The UAFC

big mervyn wrote:

WeeWorld wrote:Gordon Taylor getting it in the neck for using the word coloured at a time when the term "people of colour" has just become in vogue.

Somebody in his position should be getting it in the neck. Of colour is a deliberate distancing from coloured which had become pejorative thru it's frequent use by casual racists. The head of a multicultural union should know better.

I disagree, "people of colour" is a term imported from america where "colored" is still acceptable

https://www.naacp.org/about-us/

Anyway the real story here is that there is a concerted attempt to get rid of Taylor, to which end the race card is being cynically deployed.

Still think he wa stupid. Nobody here uses that term because it's the language of the 70s

big mervyn wrote:Still think he wa stupid. Nobody here uses that term because it's the language of the 70s

To paraphrase yourself, the word "irish" became perjorative in the 70s in England due to its use by casual racists.
No one thought of replacing irish with something else then.
Language cannot be changed by diktat.
The people who decide colored is an offensive word are people whose raison d'etre is to find offence, as often as not in a makey-uppy job funded by the taxpayer.

My main concern is that nobody calls a spade a spade, that would just be wrong.

Have to say I struggle to either know or care what is currently acceptable. I have zero fu'cks to give about labels barring the very obvious, what I care about is how people treat others who don't look like them, sound like them, went to themins schools, go to their own brand of sky fairy worship palaces and all the rest.

Baggy's first and only commandment on face to face relations between people is all anyone needs:

Don't be a cu'nt.

WeeWorld wrote:

big mervyn wrote:Still think he wa stupid. Nobody here uses that term because it's the language of the 70s

To paraphrase yourself, the word "irish" became perjorative in the 70s in England due to its use by casual racists.
No one thought of replacing irish with something else then.
Language cannot be changed by diktat.
The people who decide colored is an offensive word are people whose raison d'etre is to find offence, as often as not in a makey-uppy job funded by the taxpayer.

Sometimes you sound half-educated, then let yourself down with a total lack of knowledge. Irish was a problem for Lionels a long long time before the seventies, even before the 1870s, ask dogs & blacks. "No Irish need apply" was first seen in an advert in the London Times almost before the Old Queen was on the throne in the 1850s.

Still, I wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your bullshit.

You're some gobshite, proposing a rule for life in one post and then breaking it in the next.

WeeWorld wrote:You're some gobshite, proposing a rule for life in one post and then breaking it in the next.

As stupid as ever, if you just learn to read what is there you might actually make a fool of yourself less often. If you need it to be explained to you just ask, I'm always ready and able to assist the understanding of those less intelligent than myself.

Don't be proud, seek help and it shall be given, there are no good reasons to go through life as an idiot, I help everyone, even those I despise. I suppose that is why I'm often thought of as the Jesus of Suburbia.

Realising I'm poor.
One in every 10 people in the world have stayed in one or other of the "luxury" hotels owed by Marriot in the last 4 years.
Ignoring the people living in abject poverty (sorry third world) it must be about one in two hereabouts.
And unless travelodge is included in that (unlikely) then I'm not one of them.

Have stay in Marriott Hotels but they are actually not affected

Also of an age where my passport number would lack great appeal -- and my passport has been change between then and now anyway .
Also payment was made to the travel agent not the hotel.

But why a hotel would retain such information for so long on an accessible data base is lazy record keeping .




Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

WeeWorld wrote:Gordon Taylor getting it in the neck for using the word coloured at a time when the term "people of colour" has just become in vogue.

Labels eh. Could just say "people" but then everybody would probably be deeply offended. What a load of balls people really are.

WeeWorld wrote:Realising I'm poor.
One in every 10 people in the world have stayed in one or other of the "luxury" hotels owed by Marriot in the last 4 years.
Ignoring the people living in abject poverty (sorry third world) it must be about one in two hereabouts.
And unless travelodge is included in that (unlikely) then I'm not one of them.

Never stayed in a Marriot, wouldn't lower my standards to that level.

Rooster wrote:

WeeWorld wrote:Realising I'm poor.
One in every 10 people in the world have stayed in one or other of the "luxury" hotels owed by Marriot in the last 4 years.
Ignoring the people living in abject poverty (sorry third world) it must be about one in two hereabouts.
And unless travelodge is included in that (unlikely) then I'm not one of them.

Never stayed in a Marriot, wouldn't lower my standards to that level.

I've lowered myself a few times and gone much lower than that. On my recent trip with dogs, I've found in France Premiere Classe chain which has no charm, no character and no facilities and has one and only one aspect to produce just one positive reaction: they are spotlessly clean and functional. IN summary, one-night solution for the traveller with dogs, not a destination.

Mind you I did find a dog-friendly hotel in Zaragoza in May that is many many cuts above but sadly it's not available for my trip back in January. Lovely city too though, not one that many have on their to-do list.

Sounds like the Premier Inn. Much cleaner than travelodge and also a decent breakfast buffet.
Travelodges are holes or maybe I've just been unlucky.

BaggyTrousers wrote:

Rooster wrote:

WeeWorld wrote:Realising I'm poor.
One in every 10 people in the world have stayed in one or other of the "luxury" hotels owed by Marriot in the last 4 years.
Ignoring the people living in abject poverty (sorry third world) it must be about one in two hereabouts.
And unless travelodge is included in that (unlikely) then I'm not one of them.

Never stayed in a Marriot, wouldn't lower my standards to that level.

I've lowered myself a few times and gone much lower than that. On my recent trip with dogs, I've found in France Premiere Classe chain which has no charm, no character and no facilities and has one and only one aspect to produce just one positive reaction: they are spotlessly clean and functional. IN summary, one-night solution for the traveller with dogs, not a destination.

Mind you I did find a dog-friendly hotel in Zaragoza in May that is many many cuts above but sadly it's not available for my trip back in January. Lovely city too though, not one that many have on their to-do list.

Ibis Budget Zaragoza! Valentine's Day 2016.

I wonder if they allow people in the pet hotel in the airport in Tokyo.