Careless Tories!

[Geoff Parkstone]

Do you really need someone to explain to you why a personal insult based on skin colour is hate speech...

You're better than that - or maybe not

[swaledale]

Do you really need someone to explain to you why a personal insult based on skin colour is hate speech...

You're better than that - or maybe not

Except unlike other terms its actually not based solely on skin colour!! Also its generally used by other white persons.

Its a pejorative term which is descriptive of certain people, loosely described as white, red faced/florid complexion, perpetually indignant about petty insignificant matters, generally an over 50's male (the female equivalent might be "Karen"), self entitled, harks back to some imaginary golden age, with a distrust of foreigners and a dislike of change.

Of course if the cap fits, I can see why one might be insulted, but then naturally the ones feeling insulted and claiming (erroneously) that its hate speech, are more than likely the very ones who will happily call others snow flakes for being too sensitive, complain about "cancel" culture and describe socially enlightened people and organisations as woke!

[Andy_Faber]

Except unlike other terms its actually not based solely on skin colour!! Also its generally used by other white persons.

Its a pejorative term which is descriptive of certain people, loosely described as white, red faced/florid complexion, perpetually indignant about petty insignificant matters, generally an over 50's male (the female equivalent might be "Karen"), self entitled, harks back to some imaginary golden age, with a distrust of foreigners and a dislike of change.

Of course if the cap fits, I can see why one might be insulted, but then naturally the ones feeling insulted and claiming (erroneously) that its hate speech, are more than likely the very ones who will happily call others snow flakes for being too sensitive, complain about "cancel" culture and describe socially enlightened people and organisations as woke!

Defining what a gammon is doesn’t make you any less guilty, you need to try harder

[swaledale]

Defining what a gammon is doesn’t make you any less guilty, you need to try harder

Oh but it does and I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it constitutes "hate speech". But then you won't because you can't.

I don't need to do anything, especially not from someone who thinks the media and entertainment should reflect the world you live in, rather than perhaps the wider world most people inhabit.

[Andy_Faber]

Oh but it does and I'm still waiting for you to tell me how it constitutes "hate speech". But then you won't because you can't.

So let’s start with UNESCO, and surely even you wouldn’t challenge their credibility.

The UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech refers to the working definition as: "any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are. Forms of hate speech can include scapegoating, stereotyping, stigmatization and the use of derogatory language.

I can go on if you wish, EU and HMG definitions are actually even more pertinent

[Geoff Parkstone]

Except unlike other terms its actually not based solely on skin colour!! Also its generally used by other white persons.

Its a pejorative term which is descriptive of certain people, loosely described as white, red faced/florid complexion, perpetually indignant about petty insignificant matters, generally an over 50's male (the female equivalent might be "Karen"), self entitled, harks back to some imaginary golden age, with a distrust of foreigners and a dislike of change.

Of course if the cap fits, I can see why one might be insulted, but then naturally the ones feeling insulted and claiming (erroneously) that its hate speech, are more than likely the very ones who will happily call others snow flakes for being too sensitive, complain about "cancel" culture and describe socially enlightened people and organisations as woke!

Pathetic, you need a period of self reflection. What you're saying is that it's ok to use perjorative terms for people if you don't agree with their stance on something.

This is a whole new level of hypocrisy akin to not liking curry so calling someone the P word.

[ramAnag]

Pathetic, you need a period of self reflection. What you're saying is that it's ok to use perjorative terms for people if you don't agree with their stance on something.

This is a whole new level of hypocrisy akin to not liking curry so calling someone the P word.

Maybe we could just return to using the term ‘Blimp’ (as in Colonel Blimp). We all know what it means, it was good enough for Orwell and it’d stop all the point scoring and ‘gammon’ angst.

[Andy_Faber]

Maybe we could just return to using the term ‘Blimp’ (as in Colonel Blimp). We all know what it means, it was good enough for Orwell and it’d stop all the point scoring and ‘gammon’ angst.

There’s no angst (at least on my part), Swale’s double standards are obvious and I’m happy to call him out on it. I admire your efforts to find a middle ground but it’s beyond that

[swaledale]

There’s no angst (at least on my part), Swale’s double standards are obvious and I’m happy to call him out on it. I admire your efforts to find a middle ground but it’s beyond that

Utter b o l l o c k s!

[swaledale]

Pathetic, you need a period of self reflection. What you're saying is that it's ok to use perjorative terms for people if you don't agree with their stance on something.

This is a whole new level of hypocrisy akin to not liking curry so calling someone the P word.

No what's pathetic is you claiming the use of the word was "hate speech" and being a patronising git as per usual.

Not sure what the **** your on about with the curry and the P word, can't really see how that is any way comparable but in your strange world I guess it makes sense to you.

It may well be insulting, to those of a gammon persuasion certainly, but then IMO they deserve the epithet and if they feel insulted, all to the good that's the point. I mean that is rather the point of insults!

Its got nothing to do with not liking their stance on something, its more that they actually don't have a cohesive stance, its just bluster and talking rubbish about stuff they plainly don't understand.

Any reasonably sentient person would reach that conclusion, though the more sensitive ones may well not choose to insult them, but then that's a personal choice.

Of course if the cap fits, I can see why you might be so touchy about the term.