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?

My great uncle, a former army officer who served WW2 in the brutal Burma campaign, referred to his long dead comrades as "the boys" or "his boys" even though many of them we're in their late 20s and 30s when they died. I suspect for the same reason, not because he wanted to denigrate them, but because i think he wanted me to understand how relatively young they were, and how the war robbed them of a full life.

He also had a few other choice words that he used when talking about them, but my mother used to loudly interrupt by asking us what we wanted for dinner to distract us from some of his more colourful language!

hully but to me that just sounds so cold and unfeeling. Just platitudes. Nothing that gives a real sense of loss. Or a life that has been cut short.

not "young boys" though.

Ok "They were were much loved family members, well liked colleagues and respected professionals. Full of fun and life and with so much to live for, so many wasted years as they were so cruelly cut down in their prime." etc

It's really easy to do it without doing the "young girl" bollox.

the real stuff that should worry people

How can it be sexist if she's using the term "lads" also?

This isn't about words being used to comfort the families and colleagues. It's about the fact that superiors and the media have used language that many feels belittles the role of women and that this wouldn't have occured if the officers involved had been men.

Quite frankly I would hope that comments to the family would be comforting and respectful with a degree of thought and research. And it would be entirely appropriate for those comments to remain private between the CC and the family. Of course friends and family can describe the women however they like - they need have no regard to public perception or sensibilities.

This thread is about comments that were made in public, to the public by representatives of the police force (and latterly the media) which demonstrated a problem with the way in which women police officers are viewed. It is not acceptable for anyone making such public statements at any time to not fully consider the impact of those words. I don't know whether those comments and attitudes led directly to the items on the news today considering the role of women in the frontline or whether the comments are indicative of a problem that was largely unconsidered.

A lot of the coverage has been sexist and that doesn't sit well with me. That is entirely separate from the appalling event itself.

Of course, what we should be up in arms about is that there are some parts of society that think it's ok to do this to policemen and women just because they wear a uniform.

In this context, I find it difficult to get energised about a possible inappropriate or possibly even deliberate use of the word "girl"

blistory how the media cover this is a separate issue, I think.

The use of the words "gentle" and " chatterbox" were quotes from friends and family and it wouldn't have been appropriate for the CC to sanitise or censor them.

Which really just leaves the use of the word "girl" in the statement from a forces rep. And I for one understand why he used that word rather than the less emotive "woman".

Don't you ever watch something or read something about the Somme or WW2 and think to yourself "they were just boys"? Even though they may have technically been adults? I know I do.

I just don't see this as any different.

No, because I don't believe he would have used those comments had the officers in question been men.

Nor do I believe that we would have comments like 'innocents to the slaughter' nor discussions on whether women should serve in the frontline of dangerous professions.

The tragedy for me is their deaths, not the ages of the women when they died or the fact that they were women.

There is an excellent editorial piece in today's guardian that sums up what I feel about the shootings perfectly:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/policing-duty-respect?intcmp=239

blistory you think that if the officers had been men he would have gone back to the families and friends and said, sorry chaps, could you just come up with some better language???

And the media are talking about women on the frontline, not the CC, which is an entirely separate issue and not relevant to the thread, IMO.

But yes, you are entirely correct that the tragedy is in the deaths themselves. We should not lose sight of that.

How can the frontline issue not be related to language used about female police officers?

Both are about whether male and female police officers are viewed differently and if so why?

sorry chaps, could you just come up with some better language???

Who says they had to say that?

If someone had said to me that the officers were a chatterbox or gentle, my next question would be: 'what did she like to chat about?' and 'in what way was she gentle?'

We'd have got proper anecdotes that humanised them far better than what we ended up with and no one would have been upset. In fact they'd have thought I was taking an interest in their daughters and they'd have been right.

Posters have already given examples of exactly the same language being used to describe male soldiers.

You'd question them? To get proper anecdotes and no one would have been upset?

Jesus wept. I fucking give up.

limited in the raw moments of grief immediately after finding out that my loved one had died, I would have found such questions instructive, maybe.

proud don't we have to separate language used by friends and family from language used by media and officialdom, though? In that one seeks to convey the personal and the other the professional? And maybe when the two collide, they do so unhappily for all concerned.

Intrusive. Not instructive. Obviously.

Melody, exactly.

Limited, the moments just after a loved one or friend dies is not the greatest of times to start questioning anyone even if gentle.

Which is why it's up to the Chief Constable to choose words with care.

Sorry but my recollection of the quotes applicable to the soldiers were that they were direct comments by their families to the media, not comments from their commanding officers.

This was a senior police officer and others picking up on information supplied by colleagues in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. And the comments still remain on the BBC website quoted as if as if they were comments by the CC himself.

Thebossofme melody and others, I pointed out the same thing to Limited, yesterday.

She obviously still believes it would be appropriate to question loved ones after hearing the shocking news that someone they love has been killed.

She said yesterday that people should be " interviewed" inorder to get relevant details. I just think that is highly inappropriate, intrusive and unprofessional. But hey, if it means you get some quotes which don't offend certain people, who gives a shit about what you've put a grieving person through?

But someone obviously did think it relevant - how else did the CC find out about those views of the women if someone didn't ask them. I don't expect a CC in the immediate aftermath to demonstrate personal knowledge or to provide an insight into them. It just wasn't necessary for him to do it in that context

"She obviously still believes it would be appropriate to question loved ones after hearing the shocking news that someone they love has been killed.

She said yesterday that people should be " interviewed" inorder to get relevant details. I just think that is highly inappropriate, intrusive and unprofessional. But hey, if it means you get some quotes which don't offend certain people, who gives a shit about what you've put a grieving person through?"

Well, where did the quotations he used come from?