Originally Posted by Aardvark

Actually I was born just outside Coventry. The city is one of the most multi-racial in the UK and inbreeding is only inbreeding in that everyone is a human being. I live in Carterton the garrison town for RAF Brize Norton - we have one of the most fluid populations in the UK. One year 30% of the electoral roll in one of the wards full of married quarters changed between annual elections. There are only a handful of locals since the settlement is only just over 100 years old and only achieved town status in the last 30 years.

My ancestry is very mixed. Gilmans from Ireland (originally England in the 16th century), Wessons from Leicestershire, Highams from Manchester, Hills from Devon, Windsors from Binley near Coventry, Tidmans from Foleshill near Coventry, Mac Dougalls and Greaves from Scotland. I married a Holland from Yorkshire, and she had Scots, Irish and Geordie forebears. I suspect I'm not very inbred at all, although some of my ancestors might have been.

The point is that the good doctor was using technically correct medical terminology to highlight a possible cause of increased propensity to diabetes. What is wrong with someone using language correctly. Surely UKIP is not arguing for a dumbing down of the English language because Sun readers only know 600 of the 100,000 or so English words. I get really annoyed when people call me posh or a snob because I choose to use technically correct words in my speech. It is the inverted snobbery of those who can't be bothered to read a dictionary or thesaurus, something I do regularly if I am not sure of a word or someone has used it in an unusual sense or even when my teenage daughter asks what certain words mean. People who read this forum regularly know that I am critical of people who argue without the use of punctuation, proper sentence construction or with spelling mistakes that cannot be attributed to the occasional typo, something we are all guilty of.

The furore, whipped up by the local press no doubt, is artificial. Norfolk does have a more stable population than much of England because of the lack of industrialisation. People, until the last 20 or 30 years, were more likely to migrate outwards to big cities than inwards in search of non-existent jobs. This meant that large numbers of small communities had no fresh blood and the people who remained were therefore 'inbred' in the technical sense. This happened elsewhere in the British Isles.

It is only an insult to people to call them inbred when it is meant to indicate a mental slowness. The people who use 'inbred' as an insult probably also call people 'spastics'. The doctor was not setting out to insult people therefore he should not apologise; he was trying to make a reasoned medical statement. He didn't suggest that the whole of Norfolk was inbred; the diabetes figures are in the hundreds. It was that group of people he thought had a problem. The press are to blame for misinterpreting and misquoting.

The point is that inbreeding leads to an increase in certain medical conditions. If people do not acknowledge the relatively good science of such a statement then illnesses will not be dealt with. I don't understand the problem here. In this country there are inbred people. There appear to be a disproportionate number in Norfolk. So what? There are more red headed Celts. We might not want to eliminate red headed people, but we might want a cure for diabetes.

If you were a GP and someone turned up with a hereditary illness would you tell them the truth or, because of political correctness, would you lie? If you would lie, and some posters imply that telling the truth is somehow wrong, then you would not have been able to eliminate Huntingdon's Chorea from the population. If your patient had an illness that was linked to inbreeding would you lie or tell the truth? The patient could then decide to marry someone outside of a close circle to reduce risk. That seems sensible to me.

My Celtic grandfather died of the now curable illness of pylo nephritis, he may also have had anomalous kidneys. My brother has anomalous kidneys and had a similar inflammation. My daughter is now cured of pylo nephritis and has anomalous kidneys. It appears to be a hereditary condition; it would be nice to prevent future generations having the same problem, but it won't happen if language puritans won't allow scientific discussion.

My mother's cousin had a rare hereditary condition. He married a woman with the same condition. They didn't realise that they were genetically as close as they were. Their son died at the age of 14 as a result of a defect caused by their intermarrying. Those of you arguing against a doctor using correct medical terminology would consign many more people to an early grave.

If you read some of the research into diabetes amongst native Americans you will note the Pima Indians, a small tribe, are over 90% susceptible to the condition. Ideally the tribe should not intermarry but should breed themselves out of existence in order to protect their children.

How on earth are we supposed to be politically incorrect if we won't allow discussion of medical conditions?

Do you all remember the fuss over paedophiles arising a few years ago? A consultant paediatrician was violently attacked.

As Hereward says she was saying that she meant something different to what was understood by the lynch mob.

If people have the benefit of a good education and can use language correctly we should be delighted. I'm the son of a Coventry car worker. I passed my 11+ and went to a grammar school. This enabled me to get a couple of degrees and be commissioned into the RAF. Surely people should be happy that the education system allowed me to progress, but no, the likes of Hereward were the same guys who used to attack the grammar school boys on the way home from school. No doubt, because I can use a few Latin aphorisms in my speech he would call me pompous and undiplomatic if I had to explain to people who didn't know what I meant even though I had only been using my professional argot.

I really do worry that people on this forum don't see the issue here.

Originally Posted by Aardvark

If the guy said "the people of Norfolk" are all inbred then they would, if it were not true, have grounds for complaint. The point was about propensity for a certain medical condition. [THE point is that he made a statement which was likely to be regarded as offensive,]

Hereward, I didn't say that you hadn't passed your 11+; I said that I had. [In the following sentence, you said: " . . the likes of Hereward were the same guys who used to attack the grammar school boys on the way home from school." Would you have me believe that these "same guys" had also been to grammar school?]
In any event, my point was that I was able to escape, for a few years, the life of factory work that so many of my peer group entered into on leaving school.[Good for you. Success in passing the 11+ was affected by a number of factors, which included: (1) the number of grammar school places available relative to particular 'school populations' and (2) the general standard of education amongst those competing for particular places. For these reasons alone, the 11+ could not be regarded as setting a nationwide standard.]


I continue to have an excellent education in the university of life; it's not all about paper qualifications, although those help. Not all the exams I passed were written; I passed a large number of flying sorties in order to get 2000 hours as a navigator. I also passed a large number of leadership training exercises, that you also seem to pooh pooh with your insult to those of us who graduated from the Royal Air Force College Cranwell.[I poo, poo your superiority complex. It would not only be a prejudice, but silly, to tar every Cranwell 'graduate' alike.]
My superiority complex comes from being elected to 2 council seats, something your party has yet to achieve!!! [HMmm! Theories of pyschiatry might suggest something different. Even so, congratulations on your success in getting elected (I am not being ironic here), but I do not regard the EDP in any way diminished by your comments which, in some circumstances, I might feel tempted to describe as 'snide', but I have the impression that you are already on the defensive, so I will not indulge myself. It is my opinion that UKIP has some good quality members, as evidenced by some of the postings here. Unfortunately, as with all parties, it has its quota of the 'not so good'.]
:roll:

I cite cases from both my own experience and from papers I have read. I really am not a Pima Indian, nor am I Afro-Carribean although I might have some Jewish blood. I talked about my origins because Matt hinted that I might be inbred; I'm not, but my family still carries certain genetic markers which is normal. [You seem preternaturally sensitive and defensive.]


You talk of Gibson being a politician as if that meant he shouldn't speak his mind. [No, that is your interpretation, totally unsupported by anything I wrote.]
Bob Marshall-Andrews is a politician, but Parliament would be a less interesting place if he lost his seat. Politicians are not supposed to be endowed with tact, but with an ability to speak honestly.[There is a difference between being honest and being offensive.]
You should have heard some of the things I said on the hustings at the last GE. I certainly confused Cameron and his ilk with straight talking on a lot of subjects.[All this is aside from Gibson's indicretion here.]


The fact that, in your opinion, Gibson does not perform well as a politician doesn't mean that he isn't a good doctor. [He is not paid to be a doctor. His current occupation is MP.]
That is a non sequitur. [I fear the beam is in your eye.]
Tony Blair was apparently a very average junior barrister, yet he is, in the eyes of some, a very successful politician having won 3 elections in a row - something, Hereward, I might suggest that nobody on this forum is ever likely to achieve, not even me!!! :wink: [Not relevant. Please concentrate, instead of shifting ground. Blair is now a politician. Indeed, he has practised politics far longer than he ever practised as a barrister professionally ie in the Courts for fees.]


Not everything that is said by politicians is comfortable. Tony Benn, Tam Dalyell, Dennis Skinner, Enoch Powell, Ian Paisley, Margaret Thatcher, Shirley Williams, Anne Widdecombe, to name a few, speak uncomfortable truths as seen from their own positions. None of them is called on to apologise for the hurt they might have caused by what they say and none of them would ever apologise for stating their valid opinions openly. Dr Gibson spoke the truth, as he saw it, concerning a few hundred people with Type 1 diabetes. He indicated that he thought that it was caused by inbreeding. He didn't use inbred as a pejorative term; he used it in a scientific context. Do you want politicians to speak slowly and use short words so that everyone can understand what they say? [Irrelevant verbiage. You have shifted ground again.]


There is nothing wrong with being inbred. The people who have taken offence see being inbred as socially unacceptable because they have hangovers from the list of relationships defined as not acceptable in the Book of Common Prayer. It is a problem, but it is not the fault of the child who is inbred, rather the parents are to blame. It is normal in some societies, but people need to be aware of the risks caused by marrying too close. That I think was the point that was being made.[Again, not relevant. You must learn to concentrate.]


Hereward, you are angry with me because I highlighted the rude comment you made.[That is your interpretation. I could be equally subjective, and attribute particular emotions to your comments. Again, you do not seem to be aware of how presumptious you can be.]
You don't seem to like people who are formally educated and your attack on the 11+ suggests that you either did not take it or did not pass it. [I did take it and, for what it was worth, I passed despite having a severe pain from an ear abcess during the second part, which burst shortly thereafter. Boring, isn't it.]
I make no apologies for being prolix. I enjoy the sound of my own keyboard. [It's all very well for you to indulge yourself when a result is to obfuscate the issue.]


Back to hypothesis, would you, as a politician, state the truth, even though it is hurtful, or would you lie to keep the proles happy?[What useful and constructive purpose has been served by Dr Gibson's outburst?]
Is it the position of the EDP that telling unhurtful truths is not politically acceptable? [No, but this is beside the point.]
Did you really intend to type everything in bold so that your opinion stands out from others? Perhaps you're as up yourself as I am (I know what I mean). :twisted:[You are free to draw your own conclusion and, thus far, to state it however undesirable that might be.]