Jump to content

Loz

Member
  • Posts

    8,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Loz

  1. Loz

    Flush Lush

    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..."
  2. Loz

    Flush Lush

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

    Flush Lush

    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.
  4. Loz

    Flush Lush

    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.
  5. Loz

    Flush Lush

    Happy to say I've been avoiding this foul-smelling place for the best part of two decades. Ahead of the game...
  6. Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now have a go at 'mansplaining', RH! Disgraceful word. Entirely sexist and offensive.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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).
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Precisely. > > Plus I suspect there?s far more support for them than republicans would like. I doubt we?ll be > seeing any more referendums anytime soon anyway, but even if one was held, I think we?re many, many > years away from support for wholesale reform. Plus it?s tied up with many other constitutional > issues. Casting aside the ideological sentiments of the anti-monachists, a more practical view would ask, "why change"? It works, does the job well and any replacement would be no cheaper. The royals are popular around the world - a meeting with Liz is probably the top of any country leader's wish list (especially as POTUS is not exactly flavour of the month). Replacing the monarchy would relegate the UK Head of State to the world equivalent of Frank-Walter Steinmeier. And if your first thought is "who is he", then I rest my case.
  17. Jim1234 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am disappointed to see Labour introduce what is > effectively a poll tax, but the Lib Dems are far > worse ideologically. In what way?
  18. Ellem86 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't think the bride has behaved badly at all, > it seems to be her money grabbing family. I feel really sorry for her father. Blackmailed by the paparazzi and stressed him out so much he's in hospital with heart problems, missing the wedding completely and the honour of walking his daughter up the aisle.
  19. Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not that there's anything wrong with that, either! There is if there's only you and a wine bottle involved.
  20. 8,651 posts in just short of 11 years. Oh, dear. Though I do like when, like today, old threads get resurrected with old posters like annaj and Moos. (I'm trying to think of who RPC's previous self could be.)
  21. Quia Differt Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Question then rendel can you be sexist against > both sexes as I went through various situations > both praising and critising both Males and Females > ? Misandrist + Misogynist = Misanthrope? (I missed what happened. Was my black cab guess correct?)
  22. Inbound Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It makes me wonder at the mentality of the wardens > who thought a smashed up motorcycle in the ditch > was parked illegally! > I guess it must have made him/her feel great to be > doing his civic duty? Playing Devil's Advocate, it was there for a week and warden wasn't to know that the owner was incapacitated.
  23. Generally upcoming gas or water works.
  24. Loz

    Brexit View

    JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a vote on the single market in the Lords > today - with the Labour front bench abstaining. > Might still pass - but I don't want us to be in > the single market and customs union - I want us to > be back in and leading the EU. The Labour whip is trying to get all the Labour group to abstain, but some are rebelling. Thankfully. Which is exactly the problem with Corbyn. He wants Brexit... but doesn't want to be seen to be wanting Brexit. As one of the Labour peers said, ?This is complete cowardice." The problem with getting rid of May is that some hard-line Brexiter like Gove will pick up the reins. Her utter ineffectualness is possibly useful at this stage.
  25. Loz

    Brexit View

    Cardelia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JohnL Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > I absolutely detested the way my last vote for > > Labour was used by Theresa May as an endorsement > > of Brexit - disgusting. > > Well, what do you expect when you vote for a party > that backs Brexit? > > I understand that not everyone who voted for > Labour wanted to leave the EU. But if you felt > that strongly about Brexit, why did you vote for a > party which was committed to leaving the EU? Exactly. As per the point I made earlier, the Brexiters are making their vote count. Leavers are still voting all over the shop - and some of them are voting Labour, which is, essentially, a vote for Brexit. Especially as their leader is a committed Brexiter and always has been.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...