pop9770

I thought of this thread when the news were showing the monster sink hole in Japan that was fixed in two days ! We're so S$it .. hahahaha LOL

"Leaf Gate" Definitely a hazard Southwark are as ever incompetent no road sweepers they just use a man with a blower and a truck with brushes "street cleaning workers" All the money has gone on managers about 10 managers for every street worker all busy in meetings about what to do if we get snow in 2030 or if it's going to be sorted by global warming, and now we can see they've take their eye off the leaf problems /.... #SickSouthwark

The "Elephant" in the Barbers Very sad I had a similar experience at a Barbers in Crystal Palace Difficult not to associate the comments and attitude with certain factors (can't mention them in public for fear of being labeled and branded). Oh well I'll be dead in 40 - 60 years between now and then it's going to be an interesting ride change is happening on a monthly basis Trump Brexit it's awesome like a real life soap opera only more bizarre .

Stopping Cyclists riding over looks very unnecessary. But then all these Southwark road works are managed and supervised by "specialists" who's main objective is to cause as much unnecessary disruption as possible, for as long as possible and to be as expensive as possible. Brown paper envelopes system must oil the way. ;) Anyone remember Peckham Rye and the unnecessary diversion and road works that aided the death of that young girl ... as dangerous as possible too .. fortunately and hopefully extra fatalities don't look like they've been built into this (mole hill to mountain) project. Seriously it could be replaced in a couple of months in almost any other country couldn't it?

A masterful example of stating the obvious. I'll join you. 1. It's not acceptable to go dragging out a twitter post on a different topic and using it to mark someone out as a racist when you don't know them. 2. It's not acceptable to support anyone who breaks the law even if they are travellers. 3. It's not ok to pester someone who has a different opinion from thread to thread on a forum of twitter. (that's weird) 4. It's not ok to interpret comments any way you wish. 5. It's not ok to gang up on anyone online or off. As for luck I've not had much where edcam is concerned because he has only one view his own. And when I disagree he wants to close me down banned or ridiculed with pictures screaming troll. Not ok.

HelBel65 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I thought there were some thought provoking points > in this post.....until the last bit. I know a small error I should have left those rather obvious few lines out. edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oh for crying out loud pop or fazer, do stop > insulting people who have a different opinion to > you, it's incredibly rude and tiresome and it > looks very much to me like you're heading for a > ban. It's perfectly clear that gypo is a > pejorative term, regardless of education or > background. You don't need to know what a > pejorative term means in order to use one. edcam you are the epitome of what my old American boss would call and educated dumb person who knows a lot but isn't very smart. I have not insulted anyone I?m the one who?s been insulted. Please don?t take this as an insult .. It?s an observation. as your post has beautifully highlight what my old boss meant. If you re-read my last post you may (I?m not holding my breath) realise I?m not saying they don?t know what a pejorative term is I?m saying they probably don?t know the word pejorative ie if you were to say to the baker ?that Gypo is pejorative? he?d look at you blankly and need to google the meaning. I used it as an example of the level of education he might have and to emphasise my next point which is they / he probably don?t know that the term Gypo is any more offensive that calling a French person a Frog. Ie they use the term as the only term to describe travellers without having the same understanding as you. I must agree with my old boss. Maybe Read this and my previous post a few more times so you understand because you clearly missed something in your rush to reply or you simply are not smart enough to understand even though you?re a demon with big words. Be clear you may need to re-read everything I have written several times and put on your smart hat. As I said an observation not an insult, you?ll no doubt disagree it?s what you always do where I?m concerned, like I said you?re obsessed with me and follow me to every thread. Where are we going next?

edcam Finally an on topic post. I would say that what is pejorative to you isn't to many others they just don't have your level of education. The Baker and 90%+ of shop keepers who come into actual contact with travellers on a regular basis don't know what the term pejorative means and as I've suggested they possibly don't know the difference between calling someone a Frog or a Gypo. You have this weird concept that everyone has the same knowledge same morals and same level of annoyance as you do. In my experience from meeting regular Southwark people living and working in Southwark they really don't understand all the subtleties' of the English language most are not educated past the age of 16. You live in a very different world a world of theatre plays books you are surrounded by other educated people. On this forum the majority are an educated elite when compared to the average Southwark inhabitant and shop keeper. I think it's important to keep a perspective on how others perceive their reality and be conscious that what you know and what you experience is not always the same for others. You on the other hand appear to believe everyone knows as much or as little as you and amazingly, they experience the world in exactly the same way as you. Very strange imho Close down the conversation is always your aim, as long as you've had your narrow minded view shouted out and crushed all other views.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So now we can add lying to your list of > transgressions. One PM?! Are you having a laugh? > As I said before, perhaps you should ask yourself > why so many people are having the same reaction to > you. You say you accept the views of others but > all evidence is contrary to that. Go away you have nothing of any value to add to this thread.

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pop9770 Wrote: > > > I pm?d them to ask them to leave me alone to > stop > > them hounding me on every post and every > comment > > there?s no law against that. > > No, there is no law against that. But the point > is that there is no law against the way the other > posters were acting either - and yet you objected > to their behaviour. You clearly don't like some > things even when they are legal. Neither do the > people on this thread who don't like the baker > using the term gyppo. > > > > Shouldn?t they have put his tweet in context > and > > taken his position and background into > > consideration? > > > The people on this thread have taken his comments > in context. If he had said "Those gyppos were > very friendly. Nice to have them around", one > might think it was a very odd thing to say given > that most people regard "gyppo" as an offensive > term, but the context would be evidence that it > wasn't intended rudely. However, instead, he used > it with other language that strongly infers he > meant it to be insulting. Again I don?t object to them disagreeing with me only their following me from thread to thread and constantly repeating the same nonsense the hounding and goading. It?s reasonable for me to pm them and ask them to leave me alone. I am not following them from thread to thread brining up issues in other threads. They are the trolls and appear obsessed with me or intent on goading me at every opportunity. Do you really think that?s acceptable and reasonable? Many on here feel it?s unreasonable to hound the travellers and call them names, but it?s ok to hound me and call me names? Double standards! On the baker I don?t think his tweets have been fully taken into context by anyone in this thread. Let?s clarify them. His tweet was not related to the travellers discussed in this thread and in no way linked to this forum. It?s a story from Sidcup. The tweets ? ----------------------------------------------- A News Shopper article ‏@NewsShopper Oct 18 Travellers have taken over old Klinger factory in #Sidcup - and are 'charging people to dump waste' there His tweet was @NewsShopper excellent. Tesco and Ikea wanted it and both turned down. Now literally a dump with gypos @valetudocage @NewsShopper what's disgusting is the council have refused any planning permission on that site for years and years. ----------------------------------------------- So he was talking about an article in news shopper Sidcup about an industrial site that had been taken over by travellers who were charging people to dump their waste there breaking the law and causing an environmental issue. Does anyone think they were law abiding nice travellers just going about their legal business? He was angry with the council for not allowing planning on the site. Someone will need to ask him if he knows calling travellers is now racist. I don't know so would rather not judge his comments which is why I asked the questions around use of the word Gypo and its legality to be clear. So again taking them in context he is not discussing a group of travellers who run a legal business, they're criminal travellers who are causing an environmental issue on an industrial site in Sidcup Many on here are fast to judge others without the full facts proper consideration position education clear circumstances full knowledge and understanding of those they are judging. South Londoners have been calling Gypsies Gypos for centuries and only in the last few years is the name seen as a racist slur, there are now some who believe Gypsy is a racial slur given history soon the term Traveller will become a racial slur to be replaced by Romany or what ever the Travellers and their legal people believe is acceptable. That?s why I wondered if there?s a gov list? Is the baker as knowledgeable about Traveller terminology as Nick Holder ‏@valetudocage who knows. As I mentioned before if I had to put money on this I?d say the baker ?Dell Boy? from Nunhead may know the term Pikey is offensive but probably feels Gypo is no worst that Frog unlike Nick and the PC police I don?t want to judge him for the use of one word until I can be sure he knows it?s REALLY bad ie worst than Frog especially as he hasn?t made the comment on this thread on this forum and we can?t ask the questions.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pop - is your personal moral code defined by what > the Law actually dictates you can and can't do? > > Do you not have one defined by your own > conscience/ values? I value the law doesn't mean I agree with all laws, I'd be happy to fight against bad laws. It?s sometimes difficult to judge what is and isn't acceptable it appears to change on a yearly basis as decided buy some groups, they change / demonise the use of words which have been used for 100?s of years often with very different meanings. It appears to me that the Police often don?t know the laws; they apply the law differently to some than to others. I think we?re going through a very confusing time. As an example The government often flout their own laws to suit their own political needs many laws have become meaningless replaced by ?moral? needs. Look at what has happened in Europe with the migrants and refugees the French have not followed their own or European laws they are not processing people as they should they have failed in their moral duty to the refugees to the benefit of economic migrants. It?s changing now but the damage they have cause is terribly inhumane. I read this thread and my conscience / values drove me to question those demonising the Baker for using the word Gyppo I thought maybe it?s illegal so wondered is there a list and I wondered is Frog also illegal. The law is lacking unclear and it appears each of us are left to use our own moral judgement...imho not a good situation... morals conscience and values are mostly linked to religion or similar groups designed to manipulate the masses. I can guff on and on just as others can guff on and on. Perception intention and the laws are what should matter to all. P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are being deeply disingenous Fazer. You > clearly object very strongly to people doing legal > things - otherwise you wouldn't have started PMing > people telling them to leave you alone for > disageeing with you. > > Whether or not a term counts as racist abuse > legally is completely irrelevant to this > discussion. The question is whether the baker > intended "gyppo" as an insult/derogatory term from > a moral perspective. > > If you don't think it's an insult, and don't think > the baker thought it was an insult, why are you > getting so worked up? Surely if your view > represents the common moral view, then no-one else > will care that a handful of people on EDF thought > otherwise. I pm?d them to ask them to leave me alone to stop them hounding me on every post and every comment there?s no law against that. I?m happy for them to disagree. And I didn?t want to clutter the forum threads by posting openly. They decided to make it public as they are the trolls and want to spoil every thread. I don?t know if the Baker intended to be racist or if he used the term Gypo as BrandNewGuy uses the term Frog Ie he was just being impertinent. Personally I?d give him the benefit of doubt after all he?s a south London Baker and comes across more like Dell Boy than an educated liberal intellectual. We can all be sure those who screen grabbed the tweet and made comments on the tweet, branded the Baker guilty of outright racism in their kangaroo court all patting one another on the back in the process. Shouldn?t they have put his tweet in context and taken his position and background into consideration? What?s clear to some is invisible to others in their judgement and guffing.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "All you do is shutdown the conversation ,,, to me > that is unacceptable in an open forum / society. > > You need to see that your view isn?t the only > view." > > pop/fazer, do you really not see the irony that in > telling other people not to respond to your > comments if they disagree with you, and going to > the extraordinary lengths of PM'ing them to tell > them not to comment, you're doing exactly what > you're accusing them of? There is no irony. In this thread I have been very clear there is no ambiguity. I don?t want to go over all the details read back. I have not shut down or shouted down the views of others I have simply asked a question and put forward an alternative view to highlight what I see is a contradiction / biased view. BrandNewGuy and some others appear to have some double standards I may be wrong but on what they have said I don?t think I am. Happy to be proven wrong. I don?t agree with the witch hunt of the Baker as I said I think he believes Gyppo is no worst that Frog again I could be wrong, you?ll need to ask him. The ?bullies? or what ever you want to call them were not involved in this thread until I made my posts and when they got involved it was to mock and goad me I don?t; think they added anything of relevance maybe a minor comment but mostly their comments were aimed squarely at me. As for other threads look through you?ll see some weird comments where .. they don?t? have a problem so why do I ? bizarre logic .. I admit I became angry at times but hey who wouldn?t with a gang following flaming trolling and posting to get a reaction. I follow forum etiquette I stick to the topic of the thread remain relevant to the tone and subject under discussion and offer my alternative view if I have one I believe is relevant. Compare that to their goading flaming and opposed the views the misdirection of the thread onto or other subjects .. mainly me . If you haven't followed their nonsense you may not understand. I have accepted their views on another thread even though they don?t accept mine it is blatant and they just continue to state the opposite to what is fact. P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pop9770 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > What counts is the Law, morals help decide > those > > laws until they are turned into law then > morality > > is open and meaningless in absolute terms. > > > > I asked is it illegal to use the term Gyppo and > if > > so why is it not illegal to use the term Frog > > that's a reasonable question! > > > It's not illegal for one to refer to a poster > trying to justify the use of a term that is as > clearly derogatory as "chinky" or the n world as > batsh1t f**king mental either. Does that mean you > won't object to me calling you that? I don?t object to you calling me mental or a Frog as I understand it neither term is illegal and I don?t care maybe I should care and contact the Police? If I was black and you called me a N?re then I believe I could contact the police and according to a telegraph article calling people chavs is also criminal? I only asked for a link to a GOV list of illegal / criminal terms and so far no one has been able to produce a list. As I said I don?t think the Baker thinks Gyppo is any different to Frog.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pop9770 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > edcam Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > I've been getting some quite weird and > > insulting > > > private messages from this pop/fazer person > too > > > (for daring to have a different opinion to > him). > > > > > A troubled soul, clearly. > > > > > > Yes because like TheArtfulDogger you won't > leave > > me alone you follow me from thread to thread > > trying to goad and wind me up rather than stick > to > > the subject of the thread you make trolling > > posts. > > > > I may be a troubled soul .. > > > > You are a bully a pest an annoyance and you > will > > not leave me alone > > > > GO AWAY !!!! > > > > Go follow someone else leave me alone ! > > > Ironic that you say this when I have repeatedly > asked you to stop sending me bizarre private > messages. I'm certainly not a bully but if you > are going to post such nonsense, I'm not quite > sure why you think people won't call you out on > it. You seem to provoke the same response from > quite a few posters, so perhaps you should have a > think about that. > > I find it hard to believe that you don't see why > using the terms you quote here could be > offensive. > > Regarding that, I can't say I've been in Ayres > Bakers more than a couple of times in the last 20 > years but I won't be going there again. What is Ironic is you are incapable of understanding two simple words GO AWAY You?re someone who just can?t help being a pest and you are a bully because you continue to harass me and follow me from thread to thread in some bizarre game just like a bully! I sent you one PM asking you to leave me alone and you just don?t get it!!! GO AWAY leave me alone can?t you see you are goading me and winding me up (you know exactly what you?re doing it?s a game you?re a troll) and at the same time you are spoiling every thread for others by continuing to goad me do you really expect me to accept that? You try to bully me into silence. I don?t think Ayres bakers will miss your business. I also don?t think he believes Gypo is any more insulting that Frog .. You weird .. you expect everyone to accept your world view and when it is questioned you are incapable of looking at the world from someone else?s viewpoint. I know that from other threads. All you do is shutdown the conversation ,,, to me that is unacceptable in an open forum / society. You need to see that your view isn?t the only view. I accept your views but disagree they just don?t apply to everyone same goes for my views. But you are blinkered and can only see the world through your own eyes and questionable morals ..

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've been getting some quite weird and insulting > private messages from this pop/fazer person too > (for daring to have a different opinion to him). > A troubled soul, clearly. Yes because like TheArtfulDogger you won't leave me alone you follow me from thread to thread trying to goad and wind me up rather than stick to the subject of the thread you make trolling posts. I may be a troubled soul .. You are a bully a pest an annoyance and you will not leave me alone GO AWAY !!!! Go follow someone else leave me alone !

TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Love the following private message I have just > read .. > Sigh 😰 Hardly in the spirit of holding a > dialogue now is it Pop / Fazer ? > > Please leave me alone go away > From: pop9770 > To: TheArtfulDogger > Date: 28/10/2016 14:36 > > unless you have something positive to add leave me > alone ! You really are intent on goading me and yes I emailed you to ask you to leave me alone unless you have something positive to say. Which you clearly don't you're a troll a bully and intent on inflaming any thread I happen to make perfectly reasonable comments in. It's clear you're like a playground bully you have no shame and you have no empathy. Really v sad I feel very sorry for you that you are incapable of leaving me alone quite pathetic really. Edit to add and add and add Dialog haha Go away leave me alone Add value stop filling these pages with stupid photos and insults

I'm not your mate I can read between the lines "mate" grey area this. According to your moral code I'm a thick Frog in need of medication. As I said double standards. It would be good if UK gov made a list so it's clear what is and isn't legally acceptable. That way Dell Boy type Bakers would know if they are breaking a "moral code" or the law on twitter.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A derogatory term reinforces attitudes which can > be materially to the detriment of that group. > Using the 'N' word, for instance, reinforces a > socially superior attitude towards black people > and tacitly condones prejudice which can > materiually affect people's life chances in terms > of jobs, housing, encounters with the police etc. > Calling a Frenchman a 'frog' does none of those > things. The former is unacceptable, while the > latter is just being impertinent :-) > > It needn't be the case that the term is racial or > national ? an upper middle class government > minister calling a copper a 'pleb' is > unacceptable, while a copper calling a minister a > 'toff' is not. I see no difference between A toff calling a copper a pleb and A copper calling someone a toff Also calling A French person a frog is in my mind just as bad as calling a Gypsy a Gyppo So who is it that needs medication?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems to me that you are just being > deliberately provocative, pop9770, so why don't > you go and do it somewhere else and give us all a > break? > > If you are not being deliberately provocative, > then unfortunately it does seem to me that you are > incapable of grasping quite simple concepts, as > for example in BrandNewGuy's posts above. > > Which he helpfully posted twice as you didn't seem > to understand the first time. Or else, for reasons > best known to yourself, didn't properly read them. I am not I?m simply asking why you have all ganged up on the baker and if he has broken the law. Can no one question your morals, you want me to give .. you all a break ? who are you all? That I should give you a break when you have not given me or the baker a break! Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you have confirmed my suspicions that the baker > hasn't done anything wrong > > Are, here you are confusing morality with > legality. But then confusion often seems the name > of your game. I have already said that context is > key in determining whether legal breaches have > been made (and moral, for that matter). Screen > capture to illustrate a morally doubtful action is > very different, in intent, from screen capture to > endorse it. As it would also be for an illegal > one. Morality is meaningless have a read of On the Genealogy of Morality by Friedrich Nietzsche What counts is the Law, morals help decide those laws until they are turned into law then morality is open and meaningless in absolute terms. I asked is it illegal to use the term Gyppo and if so why is it not illegal to use the term Frog that's a reasonable question! TheArtfulDogger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pop / Fazer wrote > ---------------------- > "trolling is clearly defined you'll see by all > definitions above TheArtfulDogger has made a > trolling post" > > Curious how laughing at someone calling you a > troll and posting an image that amused me which > doesn't claim you are a troll or anything else > classes me as a troll > > Loved you pm as well, maybe you need to lie down > in a quiet room and get some sleep sir as you are > ranting at the moment You know exactly what you're doing you're goading and trolling. How do you get away with being such a troll ?

Here's a good link to ethnic slurs "confirming" frog is racist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whilst I would not normally recommend Wikipedia as > an authoritative source, these two articles are > well referenced and may help those confused or > dismissive about traveller populations to gain a > better understanding. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Travellers yes that's exactly what isn't helpful because as I explained it's not a uk .gov list it's something written by people who have no legal basis for their views as such it's almost worthless but you knew that which is why you you say "I would not normally recommend Wikipedia as an authoritative source"

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pop9770/ Fazer wrote > > Travelers they break the law. > > NO - some may, as may individuals drawn from > almost any sort of grouping you put together, but > their nature as travellers is not, in any way, > illegal. I know this is trolling, and, frankly, > unpleasant, but you should not think that > assertions of this displeasing nature will go > unnoticed. > > As far as 'illegal' language is concerned, context > can be key, but I would advise you that 'hate > crimes' are determined by the responses of those > to whom they may be seen to be directed. If a Roma > wishes to make the case that the use of the word > Gyppo in the context that it is being used is a > hate crime, then the police would have to take > notice of that. I meant to say Travelers if they break the law I just find it odd that anyone would support anyone who breaks the law IMO your context argument in nonsense using Frog N or Gyppo in any context other than a statement of their legality should be clearly defined as illegal that would make their use clear. trolling is clearly defined you'll see by all definitions above TheArtfulDogger has made a trolling post double standards for me one low standard and for him no standards same with those who believe themselves to be decent often they have double standards I have been clear about what it is I don't understand and why no intent to divert the conversation just looking to understand what is legal and what is not. you have confirmed my suspicions that the baker hasn't done anything wrong so screen capturing his use of the word Gyppo will do what ? can you explain because we all deserve to know

bobbsy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This morning, 5.30 onwards, was loud. Yes it was terrible this morning. I had the same issues and sympathise with you it's a nightmare. Take no notice of edcam and a few others trying to close your / my conversation down. Apparently he lives in Camberwell so what he's doing on the ED forum is a mystery also his hearing is as you have noted not like yours or mine it's special. Let's keep helping each other to vent our valid individual frustrations. Hopefully the wind will blow the opposite way for the weekend when most of us want to sleep late ..

DovertheRoad Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nice trolling from Pop9770. > > Said bake is entitled to their views,however > un-PC, its a free country. But it's hardly going > to win business on "liberal" Lordship Lane. Move > the biz to Clacton-on-Sea perhaps? This is my point entirely is he or is he not entitled to his views or is he braking the law ??? Because he can't be doing both or can he ? Liberal works both ways liberty to do anything which is not illegal has the baker done something illegal or is he being victimized because his views don't fit in with the views of others who believe wrongly themselves to be liberal ? Edit to add Go Look up the term troll because together with racist it's a term many don't appear to fully understand!

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At root, this is nothing to do with legality or > otherwise. It's about common human decency and > sensitivity, of which judging by your posts on > this thread you have little. > > "those who shout loudest"? Oh FFS. You're a bigot of a different type if I told you I am French and find being called a Frog is offensive and racist where are you NOW ? FFS ! My point has everything to do with what is racist I am also questioning why anyone would support anyone who breaks the law by excusing them for being a particular race. Travelers they break the law. We either use the same rules for all or we pick and chose what works for each of us and we stop being bigots by telling others they are racists for using a non illegal term. This is a real problem for British people they don't appear to understand with any clarity what is what. Edit to add Common decency is clear in my mind but it appear not in others. I clearly want to know has the baker broken the law by using the word Gyppo because you appear to believe he has? AND If he has then calling me a Frog should also be against the law! You appear to have double standards and that makes you void of common decency. With regard the travelers on Peckham Rye if they are breaking the law then it is clear what should be done. You and others are not clear with the law and not clear with what you believe!

Thanks Using your explanation. I'd say calling a French person a Frog is equally racist because it also a derogatory term no different calling a Gypsy a Gyppo or Pikey Why is it ok for a black person to use the n word ? The laws make little sense and the guidelines are decided by those who shout loudest not based on any rules and that is where the problems are. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/#a09 Same with religion clarity is required being anti all religion some call that being religist is technically a crime. I say we need the government to make a list of what is and is not legal and that it should be made public. I can't find one if anyone can please point me towards it. NOT towards any non government non legal web site which would call every name based on their own "principles" racist.

binkylilyput Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Are you for real? I don't know are you trying to insult me by questioning my reality and calling me "for real" is that an insult are you pigeonholing me as a not a real person meaning I'm somehow weird odd? I guess that might be considered a type of racial or intellectual insult a supremacist insult ? because I think calling Gypsy a Gyppo is no worst than calling a French person a Frog ? real really ? I honestly don't get it for some people some names are an insult for others that's just the shortened version of their real name and as Penguin68 has explained even that real name has evolved from another source ... For the Baker who tweeted Gyppo I really don't think that's an insult I think that's just what millions of people call them travelers just as many people call French people Frogs who would shout RACIST to someone calling a Frenchman a Frog? The lines appear to be very grey some appear to scream RACIST because it makes them feel superior or intellectually elitist they are the PC police and use every opportunity to show how ?caring? they are and how bigoted other ?are?.. Yes I do need education on where the grey lines are drawn is there a standard definition a rule book which defines what is appropriate and what is not? Or is it just about who shouts RACIST loudest? I am genuinely confused angry and frustrated because it simply isn?t clear and it appears to be diverting every conversation and argument,,, from brexit (scream racist to those who wanted out) to the traveller community and migrants who are not in need and are confused with real refugees. Is it just double standards it?s acceptable to call some by a shortened version of their name but not others .. Is there a .gov site explaining what is and is not acceptable ? After all if the language needs policing because it is breaking the law to be racist (and it appears many on here are happy to be the racist police in the belief someone has made racial comments which are I believe illegal?) then there should be a clear explanation of which words are acceptable and which are not if they should or should not be used with a clear understanding of the uses explaining context and clarify the legal position on their use! Not a silly question or is it?