- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,971
- Reaction score
- 3,061
- Country

You are denying them the right to get a red face, targeting one section of society because of their skin colour. That's racist.How is that racist?


You are denying them the right to get a red face, targeting one section of society because of their skin colour. That's racist.How is that racist?
Deffo.You are denying them the right to get a red face, targeting one section of society because of their skin colour. That's racist.

So gammon is obviously racist thenYou are denying them the right to get a red face, targeting one section of society because of their skin colour. That's racist.
NopeSo gammon is obviously racist then

Not seen itNope
Me neither.Not seen it

No, if both black and white people get red faces and enraged then, ipso facto, it can't be racist. Case closed.So gammon is obviously racist then

You aren't the case closererNo, if both black and white people get red faces and enraged then, ipso facto, it can't be racist. Case closed.

The facts are.You aren't the case closerer

Oh well I closed the case ages agoThe facts are.

We agree then, both black and white and everyone in between, can get red faces and dribble with anger and aggression. Not racist.Oh well I closed the case ages ago
You can then show me numerous successful prosecutions for racist hate (for use of the term "gammon") then![]()
because someone hasn't been prosecuted means it not illegal - righto.
.............. it's aimed at white men...
He won’t reply to this but here we go, again!No, if both black and white people get red faces and enraged then, ipso facto, it can't be racist. Case closed.