Lantern Swinger
Don't know if this has been posted before, however, I think it says it all:

The Demise of Jack Tar......

The traditional male sailor was not defined by his looks. He was defined by his attitude; his name was Jack Tar. He was a happy go lucky sort of a bloke; he took the good times with the bad. He didn't cry victimisation, bastardisation, discrimination or for his mum when things didn't go his way. He took responsibility for his own, sometimes, self-destructive actions.

He loved a laugh at anything or anybody. Rank, gender, race, creed or behavior, it didn't matter to Jack, he would take the piss out of anyone, including himself. If someone took it out of him he didn't get offended; it was a natural part of life. If he offended someone else, so be it. Free from many of the rules of polite society, Jack's manners were somewhat rough. His ability to swear was legendary.

He would stand up for his mates. Jack was extravagant with his support to those he thought needed it. He may have been right or wrong, but that didn't matter. Jack's mate was one of the luckiest people alive.

Jack loved women. He loved to chase them to the ends of the earth and sometimes he even caught one. (Less often than he would have you believe though) His tales of the chase and its conclusion win or lose, is the stuff of legends.

Jack's favourite drink was beer, and he could drink it like a fish. His actions when inebriated would, on occasion, land him in trouble. But, he took it on the chin, did his punishment and then went and did it all again.

Jack loved his job. He took an immense pride in what he did. His radar was always the best in the fleet. His engines always worked better than anyone else's. His eyes could spot a contact before anyone else's and shoot at it first. It was a matter of personal pride. Jack was the consummate professional when he was at work and sober.

He was a bit like a mischievous child. He had a gleam in his eye and a larger than life outlook. He was as rough as guts. You had to be pig headed and thick skinned to survive. He worked hard and played hard. His masters tut-tutted at some of his more exuberant expressions of joie de vivre, and the occasional bout of number 9's or stoppage let him know where his limits were.

The late 20th Century and on, has seen the demise of Jack. The workplace no longer echoes with ribald comment and bawdy tales. Someone is sure to take offence. Where as, those stories of daring do and ingenuity in the face of adversity, usually whilst pissed, lack the audacity of the past.

A wicked sense of humour is now a liability, rather than a necessity. Jack has been socially engineered out of existence. What was once normal is now offensive. Denting someone else's over inflated opinion of their own self worth is now a crime.

And so a culture dies... :(
The PC Brigade and health and Safety have ruined a way of life, it still survives to a certain degree offshore on the rigs but that is being exterminated as well. Oh for the days.....................


War Hero
Naw! Jack is still able to be a complete idiot and get out of his tree to this day - it's the whole country's lifestyle that has changed not just through Health & Safety (actually a lot of Health and Safety Advisors ARE ex Jack, Pongo, and Crab - well somebody has to look after the great unwashed!). But I will agree that the PC brigade hasn't helped - not enough servicemen (still and ex) to kick arse these days!
I think that's a tad overpessimistic Tas-Ape, but I can see what you mean.

Rules exist but only those that are enforcible get enforced and those that the there is a disinclination towards enforcement are less likely to be rigourously enforced. Those that are exist on paper but are inconsistently enforced are themselves vulnerable to challange on the basis that they target some and victimise others - undermining the fundamanetal principal of impartial justice and necessarily of any subsequent trial (which would in effect be a show trial) being fair.

Take free-speech for example. As the law currently stands, basically you can say whatever you like more or less about any group or anything you like, even if it advocates extermination if you do so as a religious spokesperson, even a self-appointed one - so long as you do not direct any hatred towards other religions or no religion. There needs to be no scriptural basis for your opinions whatsoever - the fact of the legal person being religious affords their speech special status. Anyone else is fair game. If you want to articulate your hateful opinions of any group in society you can do so so long as you ground you hatred in theology or in your interpretation of the same. For example if the BNP leadership were not so thick, they would rename themselves the Christian National Party (CNP) and then contextualise all their main policies (and the ones they are less forthcoming about) in the Bible. Many of their policies could be grounded in scripture in fact and then all they need is a self-proclaimed, or ideally a real, padre, to act as their Spokesman. This way they could freely articulate their opinions, always being careful to contextualise each and every proposal and press release in a Biblical context, with exactly the same de facto legal impunity Christian and Muslim groups and individuals enjoy at present in UK. There may be threats of prosecution - but they never amount to anything as the CPS or their political masters always back down when the accused threatens to challenge the legality of the police action under the Human Rights Act. Were they to amount to anything, then a test case could be brought: seeking an emergency referral to Strasbourg through the High Court - which would hold any prosecution in abeyance until the outcome was established. Britain's inconsistent enforcement of the law would undermine her own position and could be used to demonstrate political and religious victimisation of members of the CNP.

My own belief is that we should all have the liberty to express our opinions: blasphemy laws shopuld be repealled (they are already technically illegal anyway under the European Convention of Human Rights, for violating free speech - just needs the police to prosecute someone like me for the matter, to go to Strasbourg via an emergency application to the High Court) as should criminalising incitement to religious hatred - religion is a choice, after all. If there is incitement that leads to attacks on people, then that should be prosecuted as a public order offence and those responsible prosecuted, be they theologians or Jack.

End of Rant!

Latest Threads