woolley Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, The Lurker said: No; it's not; it is a term that has been used since the 19th century to describe a certain type of person; first recorded use in 1838 by Charles Dickens in Nicholas Nickleby. Gammon refers to someones views, opinions and intransigence. It is not defined by that persons natural skin colour or ethnicity. It is perfectly reasonable that a non-white person could be a gammon; just because it is an insult usually directed at middle aged white men does not mean it can be exclusively applied to that demographic; purely that that demographic are most likely to display gammonic behavior. It is what happens to a person when they are confronted with the fact that their views are either unacceptable or just plain wrong and rather than taking a moment of reflection to examine their views and possibly consider that they may be wrong they become angry, usually with the person confronting them on their views. this can either be caused by an inherent lack of intelligence or more likely an unwillingness to admit that they have been gulled into thinking a certain way. A gammonic episode is usually accompanied by claims that the sufferers freedom of speech is somehow being curtailed; again highlighting their ignorance as they believe that freedom of speech means that they have the right to say what they think without being challenged on it. A gammonic episode often results in the sufferer calling their tormentor a snowflake; which is also not a racist term but by your definition could well be. The history of the term is immaterial. It acquired its racist connotations in recent times. Your defence that it is used universally against all ethnicities is risible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lurker Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 23 minutes ago, woolley said: The history of the term is immaterial. It acquired its racist connotations in recent times. Your defence that it is used universally against all ethnicities is risible. No it's not and no it hasn't. I didn't say that it is used universally against all ethnicities; I said that it is perfectly reasonable that it could be because it is a word used to describe a behaviour not an ethnicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 16 minutes ago, The Lurker said: No it's not and no it hasn't. I didn't say that it is used universally against all ethnicities; I said that it is perfectly reasonable that it could be because it is a word used to describe a behaviour not an ethnicity. watch the opposition benches today...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 9 hours ago, woolley said: Now that is angry. What I said and what you bolded is absolutely factual. Gina Miller won the first case but only succeeded in giving the triggering of Article 50 the force of Parliament rather than stopping it in its tracks as she had hoped and expected. She is on record expressing her disappointment that MPs sanctioned the triggering of Article 50 after she won the first case. Her precise words were that she was "filled with trepidation and anxiety" at the move. She brought the case in the hope and expectation that MPs would decline to trigger Article 50. So how is it nonsense? Parliament passed the decision to the voters by an Act of Parliament and every voter was advised specifically that the Government would enact the result. Then in 2017, 84% of current MPs were elected on a Brexit manifesto. But it's still not good enough for them. They still aren't listening. Not angry just getting a bit fed up with your whining. After proving so publicly once again that only our sovereign parliament can make our laws I'm starting to wonder if the hard of thinking have finally managed to grasp the concept. To wit if only our sovereign parliament can make our laws then the hackneyed "sovereignty" card much beloved by unscrupulous brexiteers everywhere must be a load of hairy sphericals... No doubt they'll prefer to believe the nonsense in this mornings press about an "elite" trying to take "their" stupid brexit away from them. It's just pathetic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, The Lurker said: No it's not and no it hasn't. I didn't say that it is used universally against all ethnicities; I said that it is perfectly reasonable that it could be because it is a word used to describe a behaviour not an ethnicity. Quite. Really looking forward to the next QT. No doubt they'll be a lot of angry people shouting their empty slogans. Got to be worth recording that one. Edited September 25, 2019 by P.K. Typo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, woody2 said: i haven't seen any that are...... #fakenews Visit some of the brexit supporting groups on Facebook. Here is a couple of quotes from an Isle of Man News & Politics group about the outcome of the case; "If people dont realise this is more about 'the establishment' and 'wealth' wanting to influence brexit and nothing to do with the law, they need to wake up. Its now a war. Them vs the people. Bring it on" "Men fought through world wars to give us our freedom and all you snowflakes are worried about coming out of the Eu. Get behind our prime minister and lets stick together. Labour government well there was a time i was behind what you stood for but now you would not have a hope in hell getting my vote. The people voted out so do your job and look after your people weather you think its right or wrong the vote was leave. Get behind the prime minister and make Great Britain great again. A united Great Britain." At least one of the lawyers involved with the case also had their home address published by Brexiteers. Fake News? No. Let's also add in at this point that one of the arguments in favour of Brexit was that the UK had surrendered sovereignty to the EU and that the EU dictated UK Law. Now it has been proven in a UK court of law that Parliament is Sovereign and that it is UK law and UK courts which apply the law they are really confused. ETA: I don't include Woolley in the above because I think he is thoughtful enough to understand what the ruling really means and understand the implications. Edited September 25, 2019 by manxman1980 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: ETA: I don't include Woolley in the above because I think he is thoughtful enough to understand what the ruling really means and understand the implications. Doesn't stop him whining about it though. The facetube comments demonstrate very clearly how the brexiteers have tried to badge their lying campaign as being "patriotic" and so forth. Mr Rudd put it rather well: “This is the nuttiest of the many nutty arguments that have emerged from the Land of Hope and Glory set now masquerading as the authentic standard-bearers of British patriotism. It’s utter bollocks.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, P.K. said: a lot of angry people shouting There. Much better without the racist slur. Wasn't difficult, was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, woolley said: There. Much better without the racist slur. Wasn't difficult, was it? Don't be daft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 That Geoffrey Cox guy is a bit of a gammon. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 A couple of minutes of the baritone barrister... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 31 minutes ago, quilp said: A couple of minutes of the baritone barrister... Quality stuff. They're (all sides) a disgrace though, it appears to the one thing that Brexit has united them on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 The current Prime Minister helped cause this mess by voting against Theresa May's deal twice! So who does not have the right to sit on the green benches? Geoffrey Cox as Attorney General has now twice given duff advice to the Government. First in relation to the backstop (upsetting the brexiteers with his advice on the backstop) and secondly in relation to the prorogation of Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Maybe the Government should try Legal Aid, it has to more reliable advice than they are currently getting from Mr Cox. As an aside, has anyone ever dropped dead in Parliament? There are lot of unhealthy looking people (on all sides) screaming and looking like prime heart attacks candidates in there at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 hour ago, manxman1980 said: The current Prime Minister helped cause this mess by voting against Theresa May's deal twice! So who does not have the right to sit on the green benches? Geoffrey Cox as Attorney General has now twice given duff advice to the Government. First in relation to the backstop (upsetting the brexiteers with his advice on the backstop) and secondly in relation to the prorogation of Parliament. That is not true. The prorogation of Parliament was legal at the time the advice was given. Indeed, the High Court including the Master of the Rolls, no less, concurred with the assessment. The Supreme Court disagreed and actually developed the principle of law to cover areas not hitherto embraced. All is matter of opinion based on subtle nuance. There was no suggestion of error or impropriety other than by politicians and the press. It was legal before the judgment but now it is found not to be. As the AG commented, it will be for Parliament at some point in the future to decide whether it is content with the new situation or whether it wishes to change it. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.