TimR

Ah. So people are offended because they think other people are offended. Think that's my original point... No one is actually offended, it's just people letting their imagination run away with them.

You seem to think @paul_5 was outraged and offended...

As I said: people read too much into the written word. You don't have to be offended or outraged to highlight shortcomings.

I think the lack of face to communication means people read too much into what is written here. As is evidenced by people writing about outrage and offense. No one has actually said they're offended or outraged but a few seem to think someone somewhere has been offended or outraged, some have even concluded that others are offended on someone else's behalf. Assuming they're being serious of course.

Context is everything. In the context of this thread someone suggested that the title could be considered racist and we should think about how we word things. No one was outraged, offended, or triggered. It was just a statement.

It's not just a US thing. Some band leaders can be control freaks, it's best not to play in a band that requires you to be attached to that one band. Especially as someone like that will eventually decide that it's one rule for you and a different one for them. Depends how often you're rehearsing. If there's only one day a week that all the members in one band can get together regularly then that leaves 3 days to rehearse with other bands. If you're not rehearsing then the gig schedules of all the bands you're in will dictate if it's practical. If you're having to get deps in to regularly cover you, then you'd have to ask why you're in more than one band. The best alternative is to be in one band and dep for a few others. It's key to be upfront though and make a statement either one band gets priority over the others, which may mean letting people down after you've said you can do a gig. That's a bad thing. Or first come first served. Which can cause problems when you're not available to play in the band that depends on last minute bookings. It works when bands are not giging very often, but gets complicated if all the bands start getting very busy. It'll also cause grief if you're out gigging while one band is stuck at home and not gigging because their bass player is out with a different band.

It's the law. I didn't write it. Maybe complain to the government? Discriminating someone over their nationality is covered under race laws, in the eyes of the law, its racist. As I've posted several times. Nationality, ethnicity, race, fall under the umbrella of racism. Deal with it. You're not going to change it. I'm sorry if it doesn't align with everyone's strict dictionary definition of racism but I suspect if you stand up in a tribunal and try to argue that its not your definition of racism, you'll not get very far.

"(1)For the purposes of this Act a person discriminates against another if on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins..."

Who is offended? Who is being morally superior? Who is playing the victim? Can't see any of that on this thread. I can see a few apparently defensive posts that may be trying to justify something that's been hastily written and poking fun at the Americans. Certainly a few posters who seem unaware of the legislation around race discrimination. Even someone who claimed they're not going to believe a few words written on some website and they'll stick to the dictionary. For anyone who still thinks being xenophobic isn't being racist, here's the legislation (from some random website): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/71/enacted I really don't have any truck with any of this, other than when someone asks why it's racist and then when told, argues it isn't. That seems odd behaviour to me. Anyway. I think we have all learned something about the American legal system, which I guess was the original intention, before the thread was derailed. It similar to the UK system in that cases and outcomes that seem odd or frivolous, are often quite straightforward when the details are examined properly.

Maybe put the discussion in context then. Someone pointed out that the thread title was racist. Other people still can't see why. It's an opportunity to educate them on what is considered racist and how its not limited to race. Some people still can't understand, despite it being explained several times very clearly with examples. If you want to discuss the rainforest then you can start a thread about the rainforest. It's not a one topic forum.

It's a discussion isn't it? That's what forums are for...

Because your nationality is part of you ethnicity. White British is an ethnicity. White American is also an ethnicity. Legal and scientific definitions don't always follow dictionary definitions.

I'd guess if you actually looked up xenophobic and racist they'd have different definitions...

Now look who is getting offended. 😆🤦‍♂️

No. It's racial discrimination to discriminate anyone according to their race or natationality. If you discriminate according to nationality you are still discriminating under the racial discrimination umbrella. Regardless of what you want to call it in layman's terms, or hide by pretending it's xenophobia and not illegal, the law says it is racial discrimination and is illegal.

We can do if you like. American is a nationality not a race. However, discriminating on someone's Nationality is covered under race discrimination laws. Where it is illegal to discriminate someone according to race OR nationality. As it says in the link.

I didn't say Xenophic either. 😆 It's covered under racial discrimination as a nationality. Maybe read the link?

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination

Indeed a slightly racist thread title on a public facing area of the Forum. Nice. Obviously it doesn't represent most of the views of the members.

Often the way isn't it. Wonder if the fat ginger kid ever said he was offended.

People have always been fragile and delicate. Just nowadays we don't expect them to have to endure years of name calling, bullying and repression...

It's usually how the law defines protected characteristic. Being American isn't one of them but discriminating against someone based on their nationality is.

It's about 80% if you subscribe to the Pareto Principle, which I'm finding increasingly accurate as I grow older.

He claimed it was child sex abuse and akin to child pornography and suffered for years because of it. Thrown out on two counts: 1. Statue of limitations had expired. 2. Claims of psychological damage were spurious. The judge also ruled that since practically everyone in the world had viewed the image and no one else has ever raised an issue, it couldn't possibly be now ruled as a pornographic image.

What it means is that you have demonstrated that you are taking your obligations towards H&S seriously. Particularly the requirements to have electrical systems periodically inspected. All you need to do is go to that person and ask if they inspected that piece of equipment and can they prove it. No doubt there would then be a bun fight over what had happened to the gear for it to cause a problem, and no doubt someone would start asking awkward questions as to why you're only inspecting it once a year. The point is, it's statistics. The liklihood is, and it's been shown to be true, that regular inspection reduces incidents. So if you've had it inspected you know it's not a piece of equipment that's gradually got worse over years and finally failed.