To be angry that the Chief Constable chose the words..

[seeker]

"gentle" and "a chatterbox" respectively to describe the two women police officers who were murdered on duty yesterday.

Can you imagine those words ever being used to describe a man?

There's no such thing as a civil ceremony between male and female in this country horse, and I'm sure if the deceased had been male, and planning such a ceremony with his male partner, that would have been mentioned because homophobia is thankfully disappearing. (Albeit slowly)

It also appears that there are posters on this thread who can't imagine a man being described as either gentle or a chatterbox.

Very sexist.

Now, if this policewoman had been described as a "lesbian PC" or "the gay policewoman", I would find that worth objecting about, because her sexual preferences should not be a prefix to her occupation.

Worra - I don't think it was relevant that they mentioned the sex of her partner.

But Horse you can only have a civil ceremony with someone the same sex as yourself and not all the readers will know that - hence the paper's probable need to explain.

Worra that's possibly the reason for the paper's reporting (let's give them the benefit of the doubt, shall we ) but I still feel it was unnecessary.

Have they mentioned the family circumstances behind both of the officers? Yes.

Would it be discriminatory to only mention the one who was in a hetero relationship? Yes.

Having a partner of the same sex isn't anything to hide or be ashamed of. Why on earth shouldn't they mention it? It's a normal part of life, and part of who this officer was.

So those willing to complain about the words used (due to the power words have) aren't in the mood to talk about how those same words could actually be advantageous in stopping quite so many people hero worshipping the violent murderer?

"but I still feel it was unnecessary"

Possibly her partner appreciates being acknowledged

When male soldiers are killed, they often refer to them having a 'wife' or a 'girlfriend'. Both terms that can only refer to a female partner. Is this 'unnecessary too?

Empusa possibly her partner DOES appreciate being acknowledged - who knows? The papers will print what they like.

"There's army lads been described as 'daft'

That's along the same lines as chatterbox. Would you object to that?"

Yes, if it was in a formal statement being made by his Commanding Officer, or by the a prime Minister at PMQs. No if it was said by his family, friends and close colleagues.

This is a distinction whichnpeople seem incapable of making.

Why is there a difference? Are commanding officers not allowed to make personal statements then?

You're clutching at straws now. This was not your original argument.

No. My argument from the beginning is that friends, family and close colleagues a, obviously able to saynanything they want. Somebody as a represntative of an organisation, such as the armynor the police force has to choose their words with care.

Because you say so? There's far more people saying that what he said was reasonable, than not. Like we've said, would you honestly prefer an impersonal trotted out speech that could have been for any single person in the force? I wouldn't. Id like to know that the commanding officer had a feel of what my family member. That she was more than just a police officer to them but a person too. A woman, a girl even

Family member was like*

"It also appears that there are posters on this thread who can't imagine a man being described as either gentle or a chatterbox.

Very sexist."

If you can find me an example of a man being publicly described as a "chatterbox" I will give £10 to a charity ofnyour choice!

Can't even keep track of your own arguements, now seeker?

Haven't read the whole thread and won't as it is not worthy in my opinion.

However, all I can ask is does it really matter when these two people are dead, killed in the line of duty. No, it doesn't.

Two female police officers killed. Enough said. RIP

www.themistermen.co.uk/mr_men/mr_chatterbox.html

Couldn't resist!

If it fucking pleases you seeker, I have a card given to me by an old neighbour whose son died aged 12. It has a photo of him, a poem and a small description. Amongst other things it does mention the word chatterbox, so just drop it.

at valium

"No. My argument from the beginning is that friends, family and close colleagues a, obviously able to saynanything they want. Somebody as a represntative of an organisation, such as the armynor the police force has to choose their words with care."

As long as they don't choose the words used by the friends anf family, right?

seeker

I find all of what you say interesting. I tend to agree, actually

BUT

I do think if we are talking about the subtle messages imparted by what we say, how we say it, and when we say it, you have misjudged the timing of this post