Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 42 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 3622 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Correct language

lyledunn
I was taking a group of building service engineers through the 18th. We were discussing the use of Appendix 5. One chap was very exercised about the BA3 category which is described as utilization-capability-handicapped. He claims the latter word was exorcised from common parlance years ago and would be offensive to many. I am not that politically correct but maybe he has a valid argument,.
  • 0
    Nope.

    Up here in the North (Well Northish - I think Lancashire/Yorkshire is about middle Britain) we sometimes find folk saying "I speak as I find" Now I think that can be a bit harsh , whereas "Calling a spade a spade"  (instead of a shovel) is perfectly OK and unoffensive to me.


    Years ago we got folk complaing about - Yer actual Afl Garnett . What a show that was.

    Folk missed the point. Alf spouted his racism, sexism bigotory every week whilst turning it into a kind of logic (in his own mind).

    It was always the coloured guy or the woman that won, never Alf. That was the whole point of the show.
  • 0
    I am considerably less than 100 years old and the phrase has only one meaning for me, a meaning which is neither derogatory nor racist. However I understand that some people read into the phrase meanings that were never intended to be there and am therefore careful to not use it if there is any possibility of misunderstanding (i.e. possibility of offence), and will generally not use it at all.

    I fully agree with Sparkingchip's final comment above which is effectively what I said earlier, but I also feel that too many people are eager to see offence where none is intended.

    Alasdair
  • 0
    Hi,

    I need to step in here and apologise on behalf of The IET for any offence caused by the use of this term in BS 7671. The content of Appendix 5 is taken directly from HD 60364-5-51, last published in 2009/amended 2013, itself based on IEC 60364-5-51:2005, where the term is used. The earliest version of the Regulations I have at hand is the 15th Edition from 1981 and the term is used there too, so, sadly, it's been in use all this time. My guess is that as Appendix 5 has not had a massive amount of change at IEC/HD level, the use of this term has not been scrutinised nor challenged. Thank you for bringing this to The IET's attention, I'll now raise it at committee level to seek a solution.


    Mark Coles

    Head of Technical Regulations

    The Institution of Engineering and Technology
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Mark Coles:

    Hi,

    I need to step in here and apologise on behalf of The IET for any offence caused by the use of this term in BS 7671.


     



    Actually, I don't think you do   - saying sorry implies you (as in The IET) meant to offend someone - which I'm pretty sure isn't the case. Change the wording, for sure, but in another decade or so, it'll be changing again.


    Regards


    OMS


  • 0
    Dear %DEITY OF MY CHOICE%  !!

    By all means change the word because others have changed the meaning around you. NOT because you honestly think those who put it there intended that.  Unless you really meant to say you think they they did ?


    As I said earlier, choice of language often tells you more about the age of the author, or maybe in this case the age of the original document from which it was copied..  Note we no longer talk about children's paintings being 'gay' to mean brightly coloured,  for the same reason, it avoids misunderstanding with the newer meaning. I see the word 'rainbow' going the same way.

    I nearly started this with post with Gadzooks,  to make a point, and then wondered if the fundamentalists may object to my using that in a humerous context. I've decided to risk it.
  • 0

    OMS:


    ...saying sorry implies you (as in The IET) meant to offend someone ....


    I would disagree with that (though I am also that there was no intent to offend). It is perfectly in order to say sorry for an unintended offence or even for a potential unintended offence. As a corollary, if you are stepping backwards to try to get the right photograph and bump into someone, I would hope an apology would be forthcoming, even though it was unintended. You would also apologise if you suddenly realised you were about to bump into someone and avoided it at the last minute.

     I also think that Mark's proposal is absolutely right - if there is the possibility of offence, look at what alternative wording might be possible, even though there is no malicious intent in the wording.

    This is an example of words changing in perception, since back in 1981 this would not have been seen as offensive, but as I said earlier, perceptions change with (social and PC) context.

    Alasdair

  • 0

    Mark Coles:

    Hi,

    I need to step in here and apologise on behalf of The IET for any offence caused by the use of this term in BS 7671. The content of Appendix 5 is taken directly from HD 60364-5-51, last published in 2009/amended 2013, itself based on IEC 60364-5-51:2005, where the term is used. The earliest version of the Regulations I have at hand is the 15th Edition from 1981 and the term is used there too, so, sadly, it's been in use all this time. My guess is that as Appendix 5 has not had a massive amount of change at IEC/HD level, the use of this term has not been scrutinised nor challenged. Thank you for bringing this to The IET's attention, I'll now raise it at committee level to seek a solution.


    Mark Coles

    Head of Technical Regulations

    The Institution of Engineering and Technology       




    Mark Coles,

    wait till we see you at Elex Harrogate! LOL.

  • 0

    geoffsd:

    Mmmm.


    Any word can be used as a derogatory term-. That does not mean it cannot be used for it's original meaning.


    They call Trump orange. Do we need to choose another word for the fruit and the colour?  What if they start calling him a "right kumquat"?


    I personally, being (so-called) white, do not think that 'black' - with its connotations of black arts, blackguard etc. - sounds particularly polite or respectful but that is the word acceptable at the moment by the people concerned. It could change for no valid reason - apart from the fact that they are not actually black, are they? Just as I am not .actually white.


    As for the difference between 'people of colour' and 'coloured people' - well there is no difference is there? - yet one is considered acceptable and one is offensive. Go figure.

    There is no logic to these decisions and I often wonder if it is the people involved who make the decisions or is it someone else who thinks they should be offended.


    Aren't spades the highest rated of the suits? 




    Well said Geoff

  • 0

    OMS:




    Mark Coles:

    Hi,

    I need to step in here and apologise on behalf of The IET for any offence caused by the use of this term in BS 7671.



    Actually, I don't think you do   - saying sorry implies you (as in The IET) meant to offend someone - which I'm pretty sure isn't the case. Change the wording, for sure, but in another decade or so, it'll be changing again.


    I disagree. It used to be thought that an apology meant admission of liability, which meant that one should avoid giving one; but current thinking is that it is appropriate to make an expression of regret at the earliest opportunity.


    As for the OP, if you look up "handicapped" in a French-English dictionary, you will find "handicapé"; but you will get the same translation for "disabled": the distinction appears to be absent there. So, the international basis for BS 7671 may have led to the continued use of a term which, apparently, may cause offense here in UK.


    I might add that the description in the third column on page 458 (which was introduced in the 18th Edn) seems to be particularly clumsy.


    The Committee may wish to consider S.6 of the Equality Act 2010:


    6. Disability

    (1) A person (P) has a disability if—




          (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and




          (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Chris Pearson:



     


    I disagree. It used to be thought that an apology meant admission of liability, which meant that one should avoid giving one; but current thinking is that it is appropriate to make an expression of regret at the earliest opportunity.


     



    Indeed - however, current thinking seems to suggest that saying sorry makes it all better  - regardless of if it's well meant or not.


    Regards


    OMS


Community Rules & Guidelines