Ekona

Meh, us 911 owners always drive like that. Gods behind the wheel, I tell thee.

Not tried one yet

I once asked a deaf person, who's house I was looking at buying, if it was noisy round there Did Clarkson repeat the word when he recorded that bit again? If yes, then that's just stupid. If not, then slip of the tongue from bygone days when your brain isn't really engaged (like mine with the deaf person), and move on.

It's not illegal to stop, but it's illegal to enter when your exit is not clear. As such, yes it's illegal to stop. No points though, just a PCN. Adjust your forward vision to prevent getting a ticket in the future, in case a box junction does have the proper cameras.

Oh absolutely, I completely agree with you. As Chesterfield was getting at quite perfectly, it's the double standards that mean that isms just carry on. We can't very well turn around and say that one ism word is completely unacceptable, when we turn a blind eye to others. Either we accept that an insulting word is always going to be used, or we ban everything. Neither is particularly great, but the former more practical. If a black guy comes up to me and calls me a pasty-faced bellend, I'm going to be more upset about the bellend part than the racial slur. If I reverse the whole situation, then you know the insulting part will be reversed too. Not saying either is right, it's just a fact of life. Nigger will always be seen as the final insult towards black people. Perhaps that's one word that should explicitly be outlawed? I don't know.

Very similar thing happens in Ecommoy just outside of LM on the Sunday after the 24 hour race each year. Gendarmes disappear, Ferraris rock up, V8 and V12 symphony begins. Amazing spectacle.

Here's a question then, to look at the subject of isms from a different angle: If I jokingly call my wife a wench (which I do, often!), am I sexist? Not "Is it a sexist term?", because I think we can probably all agree it is, but does my using it make me sexist?

.Yeah, go on then! Tell you what, let's make it interesting: £5 to a charity of your choice if he gets the boot over this in the next two weeks. The beeb wheels turn slowly. Make it 4 weeks, to let the outcry gain a head of steam and you're on. Edit - should we both have a veto over the other's charity, just in case you don't want me to tell you to give it to something totally radical and vice versa? Sounds like a plan *e-handshake*

Do you know they do lime Desperados now too?!

Yeah, go on then! Tell you what, let's make it interesting: £5 to a charity of your choice if he gets the boot over this in the next two weeks.

SL is two seats though, OP wants four.

T350 for me, but I'd have to spend a fortune getting the six sorted properly. Or drop an LS3 into it.

Ah, so it's actually covered by the Public Order Act, that makes a bit more sense then. Ta. I still don't think you could prove both using insulting language and intent/likely to cause racial hatred. The first probably, the latter no chance. He definitely won't (and shouldn't IMHO) be sacked, I don't think there's enough pressure for that plus TG is too big a cash cow.

Definitely not less than a new 370, either way. I was kinda assuming it was a typo, hence the winky face.

Try 10x that.

Which one? All very different. Well, apart from all being badly made of course!

I very much doubt he paid that little for it

He was filtering too fast, she should've looked. Neither are blameless, but if I'm crossing the road then I'm more vulnerable than a car or bike, so you're damn sure I'm looking both ways.

GHEY I've some in a nice subtle brown, ace shoes

Great reply, seriously. Not a lot I can add, although to answer your question about the primary school teacher then no, I don't think they'd be breaking the law. I would find it hideously inappropriate and wouldn't expect them to keep their job for long, but then I don't feel Clarkson has broken any laws either. Out of curiosity (and to find out whether I'd be right or wrong in my assumption above!), I looked up the actual text of the law. It's as this: Clicky here to read the whole thing Interestingly, although the Act is called the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, it doesn't mention anything about racial stuff in there. I've no idea why, and I assume that case law now exists to back this up, but that's still very odd. Anyway, assuming it does apply, has Clarkson broken that law? I'm not so sure. Is it threatening, or intended to stir up hatred? You'd have a hard time proving that in court, I think. Again, I can only see this referring to religious stuff, so if I'm reading the .gov site wrong and there's more text here then please let me know, as I can't see it anywhere.

Talking of Subway, by any chance? To be fair I can see why they'd do that in the named locations, but they'd be better off just admitting it and saying it's down to customer demand which is just good business practice.

Agreed, but it's modern history rather than hundreds of years ago. I guess that's why it's still a very sensitive term.

For the record, I personally don't class whitey, honkey, pom or any other derogative term on anywhere near the same level as that other word which shall not be mentioned. The difference is very clear from the history books, and slavery has a massive contribution towards the reasons the magic N word (really, I find this very childish trying to avoid using the word itself) is massively more offensive. Trying to argue otherwise doesn't really do anyone any favours. How do people feel about the word Yid?

In fairness, it could well be. I sit just outside the financial whizzyness of London, where there may be higher percentages of non-enthusiast buyers.

Thanks for replying. So you believe he should be charged for inciting racial hatred, correct? But you decline to say what punishment you think he should get for that, why? Conviction is not a punishment. Should it be community service, jail, execution? You must have an opinion on this, I'm sure. I'm not defending his usage of the word, nor the phrase, what I am is against the witch hunt over nothing. At worst it's casual racism, but really I struggle to see why suddenly it's the biggest crime in the world and headline news. It wasn't broadcast, and I would imagine at least 10-20 people had seen that clip either when it was recorded or when the editing was happening, so are we to charge them with casual racism as none of them reported it? At what point do we all stop being offended on the behalf of other people? Ironically, and maybe it's because I don't read The Mirror, but I've yet to see a single black person complain about this. Should they not be the most offended here? If you genuinely believe that I'm a racist because I dared to write the word nigger when it is being used in the context of a debate, then I genuinely feel sorry for you. Would I use it in person? In the same context of discussion, yes. Would I use it in person in the rhyme? Well, no. Would I use it when singing along to a rap song (secret fact: I'm a massive Snoop Dogg fan!)? Yup. Would I ever use it casual conversation? Absolutely not. However, we shouldn't suddenly be afraid to ever use a word when there's legitimate use for it. English is a great language, and whilst we clearly have some words that are no longer used in their original meaning because they are offensive, that doesn't mean we should never write them down when having a reasoned debate, or for educational purposes. That applies to everything, not the specific term in question here, and is a personal viewpoint. So here's a very straightforward and direct question for you: Should the word be removed from society full stop? I'm including all art forms in that, so music & films. Should a black person be prosecuted for referring to a friend in the same manner? If not, why?