James

Just to make it clear, I did not bring the discrimination issue up again. Bob and Moos did. So if they are allowed to comment I think I should be allowed to reply. I have posted a reply on the correct thread.

>>I'm afraid the point - which has sailed right over your head (again) - is that neither of them should be used as insults unless you're a sad, narrow-minded, prejudiced person. Or in your case - because you haven't thought about it enough yet. ___________________________________________________________________ That's funny. A minute ago you were saying it was okay to use the word "gay" as an insult. Now you've changed your mind. Contradicting yourself yet again. Moreover, you still fail to address the issue that using the word "gay" to mean "sh*t" is akin to using a word like "black" or "Pakistani" to mean "sh*t". Which you wouldn't. So why is the word "gay" different? Please explain.

>>if James is allowed his little bit of 'social racism' with continual sneery use of the word 'Chav' (for no reason other than people not speakin proper and possibly not buying the Guardian) then a light misuse of the word 'Gay' might help him remember not everyone thinks it's 'on'. Love the way that you're able to read my mind Bob. What a gift you have! Apart from your blatant hypocrisy (so two wrongs make a right?) you still fail to understand the basic point. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that using the name for someone's sexuality as an insult is a bit nasty? And that the word "chav" does not mean "a working-class person" (perhaps it does to you, in which case you're more nasty and bigoted than i thought. Your definition above is YOUR view - not mine). "Chav" is an insult - meaning a particular kind of lout who engages in anti-social behaviour. If you are suggesting that all working-class people are chavs you are insulting the majority of working-class people (including one of my close friends) who most certainly are not. "Gay" is not an insult. Unless you are a sad, narrow-minded, prejudiced person.

Depends what you mean Lozzy. Gay as in "sh*t" or gay as in effeminate/camp? Either way, you're stereotyping. Got you a cheap laugh though, so well done for that.

Haven't been inside yet but it looks a big improvement on the previous chavvy, grotty incarnation. Why shouldn't boozers be more women-friendly?

One that always makes me snigger is Bonar Road, announced by the posh lady's voice on the 63... She stresses the last syllable (unfortunately)

Why is it sad that this place has closed down? Is that a joke?

I guess the problem with grammar rules is that usage is constantly evolving so you have to allow for this. Necessitating a degree of subjectivity. But I think we can all agree on where apostrophes ought and ought not to go (?) That isn't a grey area (except to the uninitiated). I feel a bit sorry for Toby. But admire his chutzpah in the face of such negativity (including myself in the latter).

This will be lounged, I'm sure... why? I'm not saying she's perfect but she soes have a point about wayward apostrophes.

A quick reminder: It's = It is Its = possessive (as in "on its own") This thread is enough to make Lynne Truss foam at the mouth. Oh and I will certainly give Bar Hollyoaks a chance. How about a gay night? (Steeling myself for an onslaught)

Shame that Bob thinks this thread is about scoring points and has completely missed the point that has been hammered home about a hundred times here. Also quite sad and pathetic that you have bothered to trawl through old threads to score a point. If you think that me using the word "pikey" (which, as has been pointed out, is disputed as a racial slur - and I certainly didn't intend it that way) invalidates the point about homophobia being less challenged than racism in certain circumstances then you are more childish and ignorant than I thought.

I shouldn't have used the word "pikey" and for that I'm sorry. But the very fact that this has been leapt on while some posters here think it's perfectly ok to use the word "gay" to mean "sh*t" is telling, very telling indeed. As is the fact that Huguenot compares gay people to those with sexual fetishes. A common right-wing tabloid technique and quite disappointing really. The basic problem is that some people still seem to think that being gay is some sort of lifestyle you choose to adopt. This is such a ridiculous notion I don't know where to begin really! Perhaps you should ask yourself why people still struggle to be straight for years (myself included) before eventually coming to terms with being gay... or as an experiment, you should try to make yourself gay for a day!

I think the government knows this so are using the "more choice" facade to placate floating voters - by the time they have been placated with more faith schools & rebranded academies clawing their way a few points up the league tables the only kids left totally failing will be those with parents who probably wouldn't vote anyway. Call me cynical...

Oh for goodness sake, wake up! Read my posts again. "Pikey" is obviously not acceptable as it is a racial slur. But nobody has to be a "chav". You can choose not to be! But you cannot choose your ethnicity and sexuality.

I've heard a wide range of opinions about the Charter school. Some say it's a model comprehensive but a teacher friend who went for an interview said he was amazed by the apparent lack of discipline and litter strewn about on the grounds. There is quite an extreme mix of backgrounds and abilities. It may well be a great school but - as with any propsective school - make sure you visit on an open day to get a real feel for the place. What's great for someone else's child may not be right for yours and vice versa.

Being a "chav" is not genetic. It is a particular kind of person who is materialistic, ignorant and has no respect for anyone else. I hope you are not suggesting that all working-class people are "chavs". In that case you would be ticking the "class prejudice" box - in addition to the "casual homophobia" one.

Schools are much better further out in Bromley (there are several really strong comprehensives as well as top grammars). But Bromley is a dull, Footballers' Wives-type place. East Dulwich is much nicer IMO and I think the schools around here are getting better.

Great article Moos, I hope all the people who think it's ok to use "gay" as an insult read it!

But have you ever heard a prime-time broadcaster say it?

Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College in New Cross is reputed to be one of the best state schools in the country. It's sadly also one of the most over-subscribed... If your kids are gifted at music it might help to get them in.

What I'm saying is that a choice between a failing school and a decent one isn't really a choice. Who would choose the bad one? It's not like going into Starbucks and having your frappamochawhatever the hell it is.

>>I don't believe in choice. No one really wants a choice of schools because in an ideal world you wouldn't need one. All schools would be roughly equal and as long as the school was near to your home all would be well. I totally agree - the government keeps selling us "choice" as the magical answer to everything, schools, hospitals, whatever. A decent school or a failing one - that isn't "choice"! We all just want a decent local school. Is that too much to ask?

Bizarre how some people are making out that I am somehow alone in my views. Lots of people have posted in support. Funny that there is a huge campaign supported by Attitude magazine fronted by a clutch of celebrities, gay and straight. So your efforts to paint me as some sort of extremist are a bit flawed. They just make you look insensitive and a bit callous. I have given a number of key examples of homophobia that's tolerated by the mainstream media and institutions (e.g. schools) in ways that other forms of prejudice would not be. If you want to turn a blind eye to that, fine. You don't give a toss because it doesn't affect you. Fine. As I have said many times, we would not be having this debate about racism because we are further along at dealing with it. So we'll just have to wait for the more ignorant and unenlightened among you to catch up.

What is so subtle and complex about asking straight people not to use the word gay to mean "sh*t" on a mainstream radio show? I cannot think of a single mainstream gay TV personality who HAS used the word gay like this. They might have used it in a humorous, self-deprecating way to mean "camp" or "effeminate" or "colourful" but why on earth would they use it to mean "worthless" and "rubbish" - the way Chris Moyles and countless schoolchildren do? This makes no sense at all. Moreover, as has been pointed out countless times, how can someone slur him/herself? If you don't accept this as a principle then you should allow everyone to insult and slur everyone else equally. But don't tell me the word "gay" is different. That's discrimination.

If your friend chooses to have an ironic joke with you using the word gay (just as a black person might use "n*gger") that is up to them. I don't do this and I've never heard it among my gay friends. Funny, that. But do you not understand that a straight DJ using a word that refers to a sexual minority to mean "crap" on a mainstream show for a mainly straight audience is different? Can you really be that naive? Why is it acceptable to slur gay people and nobody else?