Loz

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ?Gammon? is not racist. It really isn?t. It?s juvenile and idiotic but it doesn?t refer to all white people. Are you really arguing that an insult that only applies to a subset of a race is no longer consider a racist insult? That's quite a claim. Are you a defence lawyer for the EDL? "No, no, your Honour - my client was only referring to those actually wearing a burqa..."

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You really need to check your white privilege if > you think "gammon" is a racist insult. My irony meter just broke.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Only the right have attempted to make the pathetically poor case that "gammon" is a racist > insult - ironically those who immediately cry "political correctness gone mad" if anyone objects > to far worse insults. It's a bit childish but calling it racist is desperate. Apart from the glaring error of your first three words, an insult that is specifically applied to a certain race is, by definition, a racist insult. The insult even alludes to a skin colour. QED. I notice that those who disagree with me haven't actually made any actual argument that it's not racist, just the very weak 'defence' that 'they' use insults as well, so it's OK. Which is a bit like saying that assaulting someone who may possibly have assaulted someone else is somehow OK, rather than the ever-descending-circle of madness is actually is. I don't much like the views of Brexiteers either, but 'gammon' is still a racist insult however much you try to justify it.

flocker spotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Possibly badly delivered but the avalanche of negative comments in the crappy press and online > does not seem to derive from any reasoned consideration of the (admittedly jumbled) issues > presented, just hot steamy knee jerkery action from hot gammon jerks. Ah, nothing like a racist epithet to really drive home that point, is there? Look at it this way: if an organisation commented on terrorism by seemingly berating all from a particular race or religious group, they would be rightly vilified. This is no different. But, hey, it sells soap. Which, for all the virtue signalling, is the basic goal.

Happy to say I've been avoiding this foul-smelling place for the best part of two decades. Ahead of the game...

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now have a go at 'mansplaining', RH! Disgraceful word. Entirely sexist and offensive.

I know most people here won't but ... DO NOT CLICK THE LINK IN THE PREVIOUS POST You will almost certainly download a nasty computer virus. Don't do it.

I know most people here won't but ... DO NOT CLICK THE LINK IN THE PREVIOUS POST You will almost certainly download a nasty computer virus. Don't do it.

I know most people here won't but ... DO NOT CLICK THE LINK IN THE PREVIOUS POST You will almost certainly download a nasty computer virus. Don't do it.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and what?s happened to computedshorty? He wasn't in great health if I remember rightly. I do hope he's OK, as he was a truly amazing story teller. I loved his posts.

GSJ57 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Colin the cat flap fitter was EDF gold. Also the > 'crushed and devalued' thread. I somehow missed Colin the Catflap Fitter thread. Sadly it disappeared before I saw it. The privet hedge thread springs to mind and the Osbourne Stewart one as well. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,671002 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,54674 And, as someone said before, the 'crushed and devalued' thread. http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,279511,279511#msg-279511

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Harry is apparently not Royal, being the supposed > son of James Hewitt's liaison with Diana. > Was he at the wedding?? Their still trying to do > away with him. I used to think he was obviously Hewitts's, but I'm not so sure now. As Harry gets older he's starting to look more like Charles than he does like Hewitt. Plus, Harry was conceived in very early 1984, which is a just little too soon.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > Robert Poste's Child Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't > > > have to see it if you don't want to. > > > > I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can completely ignore their increasingly rabid, > > po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers. > > I feel the same about the Telegraph, I find not going to their website, or if I do not clicking on > the opinion pieces, works quite well. Unfortunately 1) The Guardian is still quite useful for news (though rather less so than it used to be), 2) The Graun like to plaster clickbait links all over the page (because - lets face it - they have to do something to get the nodding dogs of Gruaniadworld to stump up ?5 a month for nothing).

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage > of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't > have to see it if you don't want to. I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can completely ignore their increasingly rabid, po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers.

Jim1234 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My view of Lib Dem ideology is that they are basically Tories with a friendly face. They > privatised the Royal Mail, reek of privilege and have no interest in economic equality, yet are > somehow seen as centre left. You might want to re-acquaint yourself with Lib-Dem policy - you seem a little confused.