Same question to snafu. Do you think Elvis Costello was trying to be insulting to black people when he said?

No, but since that is a derogatory term for the Irish and the song is about ‘the troubles’ going all the way back to Cromwell’s time it might be taken as more insulting to them – if it wasn’t more about the trouble for those on that troubled isle…

I watched “Blazing Saddles” the other night and nowadays it is difficult to watch without being acutely aware of the language. However it doesn’t denigrate black people, quite the reverse in fact and I doubt if Richard Pryor would have been associated with it if it had.
….and it is still one of the funny films ever made.

Um, do you mean the late Cleavon Little as Bart?
It is indeed a fantastic film, in fact one film (along with Young Frankenstein) I happily show my kids. It is a film that makes fun of film making, the whole western genre – and racism. Blazing Saddles could be crass and crude, and maybe it is, but it is also extremely funny and enlightening, a true-life historical tale and factually based.*

Of course it’s about intent or not. But the intent has to be wilful and malicious. Not accidental, not ironic and not playful. Which is precisely why the whole argument is a mockery.

Are you saying that Clarkson’s use of the ‘n’ word was accidental, ironic, and playful?

If you believe his ‘mutterings’ were accidental, ironic or even playful then you must have a thoroughly different definition of those words so, please, can I beg to differ?

* The last few may be incorrect, but you’ll already have guessed that, I think.;o)

And you are surprised, how?

Oh hello again Edgar.

Is it worth anyone replying to your posts on the off chance that you just delete them all again?

If you’re going to remove intent from the equation, you’d better get some extra prisons built sharpish, since anyone seen carrying home a pick-axe handle (with the intention of repairing the tool in his garden shed,) or a baseball bat (for his kids to play with,) will be imprisoned for carrying an offensive weapon.

Or shot down in the street for having an accent and a table leg in a plastic bag? See the case of Harry Stanley. (I’d put a link, but I know you won’t bother to check yourself so why waste my time?)

All this (manufactured) righteous indignation over something that was never intended for viewing, by someone who has an exaggerated idea of how funny he is, plus seeing a man hounded from his job, and driven into illness, because he didn’t know the words of an 80+-year-old record (did anyone before the [single] complaint came in?) becomes even more ludicrous, when one realises that the BBC (that bastion of the upkeep of public morality,) has, along with the whole European TV system, been well-and-truly conned into broadcasting a total obscenity throughout the whole of Saturday night.

Ok, Brooksy. Name the obscenity, go on, expose your prejudice to the world once more…

Take the name of that creature that was manipulated (by a completely discredited “voting” system) into winning, and look at it carefully; Conchita = “little c—” (that four-letter word snafu will never use,) and Wurst is a sausage, yet the BBC was happy to broadcast it before the so-called “watershed,” and continued the “joke,” on The One Show last night.

Bravo, you’ve broken through that wall of intolerance and all will now return to normal!

Ok, it won’t. The monstrosity that is the Eurovision Song Contest was still won by an ‘obscenity’ (who is actually a comedy act in his/her home country, Austria) by a voting system that is ‘discredited’ (despite having just been updated so that the Eastern European states couldn’t vote for their neighbours anymore) and happily broadcast before the watershed by the BBC; erm, wait – when is the watershed on the BBC on a Saturday night? Surely these are things that you could have looked up yourself rather than splash it all over a post that you will almost certainly delete shortly anyway?
Is it men in dresses you don’t like, or bearded ladies? Singing bearded ladies, or men in dresses on your TV singing songs in a style that wouldn’t be out of place as a Bond theme tune and winning Europe-wide contests? How do you feel about the 1998 winner, the trans gender Dana International – did you whine about her being an obscenity too?

Naturally we can expect those wishing to clean the English language of all words which sully it, to take up this particular baton “and run with it,” though I admit to not holding my breath.

Moggy asked us to play nicely and I expected more of you than calling another human being an obscenity, but to expect any form of contrition over it would be futile, so I won’t hold my breath either.

As said before, the more that the Media and the leaders of other parties try to rubbish UKIP, the more support they get.
There will be a lot more mud slinging before the European elections.
UKIP detractors need to make sure they stand the correct side of the fan before throwing.

i/ Are you saying there was no complaint about the blog?
ii/ Are you saying that the police didn’t go round?
iii/ Are you saying that the police did not ask him to take the post down?
iv/ Are you saying that the police did not ask him to refrain from mentioning their visit on his blog?
v/ Are you the fan that detractors need to be the correct side of? And what is the correct side anyway – agreeing with UKIP?

If you can answer ‘yes’ to any one of the above then you have wasted your time posting your contradictions…

In other news, I see that Red Ed is busy rushing out feelgood policies, without thinking about their implementation.

Sure, getting everyone who wants one, an appointment with their GP within 48 hours is a great idea, and might well work 75% of the time. However, in the middle of a flu epidemic, perhaps not.

Hopefully, he is grasping at straws.

Welcome to another moderator, dipping his toe in a potentially dangerous pool.
Are you trying to deflect attention from UKIP, moderator, or inject an element of ‘other’ politics into a thread about UKIP?

Well it would be if that was actually what happened.

Ah ha – someone who knows! So it never happened, did it Charlie?

“A spokesperson for Cambridgeshire Police confirmed today that the visit had occurred but said they had not told Mr Abberton to delete any tweets.
“We were called with a complaint about a message on social media at about 12.40pm on Friday.”

Hmm, so it did happen, Charlie; the police (no less) admit it. And not ‘told’, asked. That sounds a bit like intimidation – wonder if they played good cop, bad cop to get their way?

The concern should be about the complainant. The police were legitimately following up a complaint.

Yet they admit that there was nothing they could do, “Inquiries were made as to whether any offences had been committed under the Representation of the People Act but none were revealed and no further action was taken,” said a spokesperson – but that didn’t stop the police from going round anyway, and even asking that their visit not be mentioned…now why would that be?

It all came to nothing so yet another example of the media creating a story where there isn’t one, or certainly not one worth spending time on.

No, the media is reporting something that is very worrying. Something that you can expect to have taken place in one of your favourite far right (or left, but then not your favourite?) dictatorships – the police coming around to your house and (at the moment, anyway) asking for items of free speech to be removed on the say-so of a political party’s complaint with no legal justification; but at least the guy wasn’t detained for ‘thought crime’ in the dead of night.

The police received a complaint, which I presume they are obliged to follow up, as a matter or routine.

No, not always followed up. And they knew they had no criminal criminally slandering a single man, politician or political party. No case to answer.

That is hardly the police actively attempting to suppress the freedom of political speech, is it?

So coming round and asking for a blog post to be removed because of a complaint from a political party that was the target of that post despite there having been nothing criminal does not, to you, appear to be stifling freedom of speech, does it, Charlie?

Hence my assertion that it is the action of UKIP we need to be more concerned about.

Been saying that all along, Charlie. Nice of you to join our (little) club…;o)

I don’t know – not watched it, not likely to.

But if their message, for the sake of argument, was that we should build large internment camps and starve all foreigners to death in them as an incentive not to immigrate here then I’d imagine there might be sections censored in their broadcast.

I think there is things that cannot be broadcast, as controversial items, which are understood by all parties.

Maybe they overstepped this agreement?

But if their resources enable them to catch real criminals and those of malicious intent of whatever type, good luck to ’em!

More likely to enable other identities for their agents, based on your appearance and the likelyhood of you going to a particular country, or to hide themselves by misappropriating your ISP number (or whatever it’s called), or takie an interest in you because of your job, interests or family.

Still, at least the US is trying to keep up with the Chinese…

???

You should be so lucky! Meanwhile, try answering the question…