CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Well if I recall correctly that was in the evening when that 'little green light' showed that we were both simultaneously on line. I must also admit to this forum that I took a long hot bath yesterday evening after a hard days work. I beg the collective forgiveness of SWF members for this inexcusable display of hedonism on my part.

Not at all Jeff. My temporary absence from the debate had more to do with this tiresome EAT-SLEEP-WORK-REPEAT business that interrupts my Internet career on occasion ...

Well Jeff, if you really do 'seek after the truth' then I did provide you with a link that will lead you to some actual evidence re this matter - I can only suggest that you follow it. For the record, the Home Office reports that the police recorded some 5,597 homophobic 'hate crime' incidents in 2014/15 - a rise of 22%. This statistic of course massively underestimates the scale of the problem because many offences go unreported to the police. This is why professional criminologists stress the importance of the 'Crime Survey' results as this gives a better insight into the true situation. The government estimates that some 5-7% of the UK population fall into the 'LGBT' group. If correct, that gives us a UK LGBT population of between 3 and 4 million people. Official estimates show that 1 in 8 of this minority group experience a hate crime incident EACH YEAR. http://www.galop.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-Hate-Crime-Report-2013.pdf So to sum up the argument: > I think that everyone on here freely concedes that some level of homophobic behaviour is still present in UK society. > However, some forum members continue to insist that our nation is now such a tolerant place for Homosexual people to live and freely express themselves in that this form of prejudice has been reduced to virtual insignificance, or at least something akin to that. > Evidence provided by the official 'Crime Survey' that FLATLY CONTRADICTS the above is rejected. Apart from some talk of gay people being overly sensitive types (no danger of sexual stereotyping there!) as yet no real reason has been presented as to why this data is regarded as incorrect or irrelevant. > Other survey evidence that supports the 'Crime Survey' findings, this time provided by non-governmental organisations (such as the pressure group 'Stonewall' for example) is also either rejected or ignored. Again I see no reason given as to why this forum is to believe that these results are somehow invalid http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/documents/research/research38_so_hatecrime.pdf > My rather frequent (and indeed ongoing) encounters with low-level homophobia in the workplace and elsewhere are rejected as being unrepresentative and/or outdated. > Video evidence presented on here from a gay teenager living in the UK today that relates his personal experiences with homophobia are also rejected as being unrepresentative - this despite the evidence (qv) seeming to show that his experiences are probably fairly typical. So in conclusion. Despite what some on here might try to tell me, I choose to look first at the actual evidence of the matter, rather than blindly accept what some on here may perceive reality to be. On that evidence, I consider a 1 in 8 chance of becoming a homophobic 'hate crime' victim each year to represent what is a highly significant factor in the daily lives of millions of British people. Furthermore, those who seek to deny this are almost certainly in error ... however strongly they feel on the issue.

I don't know how many Homosexual people you have supposedly discussed this issue with or indeed what they told you. I do know what young Matthew says and his account seems both convincing and is a primary source. More importantly, his version of life as a gay lad in Britain today tallies with what evidence is available.

Why am I to believe that Matthew is either lying or that his experiences are atypical?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lgbt-people-subjected-to-hate-crimes-on-daily-basis-in-uk-rural-communities-10337452.html

As it happens, in a bored moment, I found myself watching 'Barely Legal Drivers' last night; a (not very good) example of the so-called 'reality television' phenomenon. If you have never seen it, this 'fly-on-the-windscreen' BBC series examines what teenage drivers really get up to when they are out on the road and there are no adults around. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rxl1f/barely-legal-drivers-series-1-6-matthew-and-georgina Please don't bother watching the whole thing because it's really not worth your time. However, some 3 minutes into this episode, and again at 52 minutes, 'Matthew' - a rather flamboyant Homosexual 18 year-old with a utterly appalling hair style - briefly recounts his personal experiences of growing up in Wales today. According to Matthew, modern Britain is not quite the tolerant 'safe haven' for young gay men that some on here would have you believe. Indeed, this boy recounts the harassment he faced at school, on public transport, and what sounds like a nasty homophobic incident that he and his boyfriend encountered at a local restaurant. Apparently, one of the principle reasons he wants his own car so much is so that he and his boyfriend will feel physically safer when they are out and about in the community. This is just one individual lads story of course and perhaps young Matthew's experiences are very atypical. It may even be that the tales of homophobia he recounts here are nothing but a pack of lies. I'm thinking however that the story Matthew relates here is in all probability absolutely typical of life in Britain today for 'out' gay teenagers. I'm also thinking that it is not a coincidence that his story tallies with the official data we have on the issue. I'm absolutely certain that I'll place more trust in what he says than in what some on here opine so very fervently.

Among all the usual trolling and flag waving absurdity, surprisingly there might actually be a interesting point hidden in here. Although they are obviously becoming an alarming common event in the USA now, school massacres are in fact not an exclusively US phenomenon. As most people reading this will no doubt remember, back in 1996 one obsessed madman entered Dunblane Primary School in Scotland and shot to death 16 innocent little children and their teacher before killing himself. Some 15 other children and adults were injured to some extent. With the possible exception of a handful a major terrorist incidents, I view this event as quite the worst single crime to occur in our nation's modern history. In the immediate aftermath of this genuinely appalling tragedy John Major's Conservative government reacted by introducing even tougher restrictions on gun ownership in the UK. A so-called 'gun amnesty' was also implemented where people could hand over any firearms they had in their possession to the police on a 'no questions asked' basis. In 1997 Tony Blair's newly elected Labour administration further tighten UK gun ownership regulation, to the point where the UK now has some of the most restrictive gun ownership laws in the entire world. As a result gun ownership rates in the UK were reduced to the point where very few British people now have access to any type of gun. Many thousands of (both legal and illegal) firearms were taken off the streets and safely destroyed - including one rusty old rifle from my loft by the way. I believe all these measures had and have the overwhelming support of the British people. Although the possibility of another terrible incident of this type in the UK cannot be entirely ruled out of course, thankfully we have suffered no comparable mass-murder event in our school system post Dunblane. So the question here is what does 'freedom' even mean when your children are not 'free' to go to school in the morning without their parents experiencing a very real fear that they might get caught up in yet another incident of this type. Is what we might call the British reaction to gun crime so very 'over the top' and undemocratic when the current US policy of effectively doing next to nothing in the face of all this tragedy seems only to make a bad situation even worse? It seems to me that any nation that becomes so immersed in bloodshed that even the mass-murder of its children is now seen by some as just being 'one of those things' is in serious trouble.

What fans and TV seem to want most is more overtaking in Formula 1. DRS technology was introduced with this objective in mind and I suppose most overtaking happens in breaking zones, rather than in the fast flowing corners you (and many drivers I think) enjoy so. To change the subject, were you too watching that bloody awful San Marino Grand Prix from Imola back in 1994? If you were then I'd expect you would agree that was not a experience that is easily forgotten ...

There are two sides to every question I suppose. But 'on the face of it' it does seems hard to argue against the OP's supposition that had these remarks been directed against certain ethnic minority groups then the women in question would indeed have been immediately sacked and quite possibly prosecuted too. So a clear double standard then ... perhaps.

Stuff that has found its way onto my TV of late: River - BBC1 The USP of this series is that Detective Inspector River (the excellent Stellan Skarsgard) is quite literally a haunted man. The unanswered question here being whether the dead people who constantly follow him around, and whom only he can see of course, are actually supernatural spirits or just figments of his imagination. As with much modern TV drama the 'production value' on display here is of cinema quality. The scripts are unusually literate, the acting performances on offer top class. My problem with this series is that much of our hero's depression and sense of isolation seems to transfer to the viewer somehow, making watching this series a rather miserable experience. Worth seeing if you are in the mood, but not a series I much enjoy to be honest. Fargo - Channel 4 If like me you liked the original Coen Brothers film, or indeed Noah Hawley's first TV series staring our very own Martin Freeman (broadcast only a year or so ago I think) then you will surely enjoy this latest incarnation too because it is very much the same mix of banal everyday existence in the American North contrasted with extreme violence. This reluctance to change a highly successful formula is both a source of strength and weakness for this series. I can only say that this viewer is not yet at all bored with this frozen 'Coenworld' of the imagination - I doubt I ever will be. Blackadder - Freeview Back on our screens yet again I've seen EVERY single episode from each different series so many times now that I know all the lines and jokes off my heart. And you know what - I don't give a hoot because this wonderful old sitcom (it somehow seems to be more than a mere sit com) is still among the funniest television you'll ever see. Name me a better scripted comedy than this ... only Fawlty Towers, Porridge and Dad's Army at their best even come close I think. A series that cannot be repeated too often

I'm pleased to say that Talking Pictures is also available to us cheapskates on Freeview now - channel 81. I fully agree, one way or another watching these seldom (if ever) broadcast old movies can be enormous fun. Although obviously dated now, among a fair amount of rubbish quite a few forgotten gems can be found. For example, 'Jigsaw' although rather conventional is nevertheless a interesting take on the Brighton Suitcase Murder case from the 60's. 'The Boys' is still a watchable enough courtroom drama - from a time when a guilty verdict might mean execution. 'Grand National' where the killer outwits the police and actually gets away with it for once, proved to be highly entertaining. I can even find some enjoyment from the VERY old stuff they show from the 1930's and 40's - although it may be awhile before Hollywood embarks upon a big budget remake of the 'Old Mother Riley' franchise ...

Funny, I don't remember the ''2015'' qualification - please prove this. You certainly asked me a question and you got a answer. Now you may not like the answer you received, but that is what you might call a 'occupational hazard' when asking people for their opinions and experiences. If you only wanted to see opinions that coincided with your viewpoint then you should have stated that in the first place. You do understand I hope that the experiences I recount are from my lifetime and not garnered from some ancient history - Stephen Lawrence was murdered in 1993 not 1893. For your information the last incident of (low-level) homophobia I witnessed was from last week as it happens. My congratulations by the way for getting your riposte rate down to under a hour - I wonder did you insert some WD40 into your earholes?

But YOU asked me to recount my experiences and now seem to regret that. This lack of consistency on the part of the 'homophobia is a myth' camp is worrying.

Well you did at first say that the very idea was ''ludicrous'' but you now seem to have changed your mind on that. I must say you do seem to be 'all over the shop' today - almost as if you were out of your depth. There is indeed much I could teach you - if only you would listen for once and there was also a unlimited supply of crayons available.

You unsure about something - now that is a first. ... oh and answer the question.

I must inform you (and other naive types) that homophobia and racism are both alive and well in the UK today. If you want to understand racism then first ask a black man about it and then perhaps look at the data too. Similarly, those who really seek to comprehend homophobia in our society would do well to ignore the bilge you and Hypo are omitting on here and ask a homosexual about his actual experiences. Again 1-in-10 LGBT people report that they have been physically assaulted over a 12 month period and many more have suffered lesser forms of abuse and harassment. The Police malpractice incident in question may have happened back in the 70's, you can rest assured however that the (ex) copper who told me about it hadn't changed his mindset twenty years later when he told me the story. Don't tell me this is a lie - I was there and I know what he said. Are you now agreeing that the police were at one time a racist organisation or not? I did make it abundantly clear of course that I had expanded my argument to include other examples of prejudice in UK society, such as racism and sexism for example. I neither hide or make any apologies for this. Even you should be aware that this type of 'widening' on a point is relatively common practice in debate and quite in-order. If you don't want to debate those related issues for some reason - similiar issues in principle I think - then ignoring that aspect of the argument would seem to have served your purpose admirably. The record shows that you chose not to do that, and therefore you really can't have it 'both ways' now.

So when I tell you that to my knowledge SOME Police Officers back in the 70's held what can only be considered as racist attitudes that - according to you - is apparently a ''ludicrous'' viewpoint. Pray tell how would you square that opinion of yours with the fact that the Metropolitan Police have themselves admitted that they were a (quote) 'Institutionally Racist' organisation not so very long ago? Or perhaps that's yet another lie put about by us ''grandstanding'' types who are determined to pull the wool over your eyes for some reason that escapes me.

I'd agree with you - but then we'd both be wrong.

What you don't seem capable of comprehending - probably because you lack the intellect and/or level integrity required - is that when you go around calling people liars without good (or any) cause then some kind of reaction is bound to ensue. You crossed a line on here.

Good for you.

Well you tell me pal - how would you react when some odious cretin comes on here and calls you a liar when you've told nothing but the truth? You'd be OK with that would you?

It's called sarcasm - and I learnt from the master. 13,000 posts you've got on here and nearly every one some kind of malicious 'dig' at someone or a (poor) attempt at sarcasm. Get some of your own medicine back for once and you're on here crying like a little girl about it. What a pathetic specimen you are.

I'm not talking about you of course - perish the thought. But you know the type who so like to dish it out to others, but then complain when they get some back' Contemptible aren't they?

But there was no rush - however many times you flush you're always here ...