We Must Have Respectful Language, Unless you're Telling Someone you had Sex with their Granddaughter

The title of this article, of course, refers to the Sachsgate scandal, which included quite a lot of Disrespectful Language, or 'fruity' to put it in the words of the Head. It seems hypocritical that that sort of language is defended in the classroom, but, simultaneously, admonished; tutors being asked to "encourage the use of appropriate school language".

In previous articles, we poked fun at the Respectful Language 'initiative' the school has taken upon itself in the past few months (in the run up to being assessed for Level 2 Rights Respecting School, coincidentally), but then we discovered a whole trove of incendiary presentations on the subject. Like in the previous article, we found an 'Extension Activity' in one, featuring the word "responsibilities" far too much, and so we inserted 'fetishes' instead of it, to see how it worked out:

At this point P. E. Dant stuck his fat hooter in and pointed out some of the stupid little mistakes that jumped out when you actually looked at the presentation for more than a second. For instance:

He pointed out that the black comment seemed to be written by someone smashing their face repeatedly against a keyboard. Not only should the first 'the' have a capital letter (because its the start of a sentence you four-year-olds), there should be a semi-colon or full-stop and capital letter after 'insult', but we don't recall 'people' having a zero in it. Also, another full-stop at the end.

Also, the word 'gay' doesn't always mean a homosexual. In fact, the use of 'gay' to describe a homosexual only came about in the 1920's and 1930's; before that it meant someone who was “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”. Come the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute, and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women. Ironic, no?

This one was fairly obvious: "Write this done in your books"?