Woke

[subsub]

So it would be OK to call a female work colleague a dame then

It would be a bit weird, but better than "bird", yes.
Obviously, context plays a part (you can call someone a "daft cunt" and it can be meant affectionately, for example), but it seems pretty clear that "bird" was being used in a derogatory context in the example you gave.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, and you're from an era where referring to your wife/daughter/female friend as a bird is OK, but the world has moved on, thankfully.

[The Tick]

Another day, another gammon meltdown.

[Zambo]

So it would be OK to call a female work colleague a dame then

It would be a bit weird, but better than "bird", yes.
Obviously, context plays a part (you can call someone a "daft cunt" and it can be meant affectionately, for example), but it seems pretty clear that "bird" was being used in a derogatory context in the example you gave.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, and you're from an era where referring to your wife/daughter/female friend as a bird is OK, but the world has moved on, thankfully.

With everything going on in the world today, some people getting their knickers in a twist about this, is really a bit odd.

[Zambo]

Another day, another gammon meltdown.

Clearly this is a woke meltdown, getting steamed up about a synonym.

[subsub]

So it would be OK to call a female work colleague a dame then

It would be a bit weird, but better than "bird", yes.
Obviously, context plays a part (you can call someone a "daft cunt" and it can be meant affectionately, for example), but it seems pretty clear that "bird" was being used in a derogatory context in the example you gave.
Perhaps it's a generational thing, and you're from an era where referring to your wife/daughter/female friend as a bird is OK, but the world has moved on, thankfully.

With everything going on in the world today, some people getting their knickers in a twist about this, is really a bit odd.

If it was a friends thing, that's one thing, but I think a work context is another matter entirely.
That kind of talk may be fine for the pub, but not in the workplace. Put it this way: if I repeatedly referred to female work colleagues as birds, I would expect swift action from HR, as well as female employees to tell me to drop the caveman stuff.

[Zambo]

He said that he referred to it in a general light hearted way, and he didn't call the woman complaining a bird. I can just see this being laughed out of court if it were the other way round, and a man complained about being called a geezer or a bloke or a dude.

The problem is of course, is that the criminal justice system is now packed to the rafters with pretentious deluded wokes.

[Sadact7]

Just call them “fanny” and be done with it.

The beauty of that is you then get to find another job and try it there as well.

[subsub]

The problem is of course, is that the criminal justice system is now packed to the rafters with pretentious deluded wokes.

Or people who are just decent and respect their colleagues in the workplace.

[Zambo]

The problem is of course, is that the criminal justice system is now packed to the rafters with pretentious deluded wokes.

Or people who are just decent and respect their colleagues in the workplace.

You can respect people without this false alarmism and horror when someone uses a harmless colloquialism. It's just passed absurd.

[subsub]

The problem is of course, is that the criminal justice system is now packed to the rafters with pretentious deluded wokes.

Or people who are just decent and respect their colleagues in the workplace.

You can respect people without this false alarmism and horror when someone uses a harmless colloquialism. It's just passed absurd.

That's the point: I don't think it is harmless. It says a lot about a man if he refers to women as 'birds' habitually.
It's disrespectful, and deep down you know it is, too.

[Zambo]

The problem is of course, is that the criminal justice system is now packed to the rafters with pretentious deluded wokes.

Or people who are just decent and respect their colleagues in the workplace.

You can respect people without this false alarmism and horror when someone uses a harmless colloquialism. It's just passed absurd.

That's the point: I don't think it is harmless. It says a lot about a man if he refers to women as 'birds' habitually.
It's disrespectful, and deep down you know it is, too.

Deep down you know it too.

Patronising bollocks, you know nothing about my deep down, and I certainly don't want to know about yours. Moreover, now you are over-dramatising, as you know nothing about this geezer's, sorry, mans deep down. How do you know he call women 'birds' habitually for starters?

Just another pathetic over-reaction from the woke set. A bit like workman whistling at tasty birds as they walk past. They never used to mind until they were told it was disrespectful.

[subsub]

The problem is of course, is that the criminal justice system is now packed to the rafters with pretentious deluded wokes.

Or people who are just decent and respect their colleagues in the workplace.

You can respect people without this false alarmism and horror when someone uses a harmless colloquialism. It's just passed absurd.

That's the point: I don't think it is harmless. It says a lot about a man if he refers to women as 'birds' habitually.
It's disrespectful, and deep down you know it is, too.

Deep down you know it too.

Patronising bollocks, you know nothing about my deep down, and I certainly don't want to know about yours. Moreover, now you are over-dramatising, as you know nothing about this geezer's, sorry, mans deep down. How do you know he call women 'birds' habitually for starters?

Just another pathetic over-reaction from the woke set. A bit like workman whistling at tasty birds as they walk past. They never used to mind until they were told it was disrespectful

Well, in this case, it seems that he did refer to women repeatedly as 'birds', so it would appear that it was a habitual thing for him.
The ruling came in the case of a Barclays investment banker who won a sex discrimination claim after her boss repeatedly called women 'birds'.
I'm not sure what your point is
Oh, and I have a pretty good idea of what you're about, given the stuff you post on here, and the way you quote the DM as if it's gospel.

[Zambo]

The problem is of course, is that the criminal justice system is now packed to the rafters with pretentious deluded wokes.

Or people who are just decent and respect their colleagues in the workplace.

You can respect people without this false alarmism and horror when someone uses a harmless colloquialism. It's just passed absurd.

That's the point: I don't think it is harmless. It says a lot about a man if he refers to women as 'birds' habitually.
It's disrespectful, and deep down you know it is, too.

Deep down you know it too.

Patronising bollocks, you know nothing about my deep down, and I certainly don't want to know about yours. Moreover, now you are over-dramatising, as you know nothing about this geezer's, sorry, mans deep down. How do you know he call women 'birds' habitually for starters?

Just another pathetic over-reaction from the woke set. A bit like workman whistling at tasty birds as they walk past. They never used to mind until they were told it was disrespectful

Well, in this case, it seems that he did refer to women repeatedly as 'birds', so it would appear that it was a habitual thing for him.
The ruling came in the case of a Barclays investment banker who won a sex discrimination claim after her boss repeatedly called women 'birds'.
I'm not sure what your point is
Oh, and I have a pretty good idea of what you're about, given the stuff you post on here, and the way you quote the DM as if it's gospel.

I thought I'd made it pretty clear. It's just another over-reaction from the Wokes. Calling a woman a bird, oh how disgusting, anyone who is on the end of it, is likely to go home and have nervous breakdown.

And your goading won't work with me, you may as well come out and stop hiding behind your keyboard and say what you mean, That is if you have the balls. Just be prepared to back it up.

[subsub]

I thought I'd made it pretty clear. It's just another over-reaction from the Wokes. Calling a woman a bird, oh how disgusting, anyone who is on the end of it, is likely to go home and have nervous breakdown

No, you said:
How do you know he call women 'birds' habitually for starters?
And I replied:
Well, in this case, it seems that he did refer to women repeatedly as 'birds', so it would appear that it was a habitual thing for him, and quoted from the link you posted that said:
The ruling came in the case of a Barclays investment banker who won a sex discrimination claim after her boss repeatedly called women 'birds'.
So it's clear he did use the term habitually. Not really sure why you're arguing the toss over something that has already been proven.

[Zambo]

The judge said it was 'misplaced humour', and then ruled that it was sex discrimination. Calling a woman a bird isn't discriminating against anyone. He wasn't making an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, on the grounds of race, sex, age, or disability. Some may call it demeaning, but it wasn't sexist. I suppose if her name was Robyn it would have been OK.

It's was just another roll over to satisfy the pretentious set. He had even stopped using the word, but that wasn't enough to stop the witch hunt.

She had also been made redundant, so this was quite obviously a malicious move to get her revenge.

I'm closing my account which I have had with Barclays since I was 16 in protest.