Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What would a Europe without political correctness look like? Watch

    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Bomb in an airport isn't anything to do with being pc that is an immediate threat to life.

    An imam calling for gay people to be killed is fine. It allows for him to be seen for what he is and for discourse to challenge his followers.

    Even so the examples you give are extreme.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you want limits to free speech as well then so it's not 'end of story'

    And the bomb thing is not that far fetched at all (I was against this person going to jail by the way)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

    There are always grey areas, room for nuance.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    People should be free to be as bigoted as they like without (legal) repercussions.
    Why?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by skeptical_john)
    So you want limits to free speech as well then so it's not 'end of story'

    And the bomb thing is not that far fetched at all (I was against this person going to jail by the way)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial

    There are always grey areas, room for nuance.
    Free speech is nothing to do with someone shouting bomb that's an immediate threat of violence or an immediate warning of violence about to happen.

    And it is indeed an end to the story, if you want to be serious in your discussions then give a credible example even if it is extreme like your imam one.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A Europe without political correctness would be one with a greater use of derogatory language and terminology and as such a probably less tolerant society overall, but by how much I don't know.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I appreciate your use of examples/evidence.

    #1 The handbook you seem to have a problem with asks soldiers not to criticise Islam etc. when they're in Afghanistan. That's got nothing to do with 'political correctness'. That's about not getting killed in a time when the local people are growingly resentful of foreign soldiers in their land.

    #2 Although the politically biased blog you've chosen to use as a source is not completely factually inaccurate - again it isn't an issue of political correctness. US gov agencies have only been prohibited from suggesting that Muslims, by being Muslim, support terror. A ridiculous notion that's wholly unhelpful in the war on terror. It also doesn't constitute some abstract violation of free speech that most seems to bother people about 'PC-culture'. Government agencies aren't individuals with personal opinions etc.

    #3 Though your link doesn't appear to work I looked it up and it appears the University have called off their campaign after immense public pressure. So in a strange way that may have been 'political correctness' at work.

    #4 Fox News. Lol. It's worth noting that the kids were also wearing bandanas which are, according to the article, against the dress code and not just for wearing shirts.

    #5 I have never heard of any movement or attempt to replace the word 'manhole' from everyday parlance. There certainly isn't a majority consensus that we should do so an political correctness is usually criticised for having gripped society.

    #6 Saying football is violent has nothing to do with political correctness.

    I'm afraid I can't be bothered to go through all 20 from that article, which as you yourself say, looks like it's from an awful source.

    It's also interested that you've decided to go exclusively for sources relating to America when the OP is discussing political correctness in Europe. I myself am in England though I presume you're in the US?

    I don't see why the existence of arses on youtube in anyway undermines my argument.

    The first two examples you mentioned, to me, "speaks of a lack of knowledge in the area".
    1) I'm quite alright with the idea of more cultural sensitivity when it comes to troops stationed abroad, of course. I'm relatively certain that some more cultural sensitivity could help lower the strain in between the troops and the occupied, although at the same time I'd say that turning a blind eye to pedophilia and sex slaves might not be the right way to go.

    Not opposing religious teachings for the sake of cultural sensitivity can be a good thing, but not when it involves ignoring slavery and other internationally denounced issues.

    If you would have looked at Sweden you would have seen many, many findings of the detriments of some Muslim immigrants/refugees to society due to political correctness. There is serious self hatred in terms of the Swedish ethnicity in Sweden, amongst the politicians at least, while there is an absolute phobia of mentioning anything that would put the Muslim faith in a bad light. Just look at all of the research denouncing the large numbers of Muslim refugees/immigrants that had been repressed. Again, I'm talking about the bad kind of Political Correctness; I'm not against being sensitive and not calling people out as sub-human for following one religion or another, etc.

    2) They were forbidden from saying that Islam is connected to Terrorism. I thought you were actually willing to have some sort of reasonable discussion before reading this argument of yours. Of course that saying someone is a terrorist just because he/she is a Muslim is utter imbecility, but ignoring the fact that a religion such as Islam could cause people to be more likely to be terrorists or be the reason they became terrorists in the first place (or how they were manipulated into becoming terrorists) is quite the imbecility as well.

    3) That was just one instance. If you would take a more serious interest in feminism and political correctness you'd understand the bad sort of political correctness I'm talking about

    4) Even if so, they gave as the main reason the fact that they wore the American flag T-shirts. I share your disdain for fox news, however.

    5) I don't think I'm coming off as a person hateful of politeness, do I? I think that the two of us continue to have a different definition of political correctness.

    6) It shows what direction society is taking, together with the bad (my) sort of political correctness.

    You are right, it does seem like an awful website so I couldn't blame you.

    You are also right that I mostly focused on political correctness in the US; that's what I know the most about. I am not from the US nor do I live there, but I've also taken an interest in Swedish political correctness and a bit in the Danish political correctness, which are in Europe. I can't say I know as much about the UK, to be honest.

    Speaking of lack of knowledge in the area, dismissing bastions of anti-political correctness (youtube channels) with plenty of recognition and great argumentation is very much not a respectable thing. Or perhaps the apparent lack of knowledge of the situation of political correctness in Sweden, especially from a year ago. Another suggested source of information: AngryForeigner on YouTube.

    I feel as though I have to reiterate: I think, because of your understanding of 'political correctness' simply talk of the possible dangers of too much censorship, including self-censorship, from an overwhelming general opinion of having to accept anyone in any way, which is the position of many Swedish politicians. Maybe not using the term political correctness would allow us to get something out of our argument?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    A Europe without political correctness would be one with a greater use of derogatory language and terminology and as such a probably less tolerant society overall, but by how much I don't know.
    Do you describe political correctness as politeness and the lack of being a bigotted prick, or as something that may lead to censorship and self censorship even when stating facts, thus leading to a society so willing to accept everything and everyone that very bad things begin to happen (because of the separation of logic and policy making because of fear of not being 'politically correct').

    I think the thread starter should have defined exactly what they see as political correctness, or else risk, as has been seen, plenty of confusion in terms of people's stances on the issue.

    I don't think most of those opposing political correctness are in favor of immense increases in racism/sexism, etc, but rather in favor of not having people's minds clouded by an incessant need to be 'fully accepting' and instead maintain some form of objective logic and reasoning, and of course not in favor of wide spread censorship on serious issues backed up by facts and not mindless racism/sexism/etc.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    But now you're picking and choosing specific instances of speech and arguing that, because they don't produce better results, it's not worth protecting. That was my original complaint against you. Again, why not ban every instance of 'nonesense' without percieved value, then, hmm? What even gives you the right?

    It does not matter if certain speech is (or appears to be) offensive nonsense devoid of any value; what matters is that people have the right to say it. This is the meaning and principle of freedom. They should be just as free to spout what you consider to be offensive nonsense as you should be free to spout what they consider to be offensive nonsense. Fair is fair. There isn't even necessarily a clear, objective line between 'offensive' and 'inoffensive' speech in the first place, for example.

    Holocaust denial is easily rebutted and hasn't exactly led to the rise to widespread anti-Semitism in free societies that allow it. It's mocked (quite rightly), and naturally fails to gain much popular ground, even in places where it's legally permitted. I haven't exactly seen much Neo-Nazism in Toronto recently. And if someone published an article challenging the historical truth of the Holocaust, several articles would be published the next day kicking the intellectual crap out of it, exposing its flaws for all to see.

    Which brings me to my next point: an important aspect of free speech is maintaining an open market place of ideas. Good ideas will always eventually win out against bad ideas, provided the exchange is kept free. No censorship required, no rights suppressed. This is how philosophy progresses and how society learns. This is valuable. And sometimes the 'offensive' speakers spouting 'nonesense' turn out to be right in the end. And if they aren't, prison isn't where they belong. We just ignore them or mock them.

    For these reasons, PC authoritarianism is bad. Limiting people's rights and personal freedoms because you and politically like-minded individuals happen to agree with each other and not them does not give you the right to shut them up. At that moment you become a hypocrite and a bully; you have put your freedom and your speech before somebody else's and acted upon them with force.
    Of course I'm picking and choosing - that's the basis of my argument - that free speech all the time isn't always the best thing. It is not intrinsically valuable (he said again) but valuable for the often positive results it produces. There isn't a logical progression from that simple idea to 'ban every statement that isn't valuable'. Also, as I am not in charge of Germany, I have no right whatsoever to determine whether or not people should be allowed to espouse rubbish about the holocaust not occurring. I do however have the right to openly support that law - something to do with free speech.

    Freedom of speech began to be thought of as 'intrinsically valuable' at a time when there was mass censorship and widespread ignorance in the most liberal arenas. We don't live in such times anymore. Freedom of speech was defended as being untouchable because to treat it with any less reverence would risk it never becoming a major freedom of the populous. In the modern age we can look intelligently at when, why and how much of it we need.

    It's not about 'not having value' it's about being actively detrimental. Also this thread is about political correctness not state censorship. In most countries holocaust denial isn't illegal but it is taboo - i.e. 'political correctness' suppresses those ideas. This, apparently, you have a problem with? There is also the point that Germany isn't quite like other countries.

    "Good ideas will always win out against bad" - there isn't actually any reason to believe that unless you're defining 'good ideas' as 'the ones that win out in the end' - which is just a tautology.

    It doesn't make me a hypocrite. My philosophy is a simple one and easy to follow. The reality of the holocaust isn't a political issue. To say that people should be allowed to promote the idea is to entertain, even for a moment, that deniers could be right (something you did by saying "sometimes the 'offensive' speakers spouting 'nonesense' turn out to be right in the end"). That is reprehensible.

    The concept of a 'market place for ideas' is an interesting one. Markets are regulated.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    A Europe without political correctness would be one with a greater use of derogatory language and terminology and as such a probably less tolerant society overall, but by how much I don't know.
    I think the opposite, it's like when you go to counselling you have to open up to how you truly feel for things to be resolved and challenged.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    1) I'm quite alright with the idea of more cultural sensitivity when it comes to troops stationed abroad, of course. I'm relatively certain that some more cultural sensitivity could help lower the strain in between the troops and the occupied, although at the same time I'd say that turning a blind eye to pedophilia and sex slaves might not be the right way to go.

    Not opposing religious teachings for the sake of cultural sensitivity can be a good thing, but not when it involves ignoring slavery and other internationally denounced issues.

    If you would have looked at Sweden you would have seen many, many findings of the detriments of some Muslim immigrants/refugees to society due to political correctness. There is serious self hatred in terms of the Swedish ethnicity in Sweden, amongst the politicians at least, while there is an absolute phobia of mentioning anything that would put the Muslim faith in a bad light. Just look at all of the research denouncing the large numbers of Muslim refugees/immigrants that had been repressed. Again, I'm talking about the bad kind of Political Correctness; I'm not against being sensitive and not calling people out as sub-human for following one religion or another, etc.

    2) They were forbidden from saying that Islam is connected to Terrorism. I thought you were actually willing to have some sort of reasonable discussion before reading this argument of yours. Of course that saying someone is a terrorist just because he/she is a Muslim is utter imbecility, but ignoring the fact that a religion such as Islam could cause people to be more likely to be terrorists or be the reason they became terrorists in the first place (or how they were manipulated into becoming terrorists) is quite the imbecility as well.

    3) That was just one instance. If you would take a more serious interest in feminism and political correctness you'd understand the bad sort of political correctness I'm talking about

    4) Even if so, they gave as the main reason the fact that they wore the American flag T-shirts. I share your disdain for fox news, however.

    5) I don't think I'm coming off as a person hateful of politeness, do I? I think that the two of us continue to have a different definition of political correctness.

    6) It shows what direction society is taking, together with the bad (my) sort of political correctness.

    You are right, it does seem like an awful website so I couldn't blame you.

    You are also right that I mostly focused on political correctness in the US; that's what I know the most about. I am not from the US nor do I live there, but I've also taken an interest in Swedish political correctness and a bit in the Danish political correctness, which are in Europe. I can't say I know as much about the UK, to be honest.

    Speaking of lack of knowledge in the area, dismissing bastions of anti-political correctness (youtube channels) with plenty of recognition and great argumentation is very much not a respectable thing. Or perhaps the apparent lack of knowledge of the situation of political correctness in Sweden, especially from a year ago. Another suggested source of information: AngryForeigner on YouTube.

    I feel as though I have to reiterate: I think, because of your understanding of 'political correctness' simply talk of the possible dangers of too much censorship, including self-censorship, from an overwhelming general opinion of having to accept anyone in any way, which is the position of many Swedish politicians. Maybe not using the term political correctness would allow us to get something out of our argument?
    1) The troops handbook has nothing to do with political correctness in our society - it's evidence based decision making to save lives abroad. It should be disregarded from this discussion.

    I'll grant you that Sweden probably has taken political correctness too far though the Swedes have a very different culture to ours and taken in the context of their culture their politicians actions are understandable.

    2) I am having a reasonable discussion. You should read the source you provided. Here are some quotes:

    "Pentagon taught employees that mainstream Muslims embrace violence and compared the Islamic religion to the death star"
    "purge material that conflates terrorism with mainstream Islam"

    Even the biased source you chose is clear that this isn't about ignoring the link between religious extremism and terrorism but about ensuring ordinary Muslims aren't thrown in the same box as terrorists. That's not 'political correctness', that's 'accuracy'.

    3) Obviously that was just one instance. A campaign that was quickly removed and hardly politically correct. And yes the so called 'feminists' who give feminism a bad name are annoying but their views are not the mainstream. They aren't 'politically correct' and no one is pressured into agreeing with them. They're just another group with dodgy ideas.

    4) I suspect it was Fox News that gave that as the main reason, a news outlet with an appalling record when it comes to accuracy. Ultimately, the kids (who were probably trying to make some kind of political statement) broke the dress code.

    5) Not particularly.

    6) 'it shows what direction society is taking' - seriously? It has nothing to do with political correctness and should be disregarded from this discussion.

    This is a discussion on Europe and the US' Republican presidential nominee suggest that they don't have too big a problem with PC-culture.

    You seem like someone whose admitted interest in 'political correctness' has led them to seek out examples and convince themselves it's this apocalyptic thing. Thunderf00t is a youtuber that some people like and some don't (I recall watching a video about atheism by him ages ago). He is free to give his opinion. The fact he does is not evidence that Europe has a problem with political correctness.

    Hmmm.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I think the opposite, it's like when you go to counselling you have to open up to how you truly feel for things to be resolved and challenged.
    I wouldn't know about that, this doesn't make difference to what I had said.

    I'm thinking specifically about the terms which are not acceptable to use. For example the word ''Paki'' isn't often used to describe someone from Pakistan as it has become a racial slur. As much as it may be 'correct' it isn't used due to the offence it can cause.

    There are various implications of political correctness. The above is one of them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    Do you describe political correctness as politeness and the lack of being a bigotted prick, or as something that may lead to censorship and self censorship even when stating facts, thus leading to a society so willing to accept everything and everyone that very bad things begin to happen (because of the separation of logic and policy making because of fear of not being 'politically correct'.
    I'd describe political correctness using this definition. Politeness would come into that somewhere, though not always. PC is mainly about avoiding offence.

    I don't see where bigotry, sexism, racism, etc, come into the discussion about political correctness. The former is about what you think and what you do while the latter is much more about how you use and apply language.

    I see them as two separate things. You can be bigoted and politically correct, or non-racist and politically incorrect.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)

    An imam calling for gay people to be killed is fine. It allows for him to be seen for what he is and for discourse to challenge his followers.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Depends on whether it's opinion or direct incitement.

    For example, writing in an online blog "I think the law should be changed so as to punish homosexuality by the death penalty" is an opinion. Gathering a rabidly and ruthlessly homophobic gay crowd armed with knives and guns and instructing them to find the gay people they know in the area and kill them themselves is incitement.

    OK, that's an extreme example, but there are shades of grey.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Relevant video:



    Zizek summarises my view on the matter quite well, and many of the conflations on this thread and by people on TSR in general.

    Free speech means the right to speak without the law or the government preventing you. It does not mean you inherently have a right to publish that speech in any particular medium, post it on a web forum, or have anyone listen to you, and it certainly doesn't mean everyone is required to treat whatever you say as credible and worthy of discussion and refrain from ridiculing it.

    If you want to argue that free speech does include access to media, then a far more important target than "political correctness" would be newspaper and other media ownership structures and how they often represent the interests of those who own and are invested in them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Depends on whether it's opinion or direct incitement.

    For example, writing in an online blog "I think the law should be changed so as to punish homosexuality by the death penalty" is an opinion. Gathering a rabidly and ruthlessly homophobic gay crowd armed with knives and guns and instructing them to find the gay people they know in the area and kill them themselves is incitement.

    OK, that's an extreme example, but there are shades of grey.
    I'd say a crime hasn't been committed until some action is being taken.

    When you start drawing lines of what's ok then someone has to draw those lines.
    Who does that? Where does it stop?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    I wouldn't know about that, this doesn't make difference to what I had said.

    I'm thinking specifically about the terms which are not acceptable to use. For example the word ''Paki'' isn't often used to describe someone from Pakistan as it has become a racial slur. As much as it may be 'correct' it isn't used due to the offence it can cause.

    There are various implications of political correctness. The above is one of them.
    It shouldn't be a crime to offend someone this is a modern disease people have....

    Ooo that offends me....

    So what? Challenge me on it, open up to me about your thoughts....

    That's why my last comment is relevant


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Of course I'm picking and choosing - that's the basis of my argument - that free speech all the time isn't always the best thing. It is not intrinsically valuable (he said again) but valuable for the often positive results it produces. There isn't a logical progression from that simple idea to 'ban every statement that isn't valuable'. Also, as I am not in charge of Germany, I have no right whatsoever to determine whether or not people should be allowed to espouse rubbish about the holocaust not occurring. I do however have the right to openly support that law - something to do with free speech.
    My former statement was: "Freedom of speech is a principal that remains necessary regardless of the 'value' of what's said. Even something has no value at all, so what?"

    To which you replied: "I'm not discussing the value of random, unspecified examples of free speech..."

    We are talking about free speech. You are implying that if it has no 'value' it is not worth protecting, i.e. censoring/banning it is a-OK. Also, you are entirely free to support German speech policies. However, while you are supporting this through your own free speech, the German government is suppressing the free speech of others with whom you disagree. You just happen to agree with this because you dislike Holocaust denial and it suits you. This is where we differ - I don't support Holocaust denial, either, but I would protect people's right to openly deny the Holocaust even though I find their opinions moronic and reprehensible.

    And the value doesn't necessary lie in the speech itself; the value lies in people's freedom to have free speech, to speak their minds and express themselves freely without persecution from those in power. The speech is less important than the right to that speech.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Freedom of speech began to be thought of as 'intrinsically valuable' at a time when there was mass censorship and widespread ignorance in the most liberal arenas. We don't live in such times anymore. Freedom of speech was defended as being untouchable because to treat it with any less reverence would risk it never becoming a major freedom of the populous. In the modern age we can look intelligently at when, why and how much of it we need.

    It's not about 'not having value' it's about being actively detrimental. Also this thread is about political correctness not state censorship. In most countries holocaust denial isn't illegal but it is taboo - i.e. 'political correctness' suppresses those ideas. This, apparently, you have a problem with? There is also the point that Germany isn't quite like other countries.
    This thread is about political correctness creating censorship (which is indeed what it does). People choosing not to say something because it is merely taboo is not the same as being stopped from saying it by an authority or the threat of legal repercussions.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    "Good ideas will always win out against bad" - there isn't actually any reason to believe that unless you're defining 'good ideas' as 'the ones that win out in the end' - which is just a tautology.
    Ideas with merit, more evidence, etc., eventually supersede those that are lacking. It's a logical progression.

    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It doesn't make me a hypocrite. My philosophy is a simple one and easy to follow. The reality of the holocaust isn't a political issue. To say that people should be allowed to promote the idea is to entertain, even for a moment, that deniers could be right (something you did by saying "sometimes the 'offensive' speakers spouting 'nonesense' turn out to be right in the end"). That is reprehensible.

    The concept of a 'market place for ideas' is an interesting one. Markets are regulated.
    Except I'm not saying we have to entertain the idea that Holocaust deniers might be right. We know they're wrong. What I'm saying is that they should still be allowed to speak their opinions as free human beings, as we should be allowed to mock and deride them where necessary.

    However, some ideas we have found offensive in the past (eg. mankind evolving from other species) turn out to have merit. Your 19th century equivalent would likely be making the same argument about Darwin talking offensive nonsense and his speech having no value. The notion that humans were descended from apes and not created by God in the Garden of Eden was far from politically correct at the time. It was seen as an affront to Christian beliefs and values. Imagine if the British government threatened to arrest 'Adam and Eve deniers'. 19th century RayApparently would be just fine with that, it seems.

    Again, however, the possibility of being right is not the only reason for free speech having value and needing to be protected (all of it - it's a package deal, I'm afriad). All human beings should be free to pursue and share their opinions without being locked up. Do I have to repeat the old saying: "I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

    All free speech may not be equal in your eyes, but it is all equally speech. Picking and choosing what isn't appropriate because you and like-minded supporters of the status quo don't believe it has value takes one down a dark, dangerous, and tricky road.

    And don't take the market analogy too literally. A government regulating its economy is not the same as it selectively regulating people's right to speak their minds.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think political correctness has its place. Outright bigotry shouldn't be normalised and it's good that as a society we ostracise this. Attacks on people for things like disability, being homosexual, their sex, their race and wealth background are not on in a modern, civilised society.

    The problem is that a lot of people define bigotry as pretty much everything. Like criticising certain religious dogmas is fine, but others is "bigotry". It's totally regressive and leads to situations like when Manchester Police recently came under fire for that anti-terrorism training exercise where the perp was a Muslim, despite the fact that this made it s realistic scenario.

    So PC is a good thing but we must be mindful to maintain some common sense and a sense of reality and pragmatism*
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It shouldn't be a crime to offend someone this is a modern disease people have....

    Ooo that offends me....

    So what? Challenge me on it, open up to me about your thoughts....

    That's why my last comment is relevant
    Er... okay? I still don't get what this has to do with either my first post or my reply.

    What you've said doesn't relate to the kind of political correctness that I have mentioned.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I'd say a crime hasn't been committed until some action is being taken.

    When you start drawing lines of what's ok then someone has to draw those lines
    The line is relatively simple: should he have reasonably expected that as a direct result of his words, people would go out and commit murder? Similar to how other crimes are judged.
    .
    Who does that? Where does it stop?
    Juries do that, as they do with every other crime.

    The fact that exact codified lines between X and Y may be blurred and difficult to draw does not mean that X and Y are not different.

    Just to back this point up with a real life example: many scholars of the Rwandan Genocide have pointed to the importance of radio broadcasts in inciting and directing the killing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If people can't get the link between discourse and political correctness I'm done


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.