Lox,

I only become 'foul-mouthed' when I'm confronted by stubborn, sanctimonious ... people like you. I've just re-read my last post, by the way, and you must come from a very sheltered background if you think that the term 'rear end' is 'foul mouthed'!

What you keep stubbornly insisting on is that labelling someone as a 'chav' is to comment negatively on their class origins; as RB said above (and it's worth repeating over and over again): "It is not about class. It is about a subset of behaviour."

In a previous post you described chavs as being 'uneducated' and you ignored the point that I made then, that they all received a free education - so there is no reason why they should be uneducated. Perhaps they disrupted lessons or played truant? If that's true they have no one to blame but themselves. If my working class parents had heard that I had disrupted lessons or played truant there would have been 'hell to pay' - my parents knew the value of a decent education.

To my mind someone who goes around with 'ideological blinkers' on is poorly educated. It seems to me that such a person is unable to think for themselves and has to rely on a ready-made formula to provide their 'thoughts' for them.