pap

Harsh (stifles laugh)

Please don't take that comment the wrong way. You were right to highlight the impact of black people. It has been immense. Pretty much everything I listen to is music of black origin, even if some white boys took on the reins and added distortion pedals. Please? Segregation. If black people have a shared heritage and want to commune to celebrate their shared achievements, why shouldn't they? Segregration, from my understanding of the term means something entirely different, evoking images of black people having their own taps and being banned from certain parts of a bus. Segregation is a cancer that still affects US society to this day. White areas, black areas, white schools, black schools - all of which exists to this day. You're equating a few people of colour having a bash to celebrate their achievements with a genuine struggle of million that has profound social consequences. It's not like white people are banned from these events. We are far from perfect on the multicultural front, but we are a hundred times better integrated than the Southern states of the USA. So come on then, you're on a roll. How would Turkish handle the problem of segregation ( or group assembly and a bit of a ****-up, as I like to call the MOBOs )? I'll widen your remit. I'll let you handle the genuine issue of places like Oldham, or Bradford, or even our own Newtown. How would you solve that? Paul Ince is, in my opinion, a bellend. That said, I'm sure that John Barnes, Cyril Regis and Viv Anderson would have liked to have seen more black players in the leagues when they were playing and attracting racist abuse. Nowadays, we don't bat an eyelid when we see a black player in a team, because it's just not an oddity anymore, and we're used to it. There aren't many black managers working in European football at the moment, so they are bound to attract attention when they do well, and that's not a bad thing. Just as many young black kids saw the likes of Barnes, etc, and thought "I can do that", I don't see how highlighting a positive black role model that could prove inspirational to others as a bad thing. Hopefully, prospective black managers will look at Hughton's achievements and aspire to do the same. And if that happens, black managers won't be a rarity anymore. I've played very nicely with you Turkish, but if I'm honest, it seems like you have perceived all the examples you've given in a sinister light and that you're a bit threatened by black people. You're spicing it up by using words like segregation, but that's really not what it is. If anything, of all the different races on our island, white people have most in common with people of Caribbean descent. We speak the same language, worship the same God (delete as appropriate, atheists) and listen to the same tunes. We might still live apart in a lot of cases, but the relationship is growing close to symbiotic, if it isn't there already. I have absolutely no problem with that, but I think you might.

Props for achieving in two lines what I said in loads

C'mon, Turkish - me ol' son. You've made this point very clearly on a number of occasions. Andy's at least approaching you at different angles on this. You won't have anyone on here admit that it is a bad thing to be black, because frankly, I don't think that anyone who has posted thus far actually believes it, and anyone that actually believes it won't post it. You're approaching the argument using a microcosm of the available information. It's to your credit that you highlight the brilliant achievements of black people across the vast spectrum of life, but you're doing your readers a disservice with your narrow take on the situation. I think people can accept that logically, you are correct. That's not in dispute. But it's not a logical issue. It is one that is bound up in emotion, in prejudice and must be treated sensitively. You say that it is not wrong to be black, and you're correct. But there's a massive elephant in the room waving his trunk about clamouring for your attention. While it isn't wrong to be black, its perfectly arguable that it is more difficult to be black in this country than it is to be white. White people, in the main, do not have to deal with racism. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm not saying that racism is the exclusive trait of white people either. While we have got much better as a society with our attitudes to race, black people are far more likely to be the victims of racial discrimination than white people. I think most on this thread would accept that too. So when you ask "what is the difference between calling someone a fat bastard and a black bastard", the difference is this. One is likely an indicator that someone needs to cut down on their pie intake, while the other is a painful reminder of the prejudice that still exists in this society.

What were the scale of the cuts, Saint in Paradise? Is this related to the recent tie-up with our Gallic cousins, or has this been ongoing for some time? Do we even have any of our "own" aircraft anymore?

I've been on civvie street my entire life, so can't really talk about the forces with any authority. I don't like Cameron or his pals. That said, fair play to him for going out there. Can't be easy for the boots on the ground to have to live in fear of their lives. His visit, whatever your political view, puts him in (slightly more) harm's way and would have been a boost to those who saw him.

I have to ask the obvious question. Why are scientists trying to make something which is already quite contagious more contagious? I can see the merits in studying contagion patterns in existing strains, but this is just asking for trouble. Tinfoil hat time - population control according to Malthusian theory*. *In my defence, I did watch Moonraker last night.

Private Eye is a must for making sense of the crap in the papers.

That is pretty cool.

Interesting read. They make the point about HMRC being kept well-staffed too. The coalition government has actually created an Office of Tax Simplification. It'll be interesting to see if it makes an impact.

Interesting. There is a campaign to get the Goldman Sachs decision reversed:- They are looking for a donation of £1 ( £1.24 with transaction charges ) to cover their legal costs if they lose. Looking to raise £20,000 - already near the 10K mark.

There are a number of stories doing the rounds today about HMRC 'cosy' relationship with big business and the large accountancy firms that help them to avoid tax. Why double standards by HMRC mean you pay more. (Telegraph) HMRC hid 'sweetheart' tax deals for big business, MPs say (Guardian) Both articles, left and right, indicate that your owner of a smaller business is getting a raw deal in comparison to the bigger boys in town. The Guardian article goes further, illustrating that HMRC simply doesn't have the manpower and in some cases, the expertise, to deal with these large companies. Goldman Sachs are the most recent company to come under the spotlight, but the 10M of interest it is claimed they dodged is small beer compared to the 8Bn Vodafone is alleged to have dodged. Personally, I find it a bit galling that these highly profitable firms are getting off with billions when your average small business owner is getting pushed over a barrel. It's also tough to take the level of government cuts in this sort of scenario. No doubt, these companies employ a lot of people, which I welcome. But by the same token, they enjoy a lot of benefits that they wouldn't have in other parts of the world. Surely corporation tax isn't that hard to work out? My accountants manage this every month with minimal fuss. Why are these business behemoths allowed to get away with it? Given that HMRC is the one area of Government that can actually generate income, shouldn't we be creating jobs there and not cutting them?

Cheers, Alps. Interestingly, I have just read an article in the Telegraph which references Python too. I didn't nick my bit from there, in case you're wondering. The House of Lords are considering doing a cost-benefit analysis of membership of the EU. A good read, but heavy on speculation. I would be very interested to see if it happens.

Welcome to the future.

Isn't all communication about the dynamic between transmitter and receiver? (apologies if I got that wrong, been a while since I've been on a w*nky management course)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ultimately, it'll be down to Germany to enforce the new fiscal compact. We might be good mates with the Germans now, but there is a lot of historical enmity between the Germans and their near-neighbours. I wonder how far the Germans would actually go in enforcing the rules. Some collected thoughts here. No tinfoil hat required

As always, Turkish - it's context. I have no problem with referring to someone as a black man, and my black friends have no issue with the term either. And yep, some people still throw the term around in a derogatory manner. Racism is almost an epigenetic condition in some families. The young kids don't stand a chance. The sad thing is, some of the best laughs I've ever had with pals of various origins is when we have explored the differences between our respective outlooks in an informal environment. We're never going to have that sort of relationship nationally until we put ye olde racism to bed. Problem is, there are always going to be people who'll look to blame outside influences for their own sh*t when really, they should be looking in the mirror and saying "that bloke right there is a bit of a f*ck-up. How do I sort him out?".

Nope, they'd find it offensive because historically, white people have used that specific term in conjunction with their cultural dominance to demean black people in the past. I happen to share VFTT's view. If someone is committing acts of bastardry, call them up on the thing they can change. Call them a bastard. Colour doesn't come into it. Yeah, but fat people can take steps to not be fat. Michael Jackson aside (and we all know how well that turned out), skin colour is something that you keep for life and cannot change. So under what circumstances would you call someone a 'black bastard'? When is it to be preferred over simply calling them a bastard? On a related note, if that hole you're digging is anywhere near Australia, watch out for funnel-web spiders. They hide in toilets and bite you on the arse.

Nail on head, ecuk268.

There you go with your logic again. I'm not saying that being black is a bad thing. Other people have evidently thought this though, else racism wouldn't exist. When a white person calls someone a "black bastard", there is an implicit undertone of racial superiority. That said, I am open to being corrected. If you are so confident in your assessment that it is simply a statement of fact, I would suggest going to the Jamaican Club in Southampton to see how far you get.

Take a look at the bit after the part you emboldened. I've already answered your point. Not going to answer it again.

Weird that you mention pitchforks and hangings... The Ku Klux Klan used to be quite fond of the latter. I don't buy that calling someone a 'black bastard' is simply stating a fact. You might be able to hide behind a wall of logical correctness on your point, but we both know that there is something else in that statement when uttered by a white person in a white-dominated country with a history of racism, so shall we drop the "I was born yesterday and just don't understand" act?

The only difference is that which we provide for ourselves. The offense taken depends on the cultural context, which means intelligence is a factor that you cannot remove. Let's take the 'fat' insult. During the Victorian age, being fat was a sign of prosperity. Now let's examine the colour of one's skin. Would a white person in the UK feel unduly insulted if he or she was called a white b*stard? Probably not, because being white has never been something that has been seen as a bad thing here. Insults are ultimately designed to hurt someone. People are going to have different thresholds for how much they can put up with. Let's compare the response of a black man confident of his heritage with an insecure fat person who cannot stand to look in the mirror. In that case, you could argue that it is worse to have a go at the fat person, precisely because it'll cause more damage to that one individual. Take away the malice, take away the historical context and take away the intent, and both words are just adjectives. Take away comprehension, and it's just gibberish. As I said at the start of this post, the only difference is what we create ourselves. You can't do that without some level of intelligence and comprehension behind it.

Doesn't even come into it. Both are incredibly cheap shots that demean the insulter more than the insulted. So on that, completely non-intelligent level, there's no difference. In both cases, the insulter is an utter tube that is picking the ripest of low-hanging fruit.

This is easy. I wouldn't call someone either of those terms. Why? Because both terms are too f*cking easy. Seriously. How much intelligence do you need to have to determine that someone is:- a) fat b) black ? Further, what the f*ck does either attribute matter? "Ha ha, you're fat. You eat too much" "Ha ha, you're black. You must have had a black ancestor" Absolutely f*cking pathetic in either case, imo. If that genuinely is the highest level of insult that someone can provide, then I'd offer a third option to this little list to cover that sort of person. Stupid unimaginative b*stard, and completely unworthy of anyone's attention.