Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Parkstone View Post
I'm not planning to enter the debate of what is and isn't a hate crime but just ask, for my own clarity, why gammon doesn't constitute a "hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race" as you define it, Swale.

I've never seen the word used to describe anyone other than a white race person: the notion of a black gammon (isn't that a gambling game?) is one I've not encountered, although I have met right wing / brexiteers of all race and hue - especially South Asian - and not heard gammon used in respect of them.

Yet only white folk seem to be defined as gammon, despite the political beliefs being distributed across the racial spectrum. Maybe the ruddy complexion is not so obvious on non white faces?!

This would suggest it is a "hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race" and therefore, by the definition you cited, a hate crime?
This whole "being offended by next to nothing" has, IMO, got completely out of hand. I do realise that some on here are pot stirring but to consider "gammon" or "gaslighter" or referring to someone as a "Karen" as being a hate crime is incredibly absurd. Whatever happened to context? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

I fear that we are close to the point where the name calling and the complaining about being "offended" will move on from the verbal to the physical. All driven by those who would divide and conquer. Maybe it's time to stamp, metaphorically (although some might think, literally), on Tommy Ten Names and those who fund him and those who encourage him. There's more of us than them and it's time WE took control of matters before the "wrong" revolution hits the fan and the majority end up in 15 minute cities amid a great reset.

I've long thought the 5% were ensuring they remained exactly that by having politicians in their pockets and that they organised themselves into the WEF to make sure they remain in control. I am now starting to think that day is not far away when they do own everything and, as Schwab wrote, we'll have nothing and we'll be happy.

Basically, the enemy isn't those fleeing conflict and deciding to come to the UK or elsewhere in (geographically) Europe. It's not those of a different colour or of a different religion. It's the 5%. The elite. The rich. Call them what you will. They saw population in Europe falling. That would affect their trade. Growth could not be sustained. That would hit the size of the dividends. No, that can't happen. The only way to keep growth going is to increase population and population growth. Hence the great need for immigration. The richest of them fund wars that ups the number of refugees and asylum seekers. The 5% are the ONE group that benefits from mass immigration. They also control politicians and through that they control the police and armed forces.

Is the above a mere conspiracy theory I've concocted or something that has been creeping along for ages and is now close to reaching the point of no return?