Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Otta brilliant point you make. Working-class kids

> would not be able to afford such bikes in the

> first place, and yet it is assumed by many on here

> that they had to be working class or "chavs"

> simply because of the sort of anti social

> behaviour they were taking part in. Why would it

> be inconceivable to suggest that some middle-class

> white boys who attend a private school were not

> riding recklessly around the streets on bikes. And

> if they were, would that behaviour still be

> described as "chav" - I don't think it would. It's

> classic class discrimination that's what it is.

>

> Louisa.


Why do you think a working class person wouldn't be able to afford a bike?! Slightly patronising. Working class children can work and save up for things too, just as many middle-class children are expected to do.

Or maybe they have stolen these bikes


And I believe the Police have a non-chase/pursue policy, and these bikes are being favoured by youfs, even in Sydenham btw (gasp)


And on we go, tra laa la


Basically, ar%e holes risking other peoples safety (class/socio groups aside)

EDLove, I don't presume that at all. But it seems a less likely proposition than a middle-class teen getting mummy or daddy to buy them one. And yet, no-one makes the presumption it was someone of a privileged background despite the odds being in favour of that? Bizarre. Would you describe a private school educated child/yummy mummy/city gent/ hipster on a bike as being a "chav"?


Louisa.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> EDLove, I don't presume that at all. But it seems

> a less likely proposition than a middle-class teen

> getting mummy or daddy to buy them one. And yet,

> no-one makes the presumption it was someone of a

> privileged background despite the odds being in

> favour of that? Bizarre. Would you describe a

> private school educated child/yummy mummy/city

> gent/ hipster on a bike as being a "chav"?

>


If they were wearing tracksuits, bandannas and doing wheelies on pavements yes. Had they been doing wheelies on pavements wearing suits I would have probably used some different but more derogatory term.

SJ the plumber is clearly the better off one in this instance, but he/she may well send their children to a government funded school despite the wealth and be strict with their kids on being spoilt. Is he still middle class or working class? The 16k office worker may struggle to pay rent but still enjoy a 9/17 quid burger from a street food van on north cross market, are they still working class? There are of course boundaries, but my point is one of my mentioned people who would classically fall into the "chav" category would clearly be neither of the above, and yet they would immediately be accused of illegally riding bikes on the pavement.


Louisa.

No ultraburner I did not and I wish I had done now because I would have shouted at them. I'm just not sure why people have to brand them "chavs" regardless of who or what background they came from,driving on the pavement is illegal. I do not understand why people are immediately branded class offensive words on this forum based on the behaviour they have shown in a public place. They are scum regardless of their background, branding them "chavs" is just a horribly cringy thing to do.


Louisa.

SJ but I was just using that point to illustrate it's not as clear cut as you might first think. Someone who works in Canary Wharf in an office on 16k who decides they want to spend 5-20 quid on a burger is clearly deranged anyway, but if they choose to do so that's upto them, however, if they are then mirroring the fancy burger eating middle-class snobbery to get equal pleasure from jumping on a lambretta and driving it around ED on the pavements does that make them a "chav"? that's my point.


Louisa.

God why is everyone picking on me tonight. All I am saying is, if anyone from whatever class background jumps on a bike and rides it on the pavement they should immediately be dealt with by the law. Their class does not come into it. However, on this forum, the offensive "chav" word is used widely and loosely to describe them. This word, as everyone knows, is used to describe people from a certain social class. That was my original point. Therefore, without knowing any of the details, we are immediately led to believe these idiots on bikes driving them dangerously on our streets are people from a working or "under" class background. All I'm saying is, for various reasons they may be from any class background, why are they branded anything other than just complete morons in the first place?


Louisa.

SJ I rarely if ever go down the class route these days. But on this occasion I thought it was relevant. Use of the word "chav" is just offensive in this context. We all agree these people are idiots, let's just drop the use of the word chav. I do however stand by my point about expansive burgers. Paying the best part of a tenner or more for one burger is ridiculous. As is a coffee for more than 1.50.


Louisa.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> LD: you might not recognise yourself as such, but

> you are part of that elite you disparage. You're

> well educated, in professional employment,

> articulate and computer literate. Even if you

> don't take part in the so called enrolment of

> "chavs" and certain other groups as whipping boys

> by the layer of society you pillory, you're still

> part of that group, at the tippety-tip-top of the

> pyramid.



Hmmm, part of the elite?


I got a law degree from a former poly when I was a 41 year old single parent of 4 kids living in a council house.


Plus I'm violent (done martial arts for pretty much all of my adult life).


I guess that means I'm a chav (Council house and violent).


I am pretty far from being part of the elite and even if I wasn't, it didn't stop Tony Benn from critiquing their role in exploiting and controlling the masses.

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

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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