|
Post by auntieannie on Dec 24, 2011 13:03:28 GMT
this time it's not I didn't understand, it's that i mistranslated an expression: I told my friends "like an elephant in a glass shop" which is the french version of an expression that escapes me ("rhino in a crockery shop?"). They thought it was very funny.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Dec 24, 2011 14:20:36 GMT
Hahahahahaha! I remember seeing a video once on the news of an actual bull in a china shop.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Dec 24, 2011 15:43:43 GMT
aaaah! thanks, imec! that's the one I was looking for. a bull in a china shop.
|
|
|
Post by imec on Dec 24, 2011 16:57:04 GMT
But what would really happen???
This one is really rather educational...
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Dec 26, 2011 23:05:24 GMT
I read this in a wikipedia article today --
Because of his boss-eye and colourful language, the bandit's head was brought to the town and put on public display for a number of days.
Boss-eye??!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 18:58:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jan 21, 2012 14:52:36 GMT
I read this in a wikipedia article today -- Because of his boss-eye and colourful language, the bandit's head was brought to the town and put on public display for a number of days.Boss-eye??! What about the rest of his body?
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jan 23, 2012 0:03:44 GMT
Buried? I dunno & I still dunno what "boss-eye" means.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2012 21:09:32 GMT
I found this:
Meaning Cross-eyed or squinty. Origin This first appears in the 19th century. It is defined in John Camden Hotten's The Slang Dictionary, 1869 as:
"Boss-eyed - a person with one eye, or rather with one eye injured".
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Feb 3, 2012 17:50:39 GMT
Wow -- I can't believe you actually found a definition!
So that would mean that Popeye is "boss-eyed", right?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on Feb 3, 2012 18:05:38 GMT
maybe it meant the guy had one glass eye?
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Feb 20, 2012 22:18:24 GMT
Wow -- I can't believe you actually found a definition! So that would mean that Popeye is "boss-eyed", right? Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 13:38:46 GMT
The transatlantic language divide has left me perplexed. I do not understand this use of the word "grooming."
headline:
in the article:
Good grooming is considered to be a quality in North America. I think that this grooming sounds bad, though. What are these men doing?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 11, 2012 13:42:10 GMT
Legal definition of grooming -
"Section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence for an adult who has established contact with a child on at least two occasions to meet, or travel with the intention of meeting a child, with intent to commit a sexual offence against that child. The offence is punishable by up to ten years imprisonment."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 13:43:23 GMT
And here I thought they just wanted to brush their hair!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 15:34:52 GMT
Don't you just love it when all 'Asians' are put into one nice tidy group. So real, honest and accurate. (not).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2012 16:54:29 GMT
I only read the article because I didn't understand the word 'grooming.' But I did think it made some rather disgusting generalisations. I really hate the word 'Asian' as a catch-all term. They could at least say 'East Asian' 'West Asian' 'Southeast Asian' or whatever to at least reveal what they are talking about ahead of time. I cannot for the life of me understand what people thought was offensive about the term 'oriental' although it was too general as well. Anyway, here is the article about grooming: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/asian-grooming-why-we-need-to-talk-about-sex-7734712.html
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 11, 2012 19:56:52 GMT
Uh-oh.
But I have to ask, who are these girls? Would they have become prostitutes anyway? It's a choice they make. We all have choices to make in this life, we all have to decide for ourselves what we will and will not do. Maybe these girls just don't have (or were never brought up with) some kind of moralist back-bone? Perhaps they honestly think this would be an easy way to make money? All of this has to be looked into.
Maybe they were 'asking for it'? Dressed provocatively, looking older than their years? Certainly I can see that aged 13, plied with and pressurised into taking alcohol and drugs, overwhelmed by the attention paid to them and - that if they'd said "No" - the men would have just said, oops, sorry, you can go home now. Certainly a realistic scenario.
FFS.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on May 11, 2012 21:13:16 GMT
You must have overlooked this, Deyana: Eight men of Pakistani heritage, and an Afghan, were were convicted at Liverpool Crown Court this week of offences including four rapes, 11 charges of conspiracy to engage children in sexual activity and six of trafficking children for sexual exploitation.
And this: Any girl who is unprotected can be targeted. It's not racist; it's opportunistic. They are usually girls from damaged or dysfunctional backgrounds, who are out on the streets at all hours."
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on May 11, 2012 21:41:16 GMT
We agree it is men (and women) of ALL races, creed, etc... that commit these crimes. and I agree with your last paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on May 11, 2012 21:49:15 GMT
The first crime against these children is the negligence of their parents or legal guardians. If these children were loved and safe and able to call where they live "home"... They wouldn't be at risk of on-street grooming.
But maybe the above debate needs to be in its own thread?
|
|
|
Post by auntieannie on May 11, 2012 22:52:45 GMT
Unfortunately, the whole dynamic of "grooming" a child or a vulnerable adult into prostitution is that the abusers trick them into thinking they have no other choice. They are emotionally abusing them first.
And from other less positive articles I have read on the question, it looks like these children (I say children as they are under the age of 16 and so whether they agree or not to sexual intercourse, it is statutory rape) are actually physically raped if they say no to sexual intercourse with these men - whatever their background.
As for how to help these children away from possible grooming... It is not easy. It requires lots of social work and policing. First, they need to be identified as "at risk" then serious support must be given to the whole family - as the issue first lays in the families that aren't taking care of their own. And if the familial environment is part of the problem (an overwhelming majority of abuse - be it physical, emotional, sexual or neglect) happens within the family, then enquiries into foster care and similar solutions destined to separate the child from its parents/legal representatives must be held. And obviously the main aim is to support the child throughout this ordeal. Now this obviously takes enormous amounts of money and time and skilled people. You cannot put a social worker into the lives of each family that allows a child outside the home after 8PM. Because we're not in an ideal world.
oops! looks like I was listening at the safeguarding workshop!
|
|
|
Post by lugg on May 12, 2012 4:50:58 GMT
Taking the debate back to the meaning of the term " grooming" it is important to understand that groomng is a complex process and it would be a mistake to equate the term just with the type of grooming that featured in the sexual exploitation and trafficking of extremely vulnerable young girls and women (13 yrs plus) as reported in the Rochdale case.
Grooming applies to all types of child sexual abuse and basically it is the means that a perpetator will use to reduce the resistance of and de-sensitise the child and sometimes the parents and carers in order to target, access and then sexually abuse children.
Grooming can include befriending the parents / carers to gain trust and access to their child , gifts, bribery, creating secrecy, "love affection and attention" & affection, use of games, deliberately exposing children to pornography / photos films , starting to stimulate a childs sexual interest and manipulating it then controlling the victim with secrecy , shame and blame. In the UK the definition of child sexual abuse was broadened a few years ago so that grooming is now seen as part of sexual abuse.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 4:56:48 GMT
Anyway, since I was the one who didn't understand the use of the word, it now appears to me that grooming is sort of the next step after paedophilia -- these girls are no longer "children" but they are still "underage."
|
|
|
Post by lugg on May 12, 2012 5:08:25 GMT
Possibly K - it depends on what stage the paedophile/ perpetrator has reached. Some of those who have an erotic interest in children will never act on it.
And those who are under 18 years( in UK law) are children. In terms of consent to sexual intercourse the age is 16years , statutory rape applies to all children under 13 years ( as they can never consent in the eyes of the law) , 13 - 16 constitutes unlawful sexual intercourse - prosecution would depend on the individual conditions. In the Rochdale case all were classed as unlawful and rape because of the " grooming" methods used - and the sexual exploitation and trafficking which was the aim of this group of perpetrators.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 12, 2012 5:20:41 GMT
Deyana, you are living in a dream world if you try and put any of the blame whatsoever onto the girls.
Secondly, the men plied them with drugs and alcohol. Just because it doesn't say specifically that in that article doesn't mean they didn't. They did.
Thirdly, I have not mentioned race. Purely my argument is as to whether the girls contributed to their appalling experience by dressing wrongly etc.
Fourthly, because of their young age i.e. below the age of consent, no matter their actions or lack of them, in the eyes of the law, rape is rape is rape. It doesn't matter if the girls were willing and instigated to sexual contact - it's still rape and the men cannot use in their defence the lack of saying no or the actions of the girls.
Fifthly, in convictions of men for grooming, white men tend to do it alone and seek a single contact. Others who are not white tend to do it in company with other males - a 'gang'.
Sixthly, the Police were reluctant to instigate a prosecution against this group of men purely because they were Pakistani (or of Pakistani descent, or were Asian or whatever you want to call them) and didn't want to be accused of racism. Other white males committing offences of grooming were still prosecuted. Thus, in theory, these men were treated differently because of their race and were favoured because of it. So don't try and play the racism card.
Seventhly, the way I read your posts is such that it gives me the impression you are so fanatical about mitigating the behaviour of these men due to their race that you will not only say they are not unusual as white men do the same, but you will even try and blame the underage girls themselves.
Horrendous.
I will not continue this subject and post any more whilst you argue in this manner. It disgusts me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 7:31:01 GMT
Deyana, you are living in a dream world if you try and put any of the blame whatsoever onto the girls.
No, Mark, I am not. I am trying to figure out why it happens. Maybe if we are more realistic about why that is so, we may find a way to end it.
I don't usually bother getting into most of these kind of on-line articles because they are usually full of prejudices and bias, (if not down-right racist). I thought this one was worth discussing as it seemed more realistic.
Secondly, the men plied them with drugs and alcohol. Just because it doesn't say specifically that in that article doesn't mean they didn't. They did.
It is the article we are discussing, not your personal opinions here.
Thirdly, I have not mentioned race. Purely my argument is as to whether the girls contributed to their appalling experience by dressing wrongly etc.
The article is about 'Pakistani' men. The world doesn't resolved around you personally and what you think. No matter what you've told.
Sixthly, the Police were reluctant to instigate a prosecution against this group of men purely because they were Pakistani (or of Pakistani descent, or were Asian or whatever you want to call them) and didn't want to be accused of racism. Other white males committing offences of grooming were still prosecuted. Thus, in theory, these men were treated differently because of their race and were favoured because of it. So don't try and play the racism card.
Using the 'racism card'. That's bull-shit. I'm discussing what is on the article that is all. Do you honestly think they are favored because they are people of color? I have come to the conclusion you are now living in a dream world.
Seventhly, the way I read your posts is such that it gives me the impression you are so fanatical about mitigating the behaviour of these men due to their race that you will not only say they are not unusual as white men do the same, but you will even try and blame the underage girls themselves.
Pimps are pimps no matter what color they are. And suggesting that the girls take some kind of blame and by doing so, understand what they are doing and so protect themselves, is not agreeing with what happens to them.
Horrendous.
I will not continue this subject and post any more whilst you argue in this manner. It disgusts me.
Or maybe after making such outlandish statements, twisted by your own mind, you know you had better butt out of this conversation you mean?
You know what disgusts me and what I find horrendous? The fact you are in the habit of using racial slurs such as the N. word on here and that you post, (what you think is funny) pictures of people wearing their own kind of religious costumes). Your sexist and racist views, your putting down of minorities and women. I'm so revolted by it, I can't even make myself reply to it. The internet is full of such kind of posts and posting, and I keep hoping that this forum is not contributing to it.
No mention of what Lugg and Kerouac are saying? Why am I not surprised. You just pick out what suits you to argue about, twist is around in your own mind and ignore the rest. Typical.
It probably is a good idea that you stay out of this discussion, you seem to be stuck in some kind of text book reporting mode and it doesn't even ring true, and knowing what you have posted in the past on here, it can't be taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 12, 2012 12:27:38 GMT
Deyana, I think you need to start taking the medication again.
You think my personal opinion is that the men plied the girls with drugs and alcohol? Hah, bloody hah. They did, it is not a personal opinion.
Why is it supposed to be about me when the subject is as to if the girls contributed to their ordeal?
When you say - "Do you honestly think they are favored because they are people of color?" Yes they were and yes I am. The authorities were reluctant to get involved because of their race. Otherwise people like you would accuse them of racism.
The men were not pimps in the normal view of that word. They did not set out to make money from the girls, they set out to have them and their friends abuse them.
You say - "The fact you are in the habit of using racial slurs such as the N. word on here and that you post, (what you think is funny) pictures of people wearing their own kind of religious costumes). Your sexist and racist views, your putting down of minorities and women." Nigger was the name of a dog. You conveniently don't mention that. And it is only mentioned on one thread - so a habit of it?
Funny pictures of ethnic costumes? Huh?
Putting down minorities and women? Huh again?
The problem seems to be that no matter what I say it is you who thinks I am being offensive. It is you who has the problem. When I say that the girls should not be held to be contributory in the offences made against them, you seem to think that I am being offensive because I didn't mention the ethnicity of the males who did it. Or something........... I just can't work out what.
I've just re-read what k2 and lugg said. Why should I take issue with it? For example, k2 said, "....it now appears to me that grooming is sort of the next step after paedophilia -- these girls are no longer "children" but they are still "underage." Was there something they said that was controversial?
However, when you say, "......who are these girls? Would they have become prostitutes anyway?" I have no alternative but to reach for my keyboard. It does seem that you are so rabidly in favour of defending the males because they are not white that you will stoop so low as to shift some of the responsibility for what the men did onto the young girls, who are white. Despicable.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 14:43:02 GMT
Mark, I find your last post very offensive. I wasn't going to reply, as I don't usually bother replying to garbage, but I will. Any time, I come on here and you disagree with me about something, you start with insults. That is not what a discussion is about. Funny how you only do it to me. I feel like I'm being stalked. Deyana, I think you need to start taking the medication again. The only medication I ever take, or ever taken taken painkillers and that very rarely. The authorities are not reluctant to deal with men/women of color. In fact many are accused unjustly because of their color. You choose not to believe that, that's up to you. You can live in whatever self-deluded world you made for yourself, it's up to you. The men were not pimps in the normal view of that word. They did not set out to make money from the girls, they set out to have them and their friends abuse themOh so now you are saying "Asian" men are not pimps but they are just grooming the women/girls just to... um gang bang them? I see. I don't have the time to look through this site and quote your various rudeness, insults and racist and sexist remarks, but regulars are probably aware of them, even though you may choose to conveniently 'forget' that you made them. ..unless you really have forgotten, then you need help. We all have to take some responsibility for what we do in this life (like I have said before). Maybe if the girls did that, then they wouldn't be getting into the mess they do. Unless you live in a country where slavery still exists and the girls are physically forced into selling their bodies, then they do have a choice. The challenge is letting these know that, finding them ways to opt out. You seemed to have twisted what I am trying to say into well....who knows...something only you could understand I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on May 12, 2012 15:40:04 GMT
"I feel like I'm being stalked." You're a fine one to talk.
The authorities are not reluctant to deal with men/women of color. I said that in THIS case they were reluctant. You are generalising and misinterpreting what I said to suit your own agenda.
Oh so now you are saying "Asian" men are not pimps but they are just grooming the women/girls just to... um gang bang them? I said that THESE men were not pimps. See comment just above.
|
|