Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So my weekly dose of Guardian reading has told me that many people are very upset about BoJo suggesting a muslim women in a burqa look a little like a 'letterbox'


At the same time, my learned progressive friends at the Guardian also delight in referring to angry, white, right-leaning folk as 'Gammons'....in light of the fact that their light skins turns pink with anger when discussing things such as immigration.


So...both terms are dismissed as a 'bit of a lighthearted joke' by those in favour of using them, while their opponents brand them as 'deeply offensive'....is one more acceptable than the other? are they both unacceptable? are they both acceptable?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/200283-gammons-and-letterboxes/
Share on other sites

Easy. Johnson's comments are unacceptable, particularly in light of his well-documented racist past, his sure knowledge that this would provoke and embolden the less savoury elements of the far right and this cynical push to set himself up as the next PM in this current unpleasant atmosphere. Not to mention the evident racist and misogynist undertones of his comments. It also presents a danger to women who do wear the garment.


White men who get angry about anything that doesn't support Brexit doesn't compare. The people that qualify as Gammons will be offended by anything that wasn't white, straight and from before 1950. They have no idea what it's like to experience racism.

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...right-leaning folk...

>

> What a quaint little picture you've tried to paint

> there...


You do know that one can be 'right-leaning', and still be a rational, reasonable person. It doesn't mean they are a racist, misogynistic imperialist. Or is everyone who might disagree with some leftist sensibilities automaticaly a nazi to you?

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's unlikely that people are being abused

> in the street for being white, middle aged men.



I think that's a fair point of diferntation. If the comments incite intimidation and violence, then i'd agree it is of more concern.


Also, don't get me wrong, I understand that some minorities will suffer 'more' from prejudice. I'm just asking if two wrongs make a right. But, assuming true, I think your point is well made.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> diable rouge Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > TheCat Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > ...right-leaning folk...

> >

> > What a quaint little picture you've tried to

> paint

> > there...

>

> You do know that one can be 'right-leaning', and

> still be a rational, reasonable person. It doesn't

> mean they are a racist, misogynistic imperialist.

> Or is everyone who might disagree with some

> leftist sensibilities automaticaly a nazi to you?



Gammon aren't ''right leaning'' though, they're much further to the right in the spectrum. That was my point...

Yes and you could express an opinion that Boris looks like a penguin or a walrus, which is similar to him saying women in burka's look like a letter box. It was his OPINION which you may agree or disagree with. It got him three to four days worth of Free publicity from other reporting channels plus its become a topic on here.

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes and you could express an opinion that Boris

> looks like a penguin or a walrus, which is similar

> to him saying women in burka's look like a letter

> box. It was his OPINION which you may agree or

> disagree with. It got him three to four days worth

> of Free publicity from other reporting channels

> plus its become a topic on here.


Saying Johnson looks like a walrus, or indeed a delinquent warthog, might be personally offensive, but it would not be being offensive about an item central to his religious beliefs. There's a difference. I wonder if people would have been OK with someone ridiculing Sikhs' turbans, Hindu saris and bindis, Hasidic Jews' hats and ringlets, or Christian vestments? They're all, in their way, as silly/sacred, depending on your viewpoint, as a burka (my personal opinion is that they're all damned silly, but then I'm Godless and beyond redemption), but for some reason it's only the Muslims it seems acceptable to attack.

Thoughtful thread Cat. I'm glad I waited until after the Last Leg to post.


Boris set a trap and we fell for it. Just increasing his popularity among his core demographic, maybe picking up a few of the more traditional working class vote.


As for the question - gammon similarly feels like we (or many of us) are falling into a similar trap of simply name calling against the Brexiteers and the like.


Having said that I have been using 'angry of Tunbridge Wells' for years and this type of behaviour has long since parodied.


Don't diss this thread.

OK, so you could have an opinion which you express that Boris is a gob on a stick journalist/MP who resembles a penguin or walrus, will that offend Boris, no as he is so thick skinned or a a community, No.


Had Boris mentioned other religions who wear religious clothing to identify they belong to a specific religion, the level of anger he has succeeded in causing would have been less, but he mentioned a specific group and in true Boris style put his foot squarely in his mouth, probably why Theresa was likely to sack him had he not resigned from the Cabinet. It created a wave of publicity and whether that was his intention or not, who knows but it got everyone in the press, on TV and Radio talking and discussing what he had written in the article, for the best part of a week.


I'm bored hearing and seeing this story replicate like the nasty little infection it has become, and would much prefer Boris's last newspaper article to be tomorrows fish and chip wrapper and end up where it and probably he deserves to be, binned one and for all.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thoughtful thread Cat. I'm glad I waited until

> after the Last Leg to post.

>

> Boris set a trap and we fell for it. Just

> increasing his popularity among his core

> demographic, maybe picking up a few of the more

> traditional working class vote.

>

> As for the question - gammon similarly feels like

> we (or many of us) are falling into a similar trap

> of simply name calling against the Brexiteers and

> the like.

>

> Having said that I have been using 'angry of

> Tunbridge Wells' for years and this type of

> behaviour has long since parodied.

>

> Don't diss this thread.


And thanks for a thoughtful response malumbu.


For what it's worth my own opinion is that bojo has typically said something boorish to gain attention. And succeeded. Many people think it's offensive and inciting towards violence to Muslim women.....but i've yet to hear a Muslim burqa wearing woman express this opinion....that's not me trying to have a dig, and saying that they don't..I'm highlighting that the most vocal outrage comes from others bein 'offended' on behalf of a Muslim woman.


The issue with the Gammon thing is that I would wager that most people who fit into that category couldn't really give a toss if they get caled a Gammon. But I get frustrated by what I see as the hypocrisy of those people who feel (on behalf of others) that the former is deeply offensive, and the latter (on behalf of others) is nothing to worry about, as white middle aged men don't have feelings.


Yes, Muslim women suffer 'more' prejudice than middle-aged white men. But why should ANY prejudice be acceptablle? If you condemn the first, you really shouldn't delight in use of the second

While you make good points Cat, I still find it difficult to feel sympathy for a section of society which does, whatever we say, suffer far FAR less from endemic prejudice and bigotry than others.


I could write endless tiresome pages on my feelings about racism in the modern age, but that would annoy everyone else so I?ll keep it to this; just last week three young white guys liberally tossed the ?n-word? at my wife in the little convenience store on Wood Vale. It?s 2018, in south London, and that crap is STILL going on. It was in front of our 8 year old daughter as well.


You are right that there is a moral equivalence between the use of various terms based on skin colour, and none are acceptable. But the balance of abuse, as it were, is still very much in one direction and it?s really hard to argue otherwise. As another thread on here clearly demonstrates, it is not all one way and I don?t for one second advocate that it is anything other than abhorrent.


But I have trouble putting someone being called a gammon into the same category as those poor people who posted in the Adys Road thread.

Just seen the Rees Mogg headline about a show trial, can#t be assed to read it but the point is right, and all a distraction from the general mire we are in (but perhaps indicative of this).


To get on my soap box I hate what I believe has happened in the last couple of years with the polarisation of society and the move towards 'popularism' on both the left and right. We had a blip in the 90s with the lad and ladette culture but that didn't manifest itself in racism. On the contrary giving Bromley as an example I take great pleasure in amusing/cutting remarks about boring suburbia, monoculture, right wing, the chattering classes moving there for the school. But in reality it moved like most of the rest of society and has become more tolerant and multicultural (OK still small town violence at the weekend....)


But was having this conversation with friends near Cambridge - intellectual liberal area, albeit not diverse.... What polarisation of society they said. Wonder which one of us was living in a bubble.


Disclaimer, apologies for the discursive post.

If gammon was a term exclusively thrown about by non-white people at white people, then you could class it as a racist term, but it's not. Apparently it's a descriptive term originally used by Dickens. Today it's mainly white Remainers using it as a derogatory term against white Brexiters losing their shit. Snowflake is a similar put-down used by Brexiters. Ironic how snowflakey Brexiters have become with the use of gammon.


The problem I have with Johnson's article is that there was just no reason to say what he did about letterboxes and bank robbers. He main point was that the burka etc shouldn't be banned, which should be applauded. So why did he feel the need to say something 'jokey' that came right out of a '70's sitcom? It wasn't an off-the-cuff remark, this was something that he deliberately wrote down, presumably that was proof-read, edited etc. Despite the bumbling buffoon persona, he's anything but, journalism was his trade, albeit not a very good one. So one can only assume that this was a deliberate attempt to push the boundaries, see what he can get away with and appeal to a certain Tory grassroots demographic as part of his leadership bid. Fine, but not when it has consequences for ordinary Muslim women going about their daily lives, who will now have more Islamophobic threats and insults thrown at them. Johnson is a complete and utter coont for promoting that, and deserves to be called out for it...

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> White british middle aged men have beeen dealt a

> pretty good hand in life generally- society caters

> to their needs and demands over all else. Being

> called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to

> people who have had it all their own way all their

> lives


And that right there is prejudice. While overall one may argue that other groups may suffer more often, just because one is born a certain sex and skin colour does not mean that if they have a grievance it should be dismissed out of hand becuase of the 'group' they are identified as coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's life experience based on the colour of their skin?...I think there's a word for that.....


We can fight for equality for minorities, while still being respectful of all people, and acknowledge the challenges and difficulties that every person may face from time to time, surely?

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> While you make good points Cat, I still find it

> difficult to feel sympathy for a section of

> society which does, whatever we say, suffer far

> FAR less from endemic prejudice and bigotry than

> others.

>

> I could write endless tiresome pages on my

> feelings about racism in the modern age, but that

> would annoy everyone else so I?ll keep it to this;

> just last week three young white guys liberally

> tossed the ?n-word? at my wife in the little

> convenience store on Wood Vale. It?s 2018, in

> south London, and that crap is STILL going on. It

> was in front of our 8 year old daughter as well.

>

> You are right that there is a moral equivalence

> between the use of various terms based on skin

> colour, and none are acceptable. But the balance

> of abuse, as it were, is still very much in one

> direction and it?s really hard to argue otherwise.

> As another thread on here clearly demonstrates, it

> is not all one way and I don?t for one second

> advocate that it is anything other than

> abhorrent.

>

> But I have trouble putting someone being called a

> gammon into the same category as those poor people

> who posted in the Adys Road thread.


A good post. And I would agree, that the 'balance' if definitley to skewed one way. No argument against that from me at all. As I point out above, it is those people who claim to be champions of equality, who then let themselves down by excusing namecalling and abuse of groups of people they beleive 'deserve' it or 'can handle it'

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > White british middle aged men have beeen dealt

> a

> > pretty good hand in life generally- society

> caters

> > to their needs and demands over all else. Being

> > called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to

> > people who have had it all their own way all

> their

> > lives

>

> And that right there is prejudice. While overall

> one may argue that other groups may suffer more

> often, just because one is born a certain sex and

> skin colour does not mean that if they have a

> grievance it should be dismissed out of hand

> becuase of the 'group' they are identified as

> coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's

> life experience based on the colour of their

> skin?...I think there's a word for that.....

>

> We can fight for equality for minorities, while

> still being respectful of all people, surely?



You agenda is pretty transparent. well done

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > flocker spotter Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > White british middle aged men have beeen

> dealt

> > a

> > > pretty good hand in life generally- society

> > caters

> > > to their needs and demands over all else.

> Being

> > > called gammon is pretty low bar of insult to

> > > people who have had it all their own way all

> > their

> > > lives

> >

> > And that right there is prejudice. While

> overall

> > one may argue that other groups may suffer more

> > often, just because one is born a certain sex

> and

> > skin colour does not mean that if they have a

> > grievance it should be dismissed out of hand

> > becuase of the 'group' they are identified as

> > coming from. Who are you to prejudge someone's

> > life experience based on the colour of their

> > skin?...I think there's a word for that.....

> >

> > We can fight for equality for minorities, while

> > still being respectful of all people, surely?

>

>

> You agenda is pretty transparent. well done


What? the agenda to ask you to actually think about your hypocrisy, instead of just regurgitating slogans about 'privelige' back at me?


If you can't objectively understand that we don't defeat prejudice against one group by accepting it against another. Then i'd suggest it's not me with the 'agenda'....

argueing liberal tolerance on behalf of a group who entire reason for being is the living embodiment of intolerance does strike me as being rather agenda driven. apply the same reasoning to other known intolerant groupings and your strawman falls flat on its face. I could be wrong but that is a pretty rare occurence. good luck.

I think you're starting to confuse someone who has actually shown intolerance, with someone who is from the same 'tribe' as a person who has shown intolerance....


If you can sit there and confidently say that every person who has ever been branded a Gammon is the living embodiment of intolerance....then fair enough. But that fact that you think you can is the definition of prejudice. So good luck with that

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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