started and it was too late to stop him speaking by the time we realised how insulted Kelly was.

As a member of the board of ten (for 2 more days) I want to apologise on behalf of all of us for what happened, ideally one of us would have noticed quicker and raised a point of order, although I hope the speech I made afterwards went at least some way to trying to balance the situation.

--Connie

[BenEsq]

We could ban him from cake, for a week

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[Dickie]

Am I the only person who thinks that no insults were directed at Miss Wade-Johnson?

From what I heard Mr Cahn was the one who was being insulted. Indeed I think the Mr Watson's argument was about the unexplainable. The example was how Mr Cahn had shuch a "well fit" girlfriend, or any girlfriend at all.

Miss Wade-Johnson took this as a personal attack apon herself. That is unforunate. I think it was only her taste in men (Mr Cahn) that was being questioned.

I do not like hearing people mutter, if they are personaly offended then a point of personal privalage is in order.

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Quoting Dickie from 12:45, 20th Mar 2007
Am I the only person who thinks that no insults were directed at Miss Wade-Johnson?

From what I heard Mr Cahn was the one who was being insulted. Indeed I think the Mr Watson's argument was about the unexplainable. The example was how Mr Cahn had shuch a "well fit" girlfriend, or any girlfriend at all.

Miss Wade-Johnson took this as a personal attack apon herself. That is unforunate. I think it was only her taste in men (Mr Cahn) that was being questioned.

I do not like hearing people mutter, if they are personaly offended then a point of personal privalage is in order.

[hr]

http://facebook.com/p.php?id=37106107&l=217e435e0a

I think the original intention of the argument is irrelevant, that Kelly was so offended by it is the far bigger issue.

I would have liked to apologise to Kelly (I certainly apologised to Tom) but I don't think she would have heard me out - which she's definitely entitled to do; she probably thinks I'm a complete asshole, which she's probably correct in as well.

I hope those who know me will understand that that wasn't the way in which the speech was meant, and I was deeply upset to see Kelly so wounded by it.

I guess I've just become a thoughtless, insensitive bastard. In 4 weeks I'll be gone though, and you can all be rid of me.

If Kelly would like me to apologise to her, I of course shall - but, as I say earlier, she's entitled not to accept it.

[hr]

Mmmmmmm, cake.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102114

[Mr Comedy]

Or indeed, a point of order.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[exnihilo]

Sorry, but I disagree, the intention does matter. If I said I didn't like angora jumpers and someone got all het up about it and accused me of being an insensitive bastard that would be ludicrous. If Dickie's characterisation of events is right, then the unreg OP is over-reacting wildly and it's quite possible (as so often is the case) some people need a sense of humour and thicker skins. Obviously I wasn't there, but it won't be the first or the last time someone bridles over a nothing of a comment in LPH and I simply do not countenance this notion that we should all tiptoe around everyone's precious feelings and never stray from the anodyne for fear of upsetting someone. People need to realise that sometimes other people will upset or insult them, that's life.

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

Well, the board of ten seemed to feel it was out of order... and they've been doing this long enough to know where the line lies far better than I.

In any case, it's a speech I'm sorry I made.

[hr]

Mmmmmmm, cake.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37102114

[Lid]

If it was out of order, why did someone not call the order of the speech into question?

Kelly did rise in your speech, Will, but she did not seek to raise a point of order or indeed personal privilege - and if she was really that insulted, I can't for a moment understand why.

[hr]

Mathematical Anti Telharsic Harfatum Septomin

[kdc4]

I have no real desire to reflect at length on last night's events. I know that nearly all who were present, the speaker included, deeply regret what occurred and the offence caused to both parties involved.

The salacious description of the presumed content of their relationship was wholly unnecessary and gratuitously offensive. I will not publish a verbatim account, but allow me assure those members absent that an observation of Miss Wade-Johnson's fitness was NOT the extent of its substance.

Yes, a point should have been raised, preferably by those who know 'where the line lies'; the Board of Ten have overall responsibility for the conduct of the House, the preservation of the society's image, and the enjoyment of its members. Placing the onus entirely on the aggrieved parties to rise in their own defence suggests that THEY are the ones truly at fault- that THEIR outrage is simply the result of a deficiency of humour- that the society finds such despicable conduct acceptable and amusing, if only THEY hadn’t rocked the boat and upset everyone’s fun with their prudishness.

As I walked away from the debate, I heard numerous attendees chatting amongst themselves about the proceedings. The substance of the motion and debate had been drowned out in the ensuing conversation, with more experienced debaters apologising profusely and explaining, ‘It’s usually not so insulting’ to infrequent guests and first-time attendees, many of whom were appalled, and few of whom, I venture, will be anxious to return, lest they see their friends, or themselves, become cannon-fodder for the House’s humour.

Such comments are contrary to both the standing orders and the values of the House.

[Al]

But the problem - as other people have written above - is that ignoring the intent in favour of the result could open up a can of worms. There are people who are very ready to be offended. That might not be the case in this instance, but it could be the next time. No one wants people leaving feeling humiliated and offended, but if someone causes offence by saying something innocently or in jest then surely that is better than having a situation where people are afraid to say anything much at all.

[kdc4]

I don't believe that the speaker intended to cause injury, and I certainly don't judge him as a person- I've said more than my fair share of comments that I later regreted.

It is perfectly conceivable, however, that someone could, legimitately, take offense at remarks that were not intended to injure.

I do not wish to claim that everyone who takes offense has just cause. I am suggesting that, in this instance, offense was justly taken and that I, or another member, should have made a point of order and kept the debate in line. Ideally, a point in time might have allowed for a speedy retraction, thereby preserving the esteem of the House and its members.

The removal of personal smears does not detract from meaningful debate.

[exnihilo]

It could, however, demonstrate that the Convenor has neither feel for nor control of the House.

If it is a question of an audience who need kid glove treatment or a Board member to champion them then the whole point is long lost.

This hand wringing is, frankly sad, and not the Society it should and deserves to be.

[kdc4]

The failure to intervene was a collective failure.

In stating my position, I am not attempting to hand-wring or coddle. I am merely suggesting that the society should publicly divorce itself from gratuitously offensive remarks.

[exnihilo]

At the risk of looking like I'm taking this to extremes, should it? Does not the Convenor swear an oath to uphold free speech? If the Society establishes a position whereby it rules categories of remark unacceptable, that is a dangerous precedent. If, on the other hand, the Convenor disallows or rules out of order remarks which are gratuitously aimed at a person or group of persons, that's another thing entirely.

[I wuz ther]

Quoting lexicon from 11:07, 20th Mar 2007
What was said, or is it not repeatable?

it went something like this:

"there are many inexplicable things...
like Mr Cahn having a girlfriend and she is well fit by the way. He must have some hidden talents like a 10" tongue ..."

I do not see the insult unsless it is directed at Mr Cahn or his girlfiends choice in parner.

[Guest]

How was making a personal comment about Kelly's sex life relevant to the debate?! Yes I understand it was about the 'unexplainable' but there are far better and far more appropriate analogies than the one which was given. I think a lot of people have to realise that Kelly was very upset and the person that said those things should have imagined somebody standing up and saying very personal things about him. I’d give a vicious example if it wasn’t lowering myself.

[Guest]

For perhaps the first time exnihilo, I agree with you on one point. I think its a bit harsh to say the Convener should have had more of a feel for what was going on, I was at the debate and really didn't see what was so hugely offensive in what was said, a bit distasteful maybe, but nothing that should have got an extreme reaction. For all the Convener knew, the person wasn't upset at all, it was only after the debate when people were talking that I even worked out what was supposed to be offensive. I agree with the second point that exnihilo made, this hand wringing must stop. It was said, maybe overreacted to (if it's that upsetting then stand up and ask the person to stop) and apologised for. There's nothing more anyone can do now, except, without meaning to sound too harsh, just move on.

[Mr Comedy]

Quoting I wuz ther from 11:39, 20th Mar 2007

it went something like this:

"there are many inexplicable things...
like Mr Cahn having a girlfriend and she is well fit by the way. He must have some hidden talents like a 10" tongue ..."

I do not see the insult unsless it is directed at Mr Cahn or his girlfiends choice in parner.

This sounds suspiciously like a compliment!

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung