Undefined discussion subject.
Options
Comments
-
But calling people like Corbyn a gammon, what does it achieve?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
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.
Why not just denounce angry old racists? Why do you need a word for his type?0 -
Theresa May voted Remain.Foxy said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
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.Gallowgate said:
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.JohnLilburne said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?0 -
Tarantino does have a thing about it, that's for sure.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.0 -
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.html0 -
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
0 -
https://youtu.be/f3PJF0YE-x4isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.html0 -
Maybe not, but I have seen people who assume "you are a Leaver? You must be a racist xenophobe".Foxy said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
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.Gallowgate said:
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.JohnLilburne said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
I am sure plenty of racists voted Remain.0 -
Thanks for the detailed replies. What an unpleasant topic in general.Gallowgate said:
I think it’s a huge generalisation, which is always wrong, and potentially dangerous.RobD said:
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.Gallowgate said:
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.RobD said:
Isn't all racism and prejudice equally bad? That's the whole point about treating people equally.Gallowgate said:
“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.RobD said:
"...the type who say that racism against white people is not as bad as racism against non white people..."Gallowgate said:
That isn’t what I said.RobD said:
People who say some forms of racism are okay kinda have a point? I thought all forms of racism were unacceptable.Gallowgate said:
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.RobD said:
I'm not saying it is, just pointing out the hypocrisy.Gallowgate said:
Life isn’t fair sunshine. Suck it up.RobD said:
Just imagine an insult like that but for a non-white group of people. You'd be branded a racist in a nanosecond.Gallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
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.
"They have some kind of a point."
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but that seems pretty clear.
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.0 -
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.RobD said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.0 -
Do you think she is a racist xenophobe?Philip_Thompson said:
Theresa May voted Remain.Foxy said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
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.Gallowgate said:
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.JohnLilburne said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?0 -
like I said, something I have never heard in flesh world, at least not from a black person.isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.html0 -
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?isam said:
https://youtu.be/f3PJF0YE-x4isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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
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.0 -
Yes.Foxy said:
Do you think she is a racist xenophobe?Philip_Thompson said:
Theresa May voted Remain.Foxy said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
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.Gallowgate said:
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.JohnLilburne said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?0 -
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.JohnLilburne said:
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
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.1 -
So is chav a racial slur or a class slur?JohnLilburne said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?1 -
Haha ok thenFoxy said:
like I said, something I have never heard in flesh world, at least not from a black person.isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.html0 -
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 racePhilip_Thompson said:
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?isam said:
https://youtu.be/f3PJF0YE-x4isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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
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.0 -
Would it be OK to call someone black gammon?isam said:
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 racePhilip_Thompson said:
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?isam said:
https://youtu.be/f3PJF0YE-x4isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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
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.
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?0 -
Normally just virtue signallingalex_ said:
Would it be OK to call someone black gammon?isam said:
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 racePhilip_Thompson said:
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?isam said:
https://youtu.be/f3PJF0YE-x4isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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
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.
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?0 -
No because you can have black supremacists and other types of supremacists too. White there is an adjective and supremacist is not racist.alex_ said:
Would it be OK to call someone black gammon?isam said:
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 racePhilip_Thompson said:
Do you know he retired that sketch fifteen years ago?isam said:
https://youtu.be/f3PJF0YE-x4isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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
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.
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?0 -
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.alex_ said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
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.
0 -
The anger of the person using it, anger at those who had the temerity to vote to leave the EU.alex_ said:
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.RobD said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.
Every time somebody resorts to using it, they make that night of 23rd into the 24th of June 2016 that bit sweeter.1 -
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻kinabalu said:
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.alex_ said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
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.0 -
Mike Gapes is King Gammon to me, he is a remainer I believePhilip_Thompson said:
Yes.Foxy said:
Do you think she is a racist xenophobe?Philip_Thompson said:
Theresa May voted Remain.Foxy said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
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.Gallowgate said:
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.JohnLilburne said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?0 -
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.0
-
I think it's true that the EU as a whole is less ethnically diverse than the UK.JohnLilburne said:
Maybe not, but I have seen people who assume "you are a Leaver? You must be a racist xenophobe".Foxy said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
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.Gallowgate said:
I doubt those who use the word Gammon care how “pure” you think they are.JohnLilburne said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
I am sure plenty of racists voted Remain.1 -
When complimented on a good joke one should not spoil things by immediately repeating it.Philip_Thompson said:
But calling people like Corbyn a gammon, what does it achieve?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
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.
Why not just denounce angry old racists? Why do you need a word for his type?0 -
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.2 -
FPT
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?0 -
O/T
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#comments0 -
Jamónes ibérico?kinabalu said: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.
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.1 -
Bound to be. Because it's about attitudes and attitudes are universal.RobD said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.0 -
F
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.MarqueeMark said:
The anger of the person using it, anger at those who had the temerity to vote to leave the EU.alex_ said:
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.RobD said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.
Every time somebody resorts to using it, they make that night of 23rd into the 24th of June 2016 that bit sweeter.1 -
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.alex_ said: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.0 -
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.TimT said:FPT
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?0 -
Yes - but only when they're not.isam said:
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻kinabalu said:
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.alex_ said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
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.0 -
-
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.kinabalu said:
Yes - but only when they're not.isam said:
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻kinabalu said:
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.alex_ said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
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.
Does that make me a gammon?1 -
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.kinabalu said:
Tarantino does have a thing about it, that's for sure.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.1 -
Do you really not see any? Wow. Unbelievable.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?0 -
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... "Stocky said:
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.kinabalu said:
Yes - but only when they're not.isam said:
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻kinabalu said:
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.alex_ said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
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.
Does that make me a gammon?0 -
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.kinabalu said: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.
1 -
Harris is worth a bet.
0 -
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.Rob_downunder said:
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.kinabalu said: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.
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.0 -
0
-
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.OldKingCole said:
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.Rob_downunder said:
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.kinabalu said: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.
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.
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.0 -
PB.com in http error 500 shock.0
-
Thanks for the thoughts Dr F. Noted.Foxy said:
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.OldKingCole said:
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.Rob_downunder said:
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.kinabalu said: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.
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.
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,0 -
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?Foxy said:Birtherism is back:
https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/status/1293541246489649154?s=090 -
Is there any data on this?kamski said:
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... "Stocky said:
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.kinabalu said:
Yes - but only when they're not.isam said:
I get it - racial slurs are sometimes ok 👍🏻kinabalu said:
Thank god. That is vastly better than my efforts. I can go to bed.alex_ said:
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.JohnLilburne said:
So it's OK to use a phrase that describes "a particular type of" black person then?kinabalu said:
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.Philip_Thompson said:
Yes.kinabalu said:
You can demonstrate that by answering my question.CorrectHorseBattery said:
You're looking silly here to be honest mate.kinabalu said:
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.Andy_JS said:
Why use the word gammon?Theuniondivvie said:Speaking of overweight gammon..
https://twitter.com/scottcobb/status/1292694221460328448?s=20
The most amazing thing about this is that Alex Jones is 46 years old. Forty fcking six!
Is there a better word that captures all of this?
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?
Gammon is a snide and jokey reference to what can happen to skin tone when the blood boils.
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.
Does that make me a gammon?0 -
Of course we even have a long established way of cancelling people, named for a nineteenth century Irish land agent.OldKingCole said:
Thanks for the thoughts Dr F. Noted.Foxy said:
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.OldKingCole said:
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.Rob_downunder said:
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.kinabalu said: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.
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.
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?0 -
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?0 -
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?0 -
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293799605176598528
And with that, the problem was unresolved.0 -
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.Foxy said:
Of course we even have a long established way of cancelling people, named for a nineteenth century Irish land agent.OldKingCole said:
Thanks for the thoughts Dr F. Noted.Foxy said:
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.OldKingCole said:
Probably in the saloon bar. or the golf club.Rob_downunder said:
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.kinabalu said: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.
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.
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?0 -
All of them, except where the job requires an alternative post-16 pathway.TimT said:FPT
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?0 -
Oh glory. What shambles are they plotting now?CarlottaVance said:
Meanwhile in Principals can be either useless idiots or Machiavellian forgers part 74b:
https://twitter.com/nickhillman/status/12935672265078210560 -
Surely in a sense they are all being recycled?ydoethur said:
Oh glory. What shambles are they plotting now?CarlottaVance said:
Meanwhile in Principals can be either useless idiots or Machiavellian forgers part 74b:
https://twitter.com/nickhillman/status/12935672265078210560 -
-
The Higher Education Policy Institute is unimpressed:
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.0 -
Your final paragraph really is quite depressing.MarqueeMark said:
The anger of the person using it, anger at those who had the temerity to vote to leave the EU.alex_ said:
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.RobD said:
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.kinabalu said:
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.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.
Every time somebody resorts to using it, they make that night of 23rd into the 24th of June 2016 that bit sweeter.0 -
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.IanB2 said:
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?Foxy said:Birtherism is back:
https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/status/1293541246489649154?s=09
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.1 -
Keir Starmer has made all the right noises.CorrectHorseBattery said:
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.0 -
More like being gong farmed.IanB2 said:
Surely in a sense they are all being recycled?ydoethur said:
Oh glory. What shambles are they plotting now?CarlottaVance said:
Meanwhile in Principals can be either useless idiots or Machiavellian forgers part 74b:
https://twitter.com/nickhillman/status/12935672265078210560 -
Gavin Williamson there, fresh from taking his own A-Levels0
-
Still, the libtards will be pwnd.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293799605176598528
And with that, the problem was unresolved.
https://twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1293795323136086016?s=200 -
0
-
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.Scott_xP said:0 -
ydoethur said:
Keir Starmer has made all the right noises.CorrectHorseBattery said:
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.0 -
Well, there must be some reason for Dominic Cummings rising as high as he has.alex_ said:
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.Scott_xP said:0 -
Happened daily all the time in my boxing gym. It says as much as much about your social circles as anything.Foxy said:
like I said, something I have never heard in flesh world, at least not from a black person.isam said:
“ A former football anti-racism campaigner is being sued by a black ex-player after calling him “n*****” in a text message.Foxy said:
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.Gallowgate said:
As a non-Black person I can’t comment on the dynamics of black people calling other black people the N word.isam said:
No, it’s the same. Black people who think they’re better than other black people call them the N wordGallowgate said:
My understanding was that the N word is/was used to describe all black people.isam said:
Similar to the N word thenGallowgate said:
I don’t like the word, but it’s not about colour.Andy_JS said:
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.Gallowgate said:
It’s supposed to be offensive.CorrectHorseBattery said:Also frankly, I can see how it can be seen as offensive.
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.
Gammon is used to ridicule dense twats such as that guy in Austin, who happen to be white. Not quite the same.
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.html0 -
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.0 -
There is going to be no change unless the UK gives France more money, which they've said they won't do.Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.0 -
https://twitter.com/ImIncorrigible/status/1293807542745915392
That overpromoted line is going to absolutely haunt him.0 -
Yes, I believe both positive tests count in the figures.alex_ said: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?0 -
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.0 -
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?Foxy said:
Yes, I believe both positive tests count in the figures.alex_ said: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?0 -
Seems a bit excessive to send them all the way to Papua New Guinea.Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.1 -
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:
There is going to be no change unless the UK gives France more money, which they've said they won't do.Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.
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.0 -
LOL probably not PNG.alex_ said:
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.0 -
The PM is yet again on holiday during a crisis.0
-
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.Philip_Thompson said:
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.CorrectHorseBattery said:
There is going to be no change unless the UK gives France more money, which they've said they won't do.Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.
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.0 -
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!Theuniondivvie said:
Still, the libtards will be pwnd.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293799605176598528
And with that, the problem was unresolved.
https://twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1293795323136086016?s=200 -
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...Foxy said:Birtherism is back:
https://twitter.com/DrJohnEastman/status/1293541246489649154?s=09
"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.0 -
"The danger is that pupils will be overpromoted into jobs that are beyond their competence, says Gavin Williamson."CorrectHorseBattery said:Gavin Williamson there, fresh from taking his own A-Levels
The statement itself is so awesomely beautiful that any comment on it is superfluous.3 -
Gavin's 11th hour brinkmanship, masterstroke by using the mock results has taken the sting out of the tail in England I would suggest.ydoethur said:
Keir Starmer has made all the right noises.CorrectHorseBattery said:
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.
You are right, Starmer and Green have looked woefully poor. They will also have the undoubtedly debacle in Wales to explain away later today.
0 -
Iceland? Or the Faroes if the Danes agree?Philip_Thompson said:
LOL probably not PNG.alex_ said:
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
In World War Two there were internment camps on Man.0 -
Williamson's quote has damaged chances of that.Mexicanpete said:
Gavin's 11th hour brinkmanship, masterstroke by using the mock results has taken the sting out of the tail in England I would suggest.ydoethur said:
Keir Starmer has made all the right noises.CorrectHorseBattery said:
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.
You are right, Starmer and Green have looked woefully poor. They will also have the undoubtedly debacle in Wales to explain away later today.0 -
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.ydoethur said:
All of them, except where the job requires an alternative post-16 pathway.TimT said:FPT
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?0 -
What was that about promoted beyond their level of competence again?alex_ said:0 -
..0
-
Did TFPS really say that? I saw it and assumed it was some sort of ironic witticism.IshmaelZ said:
"The danger is that pupils will be overpromoted into jobs that are beyond their competence, says Gavin Williamson."CorrectHorseBattery said:Gavin Williamson there, fresh from taking his own A-Levels
The statement itself is so awesomely beautiful that any comment on it is superfluous.0 -
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.ydoethur said:
Iceland? Or the Faroes if the Danes agree?Philip_Thompson said:
LOL probably not PNG.alex_ said:
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
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.0 -
Or Greenland. Rockall an off the wall option after that invasion last year.ydoethur said:
Iceland? Or the Faroes if the Danes agree?Philip_Thompson said:
LOL probably not PNG.alex_ said:
Even more so if it were in Papua New Guinea. Does she have any suitably located countries as an alternative?Philip_Thompson said:
To be fair she isn't saying that's why she is doing it, just that it will have that effect.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293796547906412544
Because that's the reason to introduce legislation, to annoy the left. How old is this person, 12?
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.
I would think the obvious suggestions are either France or Turkey. Or possibly an African nation that wants cash.
In World War Two there were internment camps on Man.0 -
What a strange ambition for government "send the left into meltdown".Theuniondivvie said:
Still, the libtards will be pwnd.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1293799605176598528
And with that, the problem was unresolved.
https://twitter.com/stand_for_all/status/1293795323136086016?s=20
Perhaps Priti is dusting down the judge's black cap for asylum seekers, this time, she has form in its reintroduction.0
This discussion has been closed.