Quote Originally Posted by Andy_Faber View Post
It is hate speech and it demonstrates your lack of understanding of you believe it can only be aimed at ‘the poor’, ‘the badly treated’ or’(a) minority’. Regrettably for you, we are in the era of offence being in the eye of a the offended - there’s enough case law around now to enlighten even a bigot like yourself, maybe not though

I thought the MK analogy might help you explain your ramblings, you mention it’s disciples often enough and even practise some of the traits of it’s foul tempered foul mouthed author

Actually we are not, despite you having obviously swallowed some of the more bizarre ramblings of the right, in an age where offence is in the eye of the beholder, some people get offended tough, unless it meets the definitions, which you quoted last time and I comprehensively explained and demonstrated that you were talking tosh.

Seeing as I did not say it can only be aimed at the poor, the badly treated or a minority, you clearly do not understand what hate speech is.

Gammon, is a term which yes can be described as an insult, but is understood to refer to angry, crimson faced middle aged or older, white blokes, generally moaning about how "things ain't what they used to be" or similar perhaps that might be you? In which case I can understand your sensitivity but it still doesn't make it hate speech. But hey if it makes you happy to think that is the case then so be it, I mean who I am to disabuse someone who is clearly rather deluded?

But then that is rather gammon like it seems to me.

There is enough case law to show your right? Really, come on then do put an actual example, as against your usual "you think that should be the case" justification for your unverifiable claims.