Mary Poppins has had its age rating lifted from U to PG because it contains “discriminatory language”. Yet the word in question is so obscure you probably never noticed it. The Mail has more.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) now considers the 1964 tale of Julie Andrews’s magical nanny to be not suitable for children to watch alone, despite the film enchanting generations of youngsters.
The reclassification is due to the use of the word Hottentots. The dated term was historically used by Europeans to refer to the Khoekhoe, a group of nomadic herders in South Africa, but is now regarded as racially offensive.
Admiral Boom, played by Reginald Owen, who believes he is a naval commander in charge of a ship, uses the word twice in the film. On the first occasion, he is seen dangling from the roof in a boat where he asks one of the Banks children if they are “going to fight the Hottentots”.
Later in the film when the chimney sweeps, whose faces are blackened from soot, dance on the roof the admiral exclaims “we’re being attacked by Hottentots”. He then aims fireworks at them.
The BBFC said: “We understand from our racism and discrimination research… that a key concern for… parents is the potential to expose children to discriminatory language or behaviour which they may find distressing or repeat without realising the potential offence.”
I think 60 years have conclusively shown that Mary Poppins has not induced an epidemic of children going round calling people “Hottentots”. So the BBFC can stop clutching its pearls now and relax.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This could be because there is no body or authority to regulate or insist on amateurs playing sport in a park not having Trans in the game. —-But I have said it before that the only way this will stop is if those participating refuse to participate, and this is not easy to organise. I appreciate women will have put a lot of time, effort and money into their sport but if they feel strongly that this nonsense should stop then they must organise, or they will not have a sport left to participate in.
Strikes me as a form of subterfuge and sadism. No real man or real woman would want to take part in a competition where they had obvious unfair inborn advantages. You wouldn’t be winning anything you would just be putting the worst part of yourself on display.
Pervy bastards.
Sickening.
”Protected”? Ha! Look at this. All on the same day, so a good comparison. I’m pretty sure that British females will feel much more secure and protected knowing that only the ‘dangerous’ non-predatory woman got sent down while the three male perverts got off Scott free. They can be assured that the slap on the wrist is all the deterrent these pervs need to learn their lesson;
”On the same day Lucy Connolly was jailed for 31 months for a FB post: a policeman who sexually assaulted 2 women, a registered sex offender who asked children for naked pics online & a pervert voyeur who secretly filmed women on the toilet because he was “horny”, all walked free.”
https://x.com/Wommando/status/1847185045452104064
This dangerous nonsense will only stop if ALL women and girls refuse to participate in organised sports, whether at professional or local level (including schools).