The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
We all know the sort of bloke. And now we have a word that nails it. It does the job brilliantly and is not racist in any meaningful sense of that word. It's simply derogatory.
I do not bandy it about - in fact today is the first time in ages - but there is no way I'm dropping it just because people who are forever downplaying real racism with accusations of "playing the race card" now play the race card to ludicrously try to claim that a word to describe a angry white racist bloke is racist.
No. Gammon lives.
It's a lexical weapon in the culture war. When they go low, we go high most of the time but sometimes we go low too - but with considerably more wit and intelligence.
But calling people like Corbyn a gammon, what does it achieve?
Why not just denounce angry old racists? Why do you need a word for his type?
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
Only white people go pink. It is clearly a racial slur. It would be like describing black people as "black pudding". It amuses me when the Left use it, they are not as pure as they think they are.
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.
On the contrary. They are normally Remainers whoe believe everyone who voted Leave is a racist xenophobe and that therefore they are a superior life form.
I have not met anyone who believes all Leavers are racist xenophobes. I have met some who believe all racist xenophobes are Leavers, but that is somewhat different.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
Tarantino does have a thing about it, that's for sure.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
Only white people go pink. It is clearly a racial slur. It would be like describing black people as "black pudding". It amuses me when the Left use it, they are not as pure as they think they are.
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.
On the contrary. They are normally Remainers whoe believe everyone who voted Leave is a racist xenophobe and that therefore they are a superior life form.
I have not met anyone who believes all Leavers are racist xenophobes. I have met some who believe all racist xenophobes are Leavers, but that is somewhat different.
Maybe not, but I have seen people who assume "you are a Leaver? You must be a racist xenophobe".
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Just imagine an insult like that but for a non-white group of people. You'd be branded a racist in a nanosecond.
Life isn’t fair sunshine. Suck it up.
I'm not saying it is, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Those who use the word often are likely the type who say that racism against white people is not as bad as racism against non white people due to white privilege and what not.
They have some kind of a point. If someone insults my race, I don’t really give too much of a sh*t because I don’t care what they think, but that’s a privileged position.
People who say some forms of racism are okay kinda have a point? I thought all forms of racism were unacceptable.
That isn’t what I said.
"...the type who say that racism against white people is not as bad as racism against non white people..."
"They have some kind of a point."
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but that seems pretty clear.
“Not AS bad” is not the same as “acceptable”. I argued that I can see the logic behind their way of thinking in some ways.
Isn't all racism and prejudice equally bad? That's the whole point about treating people equally.
I would say yes it is, however there’s definitely an argument that the impact of said racism is lessened when targeted at white people due to the power imbalance. I can sort of see the logic, as detailed by my anecdote.
The impact may be lessened, but I don't believe that it makes it any less wrong. Not getting at you, but I find the concept that racism against white people is less bad pretty distasteful.
I think it’s a huge generalisation, which is always wrong, and potentially dangerous.
The argument is thus:
A black person being racist to a white person in an area or country which has a large white majority is unlikely to cause the victim much concern or fear.
But a white person being racist to a black person in an area or country which has a large white majority is likely to cause the victim much distress and fear.
You can reverse these for a country or area with a large black majority.
That’s the power imbalance theory and it drives much of the left discourse at the moment. Hence why the problems with anti-semtism, Jews were weak and therefore victims and are now strong and cannot be victims.
The analogy breaks down, much like marxism, when it hits real life and its complexities and shades of grey.
Thanks for the detailed replies. What an unpleasant topic in general.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
It is not the same. The N word is principally a racial slur used by white racists to denigrate black people - all black people - for being black.
That it is sometimes used these days BY black people for other reasons changes that not one iota.
Gammon is a thick white bloke who has seen better days and is racist and forever angry.
You get upset about that being racist for one of 2 reasons -
1. You are one. 2. You have poor language skills.
You are neither - so I conclude you are on a wind up.
Are there any similar slurs for thick Asian men, or thick Indian men? The fact the insult is based on a racial characteristic is the problem.
It’s an insult that relies on a racial characteristic, not is based upon one. And it’s chief contributory characteristic is not thickness but anger.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
Only white people go pink. It is clearly a racial slur. It would be like describing black people as "black pudding". It amuses me when the Left use it, they are not as pure as they think they are.
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.
On the contrary. They are normally Remainers whoe believe everyone who voted Leave is a racist xenophobe and that therefore they are a superior life form.
I have not met anyone who believes all Leavers are racist xenophobes. I have met some who believe all racist xenophobes are Leavers, but that is somewhat different.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
Only white people go pink. It is clearly a racial slur. It would be like describing black people as "black pudding". It amuses me when the Left use it, they are not as pure as they think they are.
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.
On the contrary. They are normally Remainers whoe believe everyone who voted Leave is a racist xenophobe and that therefore they are a superior life form.
I have not met anyone who believes all Leavers are racist xenophobes. I have met some who believe all racist xenophobes are Leavers, but that is somewhat different.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
I don’t see why not. If the purpose is to mock their opinions/views or actions - which they may have the right to hold/do in a free society, but which others have the right to criticise. And if they come up with a pithy word or phrase to describe it rather than having to spell it out in longhand every time then so be it. If the actual target of the phrase is not their views/actions but actually the colour of their skin, gender, sexuality etc then no.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
Only white people go pink. It is clearly a racial slur. It would be like describing black people as "black pudding". It amuses me when the Left use it, they are not as pure as they think they are.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?
He did it that time, but afterwards racists took inspiration from it that it was OK to use that word so he's never made that joke again since.
Shame people have to spoil anything fun by taking it too far.
I didn’t know that, but the point is that ‘Gammon’ is the equivalent of the N word - it’s used as a derogatory term for someone who can only be of one race
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?
He did it that time, but afterwards racists took inspiration from it that it was OK to use that word so he's never made that joke again since.
Shame people have to spoil anything fun by taking it too far.
I didn’t know that, but the point is that ‘Gammon’ is the equivalent of the N word - it’s used as a derogatory term for someone who can only be of one race
Would it be OK to call someone black gammon?
If (a white person in particular) uses the n word it is being derogatory about someone merely for the colour of their skin. That is not the purpose of the offending term here. The colour of their skin is incidental to the real criticism being done.
Calling some a “white (or indeed black) supremacist” is arguably a derogatory term in many circumstances. It can only or applied to a person of one race. Is it therefore racist?
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?
He did it that time, but afterwards racists took inspiration from it that it was OK to use that word so he's never made that joke again since.
Shame people have to spoil anything fun by taking it too far.
I didn’t know that, but the point is that ‘Gammon’ is the equivalent of the N word - it’s used as a derogatory term for someone who can only be of one race
Would it be OK to call someone black gammon?
Calling some a “white (or indeed black) supremacist” is arguably a derogatory term in many circumstances. It can only or applied to a person of one race. Is it therefore racist?
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?
He did it that time, but afterwards racists took inspiration from it that it was OK to use that word so he's never made that joke again since.
Shame people have to spoil anything fun by taking it too far.
I didn’t know that, but the point is that ‘Gammon’ is the equivalent of the N word - it’s used as a derogatory term for someone who can only be of one race
Would it be OK to call someone black gammon?
If (a white person in particular) uses the n word it is being derogatory about someone merely for the colour of their skin. That is not the purpose of the offending term here. The colour of their skin is incidental to the real criticism being done.
Calling some a “white (or indeed black) supremacist” is arguably a derogatory term in many circumstances. It can only or applied to a person of one race. Is it therefore racist?
No because you can have black supremacists and other types of supremacists too. White there is an adjective and supremacist is not racist.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
I don’t see why not. If the purpose is to mock their opinions/views or actions - which they may have the right to hold/do in a free society, but which others have the right to criticise. And if they come up with a pithy word or phrase to describe it rather than having to spell it out in longhand every time then so be it. If the actual target of the phrase is not their views/actions but actually the colour of their skin, gender, sexuality etc then no.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
It is not the same. The N word is principally a racial slur used by white racists to denigrate black people - all black people - for being black.
That it is sometimes used these days BY black people for other reasons changes that not one iota.
Gammon is a thick white bloke who has seen better days and is racist and forever angry.
You get upset about that being racist for one of 2 reasons -
1. You are one. 2. You have poor language skills.
You are neither - so I conclude you are on a wind up.
Are there any similar slurs for thick Asian men, or thick Indian men? The fact the insult is based on a racial characteristic is the problem.
It’s an insult that relies on a racial characteristic, not is based upon one. And it’s chief contributory characteristic is not thickness but anger.
The anger of the person using it, anger at those who had the temerity to vote to leave the EU.
Every time somebody resorts to using it, they make that night of 23rd into the 24th of June 2016 that bit sweeter.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
I don’t see why not. If the purpose is to mock their opinions/views or actions - which they may have the right to hold/do in a free society, but which others have the right to criticise. And if they come up with a pithy word or phrase to describe it rather than having to spell it out in longhand every time then so be it. If the actual target of the phrase is not their views/actions but actually the colour of their skin, gender, sexuality etc then no.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
Only white people go pink. It is clearly a racial slur. It would be like describing black people as "black pudding". It amuses me when the Left use it, they are not as pure as they think they are.
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.
On the contrary. They are normally Remainers whoe believe everyone who voted Leave is a racist xenophobe and that therefore they are a superior life form.
I have not met anyone who believes all Leavers are racist xenophobes. I have met some who believe all racist xenophobes are Leavers, but that is somewhat different.
Theresa May voted Remain.
Do you think she is a racist xenophobe?
Yes.
Mike Gapes is King Gammon to me, he is a remainer I believe
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
Only white people go pink. It is clearly a racial slur. It would be like describing black people as "black pudding". It amuses me when the Left use it, they are not as pure as they think they are.
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.
On the contrary. They are normally Remainers whoe believe everyone who voted Leave is a racist xenophobe and that therefore they are a superior life form.
I have not met anyone who believes all Leavers are racist xenophobes. I have met some who believe all racist xenophobes are Leavers, but that is somewhat different.
Maybe not, but I have seen people who assume "you are a Leaver? You must be a racist xenophobe".
I am sure plenty of racists voted Remain.
I think it's true that the EU as a whole is less ethnically diverse than the UK.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
We all know the sort of bloke. And now we have a word that nails it. It does the job brilliantly and is not racist in any meaningful sense of that word. It's simply derogatory.
I do not bandy it about - in fact today is the first time in ages - but there is no way I'm dropping it just because people who are forever downplaying real racism with accusations of "playing the race card" now play the race card to ludicrously try to claim that a word to describe a angry white racist bloke is racist.
No. Gammon lives.
It's a lexical weapon in the culture war. When they go low, we go high most of the time but sometimes we go low too - but with considerably more wit and intelligence.
But calling people like Corbyn a gammon, what does it achieve?
Why not just denounce angry old racists? Why do you need a word for his type?
When complimented on a good joke one should not spoil things by immediately repeating it.
It seems to me that in general for a word or phrase to be racist, the basic meaning of the word or phrase has to also be racist. If it is racist (and indeed sexist) to call someone “the sort of white man who is racist/gets angry about foreigners/ethnic minorities” then I accept the word is racist. If the former is not racist, then neither is the use of the word.
This is different from things like the n word (used by white people) whose sole purpose is to be derogatory about the colour of one’s skin. IMO.
Nobody is denying that the G word is derogatory. Just whether it is racist. The proposition but forward is that any derogatory phrase becomes racist purely if it cannot be linked to more than one racial group. I think this is a dubious assertion. As I say where the target is views/opinions/actions.
"1. Employers expect to see GCSE and A level grades. If, in 20 years' time, veterans of the class of 2020 apply for jobs, they can't demonstrate the requirement that the employer demands (e.g. X-number of good GCSEs, a C or better in Maths, such and such an attainment at A-level) then they are liable, I'm afraid, to be discriminated against."
You did not seriously say that, did you?
What employer, when they have 20 years employment history to peruse, gives a flying f**k about what a person's A level results were?
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
Jamónes ibérico? That's just the sort of stuff that the more snobbish leavey types on here like to boast about consuming (though such boasting is probably a bit infra dig for yer truly suave posho racist).
Edit: God I'm thick, I've just realised that gammon derives from jambon.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
It is not the same. The N word is principally a racial slur used by white racists to denigrate black people - all black people - for being black.
That it is sometimes used these days BY black people for other reasons changes that not one iota.
Gammon is a thick white bloke who has seen better days and is racist and forever angry.
You get upset about that being racist for one of 2 reasons -
1. You are one. 2. You have poor language skills.
You are neither - so I conclude you are on a wind up.
Are there any similar slurs for thick Asian men, or thick Indian men? The fact the insult is based on a racial characteristic is the problem.
Bound to be. Because it's about attitudes and attitudes are universal.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
It is not the same. The N word is principally a racial slur used by white racists to denigrate black people - all black people - for being black.
That it is sometimes used these days BY black people for other reasons changes that not one iota.
Gammon is a thick white bloke who has seen better days and is racist and forever angry.
You get upset about that being racist for one of 2 reasons -
1. You are one. 2. You have poor language skills.
You are neither - so I conclude you are on a wind up.
Are there any similar slurs for thick Asian men, or thick Indian men? The fact the insult is based on a racial characteristic is the problem.
It’s an insult that relies on a racial characteristic, not is based upon one. And it’s chief contributory characteristic is not thickness but anger.
The anger of the person using it, anger at those who had the temerity to vote to leave the EU.
Every time somebody resorts to using it, they make that night of 23rd into the 24th of June 2016 that bit sweeter.
Therein lies the point. Racist, no. Counterproductive in political discourse. Quite probably. If you’re going to coin derogatory phrases to describe the perceived attitudes of a sizeable group of society then you need to be sure they aren’t sizeable enough to impact on the democratic process. Because they will often have the last laugh.
It seems to me that in general for a word or phrase to be racist, the basic meaning of the word or phrase has to also be racist. If it is racist (and indeed sexist) to call someone “the sort of white man who is racist/gets angry about foreigners/ethnic minorities” then I accept the word is racist. If the former is not racist, then neither is the use of the word.
This is different from things like the n word (used by white people) whose sole purpose is to be derogatory about the colour of one’s skin. IMO.
Nobody is denying that the G word is derogatory. Just whether it is racist. The proposition but forward is that any derogatory phrase becomes racist purely if it cannot be linked to more than one racial group. I think this is a dubious assertion. As I say where the target is views/opinions/actions.
I don't wish to creep you out but I really am going to stop bothering on this one because that utterly nails it with a precision and logic that kills all known germs dead.
"1. Employers expect to see GCSE and A level grades. If, in 20 years' time, veterans of the class of 2020 apply for jobs, they can't demonstrate the requirement that the employer demands (e.g. X-number of good GCSEs, a C or better in Maths, such and such an attainment at A-level) then they are liable, I'm afraid, to be discriminated against."
You did not seriously say that, did you?
What employer, when they have 20 years employment history to peruse, gives a flying f**k about what a person's A level results were?
Employers taking on people for (particularly non professional) roles open to mass application where they need to apply basic threshold tests to bring numbers down to manageable levels. However meaningless those threshold levels really are.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
I don’t see why not. If the purpose is to mock their opinions/views or actions - which they may have the right to hold/do in a free society, but which others have the right to criticise. And if they come up with a pithy word or phrase to describe it rather than having to spell it out in longhand every time then so be it. If the actual target of the phrase is not their views/actions but actually the colour of their skin, gender, sexuality etc then no.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
I don’t see why not. If the purpose is to mock their opinions/views or actions - which they may have the right to hold/do in a free society, but which others have the right to criticise. And if they come up with a pithy word or phrase to describe it rather than having to spell it out in longhand every time then so be it. If the actual target of the phrase is not their views/actions but actually the colour of their skin, gender, sexuality etc then no.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻
Yes - but only when they're not.
I go all blustery, pink-skinned, eyes bulge etc when I hear someone in a cafe ordering a panini when they should say a panino.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
Tarantino does have a thing about it, that's for sure.
Perhaps the most famous N-word in cinema, from Pulp Fiction, was uttered by Tarantino himself. Not sure he'd be allowed to get away with that today.
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
I don’t see why not. If the purpose is to mock their opinions/views or actions - which they may have the right to hold/do in a free society, but which others have the right to criticise. And if they come up with a pithy word or phrase to describe it rather than having to spell it out in longhand every time then so be it. If the actual target of the phrase is not their views/actions but actually the colour of their skin, gender, sexuality etc then no.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻
Yes - but only when they're not.
I go all blustery, pink-skinned, eyes bulge etc when I hear someone in a cafe ordering a panini when they should say a panino.
Does that make me a gammon?
It makes you a bit strange. Do you have the same reaction if someone says "this spaghetti is delicious" when according to the same logic they "should" say "these spaghetti are... "
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
I've always thought the archetypal 'gammon' was a middle class real ale bore who too easily gives his opinion to anyone that will listen down the village boozer. Think Dave Nice from Smashie & Nicey.
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
I've always thought the archetypal 'gammon' was a middle class real ale bore who too easily gives his opinion to anyone that will listen down the village boozer. Think Dave Nice from Smashie & Nicey.
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.
Good morning fellow Pb-ers. I've a U3a Discussion Group to Zoom to this morning, on the subject of 'cancel culture'. Shall I be against it, as the rest of the group probably will be, or decide to be Devils Advocate and say that one has to ensure that people who have ever had 'unacceptable' views on something major shouldn't be heard on anything? Or something like that.
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
I've always thought the archetypal 'gammon' was a middle class real ale bore who too easily gives his opinion to anyone that will listen down the village boozer. Think Dave Nice from Smashie & Nicey.
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.
Good morning fellow Pb-ers. I've a U3a Discussion Group to Zoom to this morning, on the subject of 'cancel culture'. Shall I be against it, as the rest of the group probably will be, or decide to be Devils Advocate and say that one has to ensure that people who have ever had 'unacceptable' views on something major shouldn't be heard on anything? Or something like that.
Nothing new about people being cancelled. It happened to Oscar Wilde for example, and cancelling of Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Harvey Weinstein etc is widely supported.
Its a consumerist world and voting with their feet is how people can express their opinions, so I no longer drink in Wetherspoons, or use Facebook for example as I dislike their companies policies. Whats wrong with that?
When it comes to celebrities and "influencers" it comes to the same principle. A lot of Britons have cancelled Meghan and Harry for example, or David Starkey and yesterday even our Home Secretary seemed to want to cancel an ice cream manufacturer..
It is neither new nor strange, and ultimately an expression of individual power, in a world driven by marketing.
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
I've always thought the archetypal 'gammon' was a middle class real ale bore who too easily gives his opinion to anyone that will listen down the village boozer. Think Dave Nice from Smashie & Nicey.
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.
Good morning fellow Pb-ers. I've a U3a Discussion Group to Zoom to this morning, on the subject of 'cancel culture'. Shall I be against it, as the rest of the group probably will be, or decide to be Devils Advocate and say that one has to ensure that people who have ever had 'unacceptable' views on something major shouldn't be heard on anything? Or something like that.
Nothing new about people being cancelled. It happened to Oscar Wilde for example, and cancelling of Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Harvey Weinstein etc is widely supported.
Its a consumerist world and voting with their feet is how people can express their opinions, so I no longer drink in Wetherspoons, or use Facebook for example as I dislike their companies policies. Whats wrong with that?
When it comes to celebrities and "influencers" it comes to the same principle. A lot of Britons have cancelled Meghan and Harry for example, or David Starkey and yesterday even our Home Secretary seemed to want to cancel an ice cream manufacturer..
It is neither new nor strange, and ultimately an expression of individual power, in a world driven by marketing.
Thanks for the thoughts Dr F. Noted. I don't drink in Wetherspoons either. And yesterday went for the first time to what had been my favourite local pub, to be disconcerted by the lack of social distancing requirements, recording etc, as apparently a conscious decision by the management. Not quite the same, of course,
But with rather different issues in play. If neither of her parents were US citizens at the time, having been born while they were passing through the country would on the face of it appear to be a weak case for eligibility?
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Why use the word gammon?
Because - as explained PT - it describes very well in a single word a white man who is past his prime and is a bit racist and so angry at lots of things that his blood boils.
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.
Yes.
Any word that doesn't refer to the race of the person being described is better.
Why do you have to mention the colour? Is there a significant difference between a white past his prime racist angry man (like the man pictured before) and a non-white past his prime racist angry man?
The precise thing we are seeking to describe is this particular type of thick white bloke who's rather racist and not in the first flush and always getting angry about stuff.
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?
I don’t see why not. If the purpose is to mock their opinions/views or actions - which they may have the right to hold/do in a free society, but which others have the right to criticise. And if they come up with a pithy word or phrase to describe it rather than having to spell it out in longhand every time then so be it. If the actual target of the phrase is not their views/actions but actually the colour of their skin, gender, sexuality etc then no.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻
Yes - but only when they're not.
I go all blustery, pink-skinned, eyes bulge etc when I hear someone in a cafe ordering a panini when they should say a panino.
Does that make me a gammon?
It makes you a bit strange. Do you have the same reaction if someone says "this spaghetti is delicious" when according to the same logic they "should" say "these spaghetti are... "
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
I've always thought the archetypal 'gammon' was a middle class real ale bore who too easily gives his opinion to anyone that will listen down the village boozer. Think Dave Nice from Smashie & Nicey.
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.
Good morning fellow Pb-ers. I've a U3a Discussion Group to Zoom to this morning, on the subject of 'cancel culture'. Shall I be against it, as the rest of the group probably will be, or decide to be Devils Advocate and say that one has to ensure that people who have ever had 'unacceptable' views on something major shouldn't be heard on anything? Or something like that.
Nothing new about people being cancelled. It happened to Oscar Wilde for example, and cancelling of Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Harvey Weinstein etc is widely supported.
Its a consumerist world and voting with their feet is how people can express their opinions, so I no longer drink in Wetherspoons, or use Facebook for example as I dislike their companies policies. Whats wrong with that?
When it comes to celebrities and "influencers" it comes to the same principle. A lot of Britons have cancelled Meghan and Harry for example, or David Starkey and yesterday even our Home Secretary seemed to want to cancel an ice cream manufacturer..
It is neither new nor strange, and ultimately an expression of individual power, in a world driven by marketing.
Thanks for the thoughts Dr F. Noted. I don't drink in Wetherspoons either. And yesterday went for the first time to what had been my favourite local pub, to be disconcerted by the lack of social distancing requirements, recording etc, as apparently a conscious decision by the management. Not quite the same, of course,
Of course we even have a long established way of cancelling people, named for a nineteenth century Irish land agent.
Sanctions against individuals are widely used as instruments of government policy too, whether internally (remember the eighties voicing of Gerry Adams by an actor) or external, such as used on a number or Russian oligarchs.
Or is cancelling only bad when organised by the people, rather than imposed by governments?
So in the aftermath of the entirely predictable revision of PHE Covid death numbers can anyone answer a question on the other headline figure used to constantly project that we’re on the verge of a second wave and hundreds of thousands of deaths (despite the fact that if testing was done on the same basis as back in March/April we might be showing closer to showing 10s of new cases a day rather than thousands).
If somebody has a positive test on a Monday and a further positive test on a Friday (or even two concurrent positive tests for certainty), do both of those positive tests appear in the daily counts?
The thing I don't like so much about "gammon" is not that it's racist - that is a ludicrous interpretation - but that it's classist. It does not tend to get applied to your suave posho racists. So we do need a word for them. I'll work on it.
I've always thought the archetypal 'gammon' was a middle class real ale bore who too easily gives his opinion to anyone that will listen down the village boozer. Think Dave Nice from Smashie & Nicey.
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.
Good morning fellow Pb-ers. I've a U3a Discussion Group to Zoom to this morning, on the subject of 'cancel culture'. Shall I be against it, as the rest of the group probably will be, or decide to be Devils Advocate and say that one has to ensure that people who have ever had 'unacceptable' views on something major shouldn't be heard on anything? Or something like that.
Nothing new about people being cancelled. It happened to Oscar Wilde for example, and cancelling of Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Harvey Weinstein etc is widely supported.
Its a consumerist world and voting with their feet is how people can express their opinions, so I no longer drink in Wetherspoons, or use Facebook for example as I dislike their companies policies. Whats wrong with that?
When it comes to celebrities and "influencers" it comes to the same principle. A lot of Britons have cancelled Meghan and Harry for example, or David Starkey and yesterday even our Home Secretary seemed to want to cancel an ice cream manufacturer..
It is neither new nor strange, and ultimately an expression of individual power, in a world driven by marketing.
Thanks for the thoughts Dr F. Noted. I don't drink in Wetherspoons either. And yesterday went for the first time to what had been my favourite local pub, to be disconcerted by the lack of social distancing requirements, recording etc, as apparently a conscious decision by the management. Not quite the same, of course,
Of course we even have a long established way of cancelling people, named for a nineteenth century Irish land agent.
Sanctions against individuals are widely used as instruments of government policy too, whether internally (remember the eighties voicing of Gerry Adams by an actor) or external, such as used on a number or Russian oligarchs.
Or is cancelling only bad when organised by the people, rather than imposed by governments?
Your use of Oscar Wilde as your leading example slightly undermines everything else you say. Secondly, there is a world of difference between declining to listen to someone, and trying to prevent that person from speaking.
"1. Employers expect to see GCSE and A level grades. If, in 20 years' time, veterans of the class of 2020 apply for jobs, they can't demonstrate the requirement that the employer demands (e.g. X-number of good GCSEs, a C or better in Maths, such and such an attainment at A-level) then they are liable, I'm afraid, to be discriminated against."
You did not seriously say that, did you?
What employer, when they have 20 years employment history to peruse, gives a flying f**k about what a person's A level results were?
All of them, except where the job requires an alternative post-16 pathway.
This will certainly drive some grade inflation – but I would argue that this is a consequence of Ofqual’s failure to design a wise process. The guardian of the ‘no grade inflation’ policy is responsible for its breach.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
It is not the same. The N word is principally a racial slur used by white racists to denigrate black people - all black people - for being black.
That it is sometimes used these days BY black people for other reasons changes that not one iota.
Gammon is a thick white bloke who has seen better days and is racist and forever angry.
You get upset about that being racist for one of 2 reasons -
1. You are one. 2. You have poor language skills.
You are neither - so I conclude you are on a wind up.
Are there any similar slurs for thick Asian men, or thick Indian men? The fact the insult is based on a racial characteristic is the problem.
It’s an insult that relies on a racial characteristic, not is based upon one. And it’s chief contributory characteristic is not thickness but anger.
The anger of the person using it, anger at those who had the temerity to vote to leave the EU.
Every time somebody resorts to using it, they make that night of 23rd into the 24th of June 2016 that bit sweeter.
But with rather different issues in play. If neither of her parents were US citizens at the time, having been born while they were passing through the country would on the face of it appear to be a weak case for eligibility?
As is pointed out in the comments to the associated editorial defending the publishing of the article, the author clearly has an agenda and is hardly a disinterested constitutional scholar. Furthermore whilst “birtherism” was ostensibly about Obama’s place of birth, it actually spanned far wider including into the “issues” raised here.
It’s a bit like the term “conspiracy theory”, which in it’s original form simply questioned whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or on behalf and/or in concert with others. But now has come to effectively be a shorthand for any version of an incident that it odds with official explanation.
So “birtherism” is now a short hand for a movement which, under the cover of exploring “important constitutional issues” seeks to delegitimise a political opponent, usually of a different race, by tapping into the base instincts of your own political base. Kamala Harris is black (like Obama) so cannot be considered a true American and should not be allowed to stand for the Presidency. Just got to find the “evidence” to match.
However, I don’t think he or Kate Green can be said to have set the agenda. They’ve largely been bystanders. The pressure on this has come from the media, the education sector and the Scottish government (ironically, the latter because of the extraordinary cockups they made themselves).
He needs to up his game a bit to seem a PM in waiting.
What a complete load of nonsense. Does anyone seriously believe that you can determine “overpromotion” based on an individuals exam results? From a variance of a grade or two? It’s not like giving someone a job thinking they can read, write or add up only to discover they are illiterate. And often exams don’t pick up all these things anyway (or in the case of dyslexia, allowances are actually made for it). Exam results matter because employers will use them as a threshold measure to limit applications to jobs. The vast majority of employers will employ additional selection measures beyond that - and where, for example, ability to demonstrate basic mathematical competence is important, will set additional tests on the back of that.
However, I don’t think he or Kate Green can be said to have set the agenda. They’ve largely been bystanders. The pressure on this has come from the media, the education sector and the Scottish government (ironically, the latter because of the extraordinary cockups they made themselves).
He needs to up his game a bit to seem a PM in waiting.
Especially as what has happened was entirely predictable, for anybody with half a brain, months ago.
What a complete load of nonsense. Does anyone seriously believe that you can determine “overpromotion” based on an individuals exam results? From a variance of a grade or two? It’s not like giving someone a job thinking they can read, write or add up only to discover they are illiterate. And often exams don’t pick up all these things anyway (or in the case of dyslexia, allowances are actually made for it). Exam results matter because employers will use them as a threshold measure to limit applications to jobs. The vast majority of employers will employ additional selection measures beyond that - and where, for example, ability to demonstrate basic mathematical competence is important, will set additional tests on the back of that.
Well, there must be some reason for Dominic Cummings rising as high as he has.
Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
It’s supposed to be offensive.
I'd defend people's right to offend others. But it's interesting to point out this an insult based on something people can't change about themselves.
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.
Yes only a white person can be a gammon, but not every white person is a gammon. It refers to white people who go into a frothing rage such as in the video. It’s that what is being ridiculed, not their colour.
Similar to the N word then
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N word
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.
I cannot recall a time when a black person called another black person the N word, apart from in Tarantino films and the like. Never heard it in flesh world.
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
There is going to be no change unless the UK gives France more money, which they've said they won't do.
So this will go nowhere and is just a pathetic publicity stunt to "own the libs". Arrogant prats.
So in the aftermath of the entirely predictable revision of PHE Covid death numbers can anyone answer a question on the other headline figure used to constantly project that we’re on the verge of a second wave and hundreds of thousands of deaths (despite the fact that if testing was done on the same basis as back in March/April we might be showing closer to showing 10s of new cases a day rather than thousands).
If somebody has a positive test on a Monday and a further positive test on a Friday (or even two concurrent positive tests for certainty), do both of those positive tests appear in the daily counts?
Yes, I believe both positive tests count in the figures.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?
So in the aftermath of the entirely predictable revision of PHE Covid death numbers can anyone answer a question on the other headline figure used to constantly project that we’re on the verge of a second wave and hundreds of thousands of deaths (despite the fact that if testing was done on the same basis as back in March/April we might be showing closer to showing 10s of new cases a day rather than thousands).
If somebody has a positive test on a Monday and a further positive test on a Friday (or even two concurrent positive tests for certainty), do both of those positive tests appear in the daily counts?
Yes, I believe both positive tests count in the figures.
And this is widely known and acknowledged? Puts somewhat of a different slant on the whole thing, doesn't it? Especially if the number of such incidences were growing as authorities try to gather better data over incubation times of the virus. Wonder if the same thing happens in other countries?
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
Seems a bit excessive to send them all the way to Papua New Guinea.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
There is going to be no change unless the UK gives France more money, which they've said they won't do.
So this will go nowhere and is just a pathetic publicity stunt to "own the libs". Arrogant prats.
No they've not said they wont give France more money. They've put a condition on the French getting more money - an entirely appropriate condition.
If anyone who made this journey was immediately deported back to France then people would stop making the journey - why risk your life if it serves no purpose? If that involves then giving a chunk of cash to the French then that seems reasonable, the issue then is agreeing a price with the French.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?
LOL probably not PNG.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
There is going to be no change unless the UK gives France more money, which they've said they won't do.
So this will go nowhere and is just a pathetic publicity stunt to "own the libs". Arrogant prats.
No they've not said they wont give France more money. They've put a condition on the French getting more money - an entirely appropriate condition.
If anyone who made this journey was immediately deported back to France then people would stop making the journey - why risk your life if it serves no purpose? If that involves then giving a chunk of cash to the French then that seems reasonable, the issue then is agreeing a price with the French.
We could offer more money if they agree to cough up the €365 million they owe us for that illegal export ban on our beef.
Sometimes, just sometimes I regret being part of the party, movement, call it what you will, that felt that, given the situation In Uganda in the v.early 70's, Asians living there had the right to come to Britain!
Next they will start arguing about the "natural" bit of "natural born citizen". Maybe this excludes those born by Caesarean section. I mean if it's good enough for Shakespeare...
"none of woman born shall harm Macbeth"
Apart from the article being a load of crap (the principle of people being born in the US having US citizenship DOES predate Harris' birth in 1964), the author is a Republican who would have run against Harris in the 2010 California Attorney General election if he hadn't lost the primary to another Republican, and is, for example, the chairman of the "National Organisation for Marriage" which is dedicated to opposing same-sex marriage. So maybe not the most objective point of view.
However, I don’t think he or Kate Green can be said to have set the agenda. They’ve largely been bystanders. The pressure on this has come from the media, the education sector and the Scottish government (ironically, the latter because of the extraordinary cockups they made themselves).
He needs to up his game a bit to seem a PM in waiting.
Gavin's 11th hour brinkmanship, masterstroke by using the mock results has taken the sting out of the tail in England I would suggest.
You are right, Starmer and Green have looked woefully poor. They will also have the undoubtedly debacle in Wales to explain away later today.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?
LOL probably not PNG.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
Iceland? Or the Faroes if the Danes agree?
In World War Two there were internment camps on Man.
However, I don’t think he or Kate Green can be said to have set the agenda. They’ve largely been bystanders. The pressure on this has come from the media, the education sector and the Scottish government (ironically, the latter because of the extraordinary cockups they made themselves).
He needs to up his game a bit to seem a PM in waiting.
Gavin's 11th hour brinkmanship, masterstroke by using the mock results has taken the sting out of the tail in England I would suggest.
You are right, Starmer and Green have looked woefully poor. They will also have the undoubtedly debacle in Wales to explain away later today.
"1. Employers expect to see GCSE and A level grades. If, in 20 years' time, veterans of the class of 2020 apply for jobs, they can't demonstrate the requirement that the employer demands (e.g. X-number of good GCSEs, a C or better in Maths, such and such an attainment at A-level) then they are liable, I'm afraid, to be discriminated against."
You did not seriously say that, did you?
What employer, when they have 20 years employment history to peruse, gives a flying f**k about what a person's A level results were?
All of them, except where the job requires an alternative post-16 pathway.
I agree with Tim T. And, before we go into meltdown over the details of A level grades, let us see what the Universities do about admissions. For example, Dr Foxy made it clear the other day that the Medical School where he is part of the admissions process recognises that grades at A level demonstrate only part of the reasons as to whether or not a candidate should be admitted.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?
LOL probably not PNG.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
Iceland? Or the Faroes if the Danes agree?
In World War Two there were internment camps on Man.
If you're going to do this (and I'm not saying we necessarily should) then it shouldn't be in another developed country - except for France. For two reasons it makes sense to do it in a country people don't want to migrate to, which is why the Aussies agreed it with PNG.
1: If people's asylum claim fails then they're far more likely to agree to go home if they're facing living in somewhere like PNG instead of Australia. 2: The quid pro quo of agreeing to take these asylum seekers would be the writing of a cheque, possibly from our Foreign Aid budget. That makes far more sense for a less developed economy.
The exception would be France since that's simply returning people back to where they boarded from, which is what is meant to happen under the Dublin agreement anyway and then stops these journeys at source.
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?
LOL probably not PNG.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
Iceland? Or the Faroes if the Danes agree?
In World War Two there were internment camps on Man.
Or Greenland. Rockall an off the wall option after that invasion last year.
Comments
Why not just denounce angry old racists? Why do you need a word for his type?
Paul Elliott, a former Chelsea defender, sent the text to Richard Rufus during a row over a failed business venture.“
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/former-football-anti-racism-champion-paul-elliott-sued-after-n-word-text-8736194.html
I am sure plenty of racists voted Remain.
He did it that time, but afterwards racists took inspiration from it that it was OK to use that word so he's never made that joke again since.
Shame people have to spoil anything fun by taking it too far.
The point here is that one of the views being criticised is attitudes towards non-English foreigners and/or ethnic minorities. In Englan such a person is highly likely to be white by definition, so it is not particularly racist to utilise this when coming up with the disputed phrase.
If (a white person in particular) uses the n word it is being derogatory about someone merely for the colour of their skin. That is not the purpose of the offending term here. The colour of their skin is incidental to the real criticism being done.
Calling some a “white (or indeed black) supremacist” is arguably a derogatory term in many circumstances. It can only or applied to a person of one race. Is it therefore racist?
Every time somebody resorts to using it, they make that night of 23rd into the 24th of June 2016 that bit sweeter.
This is different from things like the n word (used by white people) whose sole purpose is to be derogatory about the colour of one’s skin. IMO.
Nobody is denying that the G word is derogatory. Just whether it is racist. The proposition but forward is that any derogatory phrase becomes racist purely if it cannot be linked to more than one racial group. I think this is a dubious assertion. As I say where the target is views/opinions/actions.
Black_Rook said:
"Two problems:
"1. Employers expect to see GCSE and A level grades. If, in 20 years' time, veterans of the class of 2020 apply for jobs, they can't demonstrate the requirement that the employer demands (e.g. X-number of good GCSEs, a C or better in Maths, such and such an attainment at A-level) then they are liable, I'm afraid, to be discriminated against."
You did not seriously say that, did you?
What employer, when they have 20 years employment history to peruse, gives a flying f**k about what a person's A level results were?
Some nasty comments under this Mail article. I don't know why I keep reading them.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8621129/Aspiring-lawyers-fume-forced-URINATE-buckets.html#comments
That's just the sort of stuff that the more snobbish leavey types on here like to boast about consuming (though such boasting is probably a bit infra dig for yer truly suave posho racist).
Edit: God I'm thick, I've just realised that gammon derives from jambon.
Does that make me a gammon?
Harris is worth a bet.
Good morning fellow Pb-ers. I've a U3a Discussion Group to Zoom to this morning, on the subject of 'cancel culture'.
Shall I be against it, as the rest of the group probably will be, or decide to be Devils Advocate and say that one has to ensure that people who have ever had 'unacceptable' views on something major shouldn't be heard on anything? Or something like that.
https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/status/1293541246489649154?s=09
Its a consumerist world and voting with their feet is how people can express their opinions, so I no longer drink in Wetherspoons, or use Facebook for example as I dislike their companies policies. Whats wrong with that?
When it comes to celebrities and "influencers" it comes to the same principle. A lot of Britons have cancelled Meghan and Harry for example, or David Starkey and yesterday even our Home Secretary seemed to want to cancel an ice cream manufacturer..
It is neither new nor strange, and ultimately an expression of individual power, in a world driven by marketing.
I don't drink in Wetherspoons either. And yesterday went for the first time to what had been my favourite local pub, to be disconcerted by the lack of social distancing requirements, recording etc, as apparently a conscious decision by the management. Not quite the same, of course,
Sanctions against individuals are widely used as instruments of government policy too, whether internally (remember the eighties voicing of Gerry Adams by an actor) or external, such as used on a number or Russian oligarchs.
Or is cancelling only bad when organised by the people, rather than imposed by governments?
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
If somebody has a positive test on a Monday and a further positive test on a Friday (or even two concurrent positive tests for certainty), do both of those positive tests appear in the daily counts?
And with that, the problem was unresolved.
Meanwhile in Principals can be either useless idiots or Machiavellian forgers part 74b:
https://twitter.com/nickhillman/status/1293567226507821056
https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2020/08/12/the-great-cag-car-crash-what-went-wrong/
This will certainly drive some grade inflation – but I would argue that this is a consequence of Ofqual’s failure to design a wise process. The guardian of the ‘no grade inflation’ policy is responsible for its breach.
It’s a bit like the term “conspiracy theory”, which in it’s original form simply questioned whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone or on behalf and/or in concert with others. But now has come to effectively be a shorthand for any version of an incident that it odds with official explanation.
So “birtherism” is now a short hand for a movement which, under the cover of exploring “important constitutional issues” seeks to delegitimise a political opponent, usually of a different race, by tapping into the base instincts of your own political base. Kamala Harris is black (like Obama) so cannot be considered a true American and should not be allowed to stand for the Presidency. Just got to find the “evidence” to match.
However, I don’t think he or Kate Green can be said to have set the agenda. They’ve largely been bystanders. The pressure on this has come from the media, the education sector and the Scottish government (ironically, the latter because of the extraordinary cockups they made themselves).
He needs to up his game a bit to seem a PM in waiting.
https://twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1293795323136086016?s=20
Focus grouped to the T I reckon
Especially as what has happened was entirely predictable, for anybody with half a brain, months ago.
Australia effectively stopped migration like this from boats by reaching an agreement with Papua New Guinea that any asylum seekers who arrive in Australia will be taken instead to a detention centre in PNG while their application is processed. After that happened the arrivals by boats pretty much stopped. If the UK were to replicate that then it might work but it would drive many here mad in doing so.
So this will go nowhere and is just a pathetic publicity stunt to "own the libs". Arrogant prats.
That overpromoted line is going to absolutely haunt him.
If anyone who made this journey was immediately deported back to France then people would stop making the journey - why risk your life if it serves no purpose? If that involves then giving a chunk of cash to the French then that seems reasonable, the issue then is agreeing a price with the French.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
"none of woman born shall harm Macbeth"
Apart from the article being a load of crap (the principle of people being born in the US having US citizenship DOES predate Harris' birth in 1964), the author is a Republican who would have run against Harris in the 2010 California Attorney General election if he hadn't lost the primary to another Republican, and is, for example, the chairman of the "National Organisation for Marriage" which is dedicated to opposing same-sex marriage. So maybe not the most objective point of view.
The statement itself is so awesomely beautiful that any comment on it is superfluous.
You are right, Starmer and Green have looked woefully poor. They will also have the undoubtedly debacle in Wales to explain away later today.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1293806102640041985?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
In World War Two there were internment camps on Man.
1: If people's asylum claim fails then they're far more likely to agree to go home if they're facing living in somewhere like PNG instead of Australia.
2: The quid pro quo of agreeing to take these asylum seekers would be the writing of a cheque, possibly from our Foreign Aid budget. That makes far more sense for a less developed economy.
The exception would be France since that's simply returning people back to where they boarded from, which is what is meant to happen under the Dublin agreement anyway and then stops these journeys at source.
Perhaps Priti is dusting down the judge's black cap for asylum seekers, this time, she has form in its reintroduction.