not bad for an englishman

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:23 AM

There are only three 'races' in the world - Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST, Sminky
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:09 AM

There seems to be an awful lot of different 'races' springing up all of a sudden. I wasn't aware that the Irish were from a different 'race' to me, an englishman. Different nation, sure, same as the French, Germans, Australians etc, but different 'race'? Says who? By what criteria?

Is 'not bad for a Lancastrian' racist?
Is 'not bad for a Prestonian' racist?
Is 'not bad for someone from Beesley Street' racist?
Is 'not bad for someone from no.24' racist?

Where does all this end? And who are the people trying to separate everyone into little racial packages? Is that not itself a racist act?

To be told 'not bad for an englishman' by an Irish person, even if intended to be insulting, may be nationalistic prejudice, and should be condemned as such, but it ain't racism.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 05:39 AM

these can certainly be viewed as part of the problem and are therefore not acceptable - obviously.

Thanks for the answer, at last, Jim. It is not obvious to me though. You say it is unacceptable to make disparaging remarks about the talents of Black or Jewish people, yet conversely feel that the same remarks to an Englishman can be laughed off. Why is this? Are the English, as a nation, more tollerant of criticism? Do we not take offence as easily as some others? Maybe we are not human at all?

You say that a deep racism exists towards some people. Well, how does it help to compound the issue by making potentialy racist remarks about yet anoter group. Are you saying, in this case, two wrongs DO make a right?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:52 AM

I take it Jim Carroll is not best mates with Dick.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:24 AM

"I would suggest that if you do not like the way a particular thread is going it may be more sensible to stay out of it. Perhaps one definition of a crazy person is one who keeps reading a thread that he or she doesn't like"
And allow the crazies to run the asylum - don't think so really.
This, for a Brit living in Ireland, has been one of the more disturbing threads on this forum.
When what is obviously (to me anyway) little more than a flippant remark resulting in an over-inflated ego receiving a slight dent, being blown up into an unbelievably misinformed discussion on British/Irish relations, something is rotten in the state of somewhere or other.
I repeat, in nearly 40 years association with this country we have never received anything but friendship and hospitality here - and this when the political situation between the two countries was at its worst. Yet we are told that the situation is really comparable to the relationship between the Nazis and the Jews and that we should "keep our heads down" - personally, I find this extremely depressing.
Given the history of the two countries (a history which, for some Brits seems to screech to an abrupt halt with Cromwell, but in fact lasted nearly to the end of the 20th century), it has always surprised me that there isn't more antagonism from the Irish, but as far as I can see - there isn't. It is interesting that, apart from The Cap'n's little hissy-fit (and his profound advice to the Irish nation on reforming their world outlook), this thread is devoid of any other example of anti-Brit rhetoric on the part of the Irish.
The ironic thing in all this is that over the last decade racism in Ireland has accelerated alarmingly. It has a long way to go before it reaches the proportions of the racism I encountered almost on a daily basis in the UK, which was extremely democratic and aimed at anybody regarded as foreign: Asians, Africans, French, Germans, Northerners.... to people from the wrong side of the Thames.
Here it is aimed mainly at asylum seekers and economic migrants - and of course, the old enemy - the Travellers. The Brits don't come into the picture; any hatred for them is reserved for the politicians and the military, and even then, appears to confine itself to pre-1922.
Racism is becoming a major problem here and nonsense like this, far from helping the situation, serves only to trivialise it as surely as WLD's odious comparison trivialises the Holocaust.
It really is time that some people took their heads out of their 'Land of Hope and Glory' arses and saw themselves as others see them.
Dave Polshaw
"The Irish are bad singers.... etc"
Your question - sorry, I thought I had answered it.
Taken as they stand all of your quotes are innocuously stupid enough to be dismissed as such and ignored. However, in the case of Blacks and Jews, taken in the context of the deep racism that already exists towards these people, in the UK and elsewhere, these can certainly be viewed as part of the problem and are therefore not acceptable - obviously.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:09 AM

I'll not have you claiming I'm intelligent or talented Al.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 08:00 PM

'If it was made in a hostile tone, the person making it was a fool.'

not necessarily. some people who are very intelligent and talented have very unpleasant personalities.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Thompson
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 03:17 PM

Surely (to get back to the original query) the question of intent is easy to solve.

If the comment was made with a twinkle in the eye, it was a joke, and probably a challenging bit of flirting.

If it was made in a hostile tone, the person making it was a fool.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 02:39 PM

Ah, but what is sane and what isn't? I found MOST of the thread quite sane an civilised. Would you care to tell us what you found particularly crazy about this thread, Beachcomber and Betsy? What qualifies you to make that diagnosis? Wouldn't life be boring if everything was the same?

I would suggest that if you do not like the way a particular thread is going it may be more sensible to stay out of it. Perhaps one definition of a crazy person is one who keeps reading a thread that he or she doesn't like;-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,Betsy at Work
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 07:34 AM

Seconded Beachcomber !!!!!!!

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,beachcomber
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 07:03 AM

Whew! Sanity restored then !

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 01:13 PM

The best version of the Bonny Bunch of Roses I ever heard, and the one he played for me loads of times as a request was the late Tony Capstick's. tear your heart out stuff! Just something in his voice.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:54 AM

Thanks Pip - Decided if you are coming along to Swinton on the 18th yet? The all day singaround / session realy is a cracker - and free! Who drove last time? Must be your turn for a pint or two:-)

D.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 11:21 AM

Dave - yes, that makes sense.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:56 AM

I suggest we ignore this illiterate trump henceforth. He clearly isn't up for rational discussion.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,Onion Cat
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:54 AM

"Kindly explain. What do you think is racist?"

Well, your comment for starters. Keep up!!

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:45 AM

Ahhhh - Gotcha Pip

that's understandable in a way that anti-Irish prejudice isn't.

As long as no-one tries to use 'understandable' as 'justifiable'.

My argument is that there is no justification for using a racial stereotype. Surely you could agree with that?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:35 AM

My last comment seems to have got lost - shame, since it was about folk music!

My Bonny Bunch of Roses is based on Nic Jones's version, which may or may not be distantly related to the Rose Tree. The original broadside was set to the Bonny Bunch of Rushes, which I think is a different tune again - certainly the repeats are different (Rose Tree: 1121; BBoRushes: 1212; Nic Jones's BBoRoses: 1221). My main contribution to Nic Jones's tune is to hammer some of the ornamentation out of it & coax it back towards 4/4.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 10:30 AM

Paul Burke isn't a racist.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 09:51 AM

Kindly explain. What do you think is racist?

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,Onion Cat
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 09:42 AM

Your problem for being a racist matey :-)

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 09:06 AM

Wow! This thread has turned into one of those right wing BBC message boards!..."Perhaps the appropriate response would have been to congratulate her on her fluent English."

Might have been a comment like that. Tut tut Paul!

Your problem?

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:52 AM

Dave,

Terry Yarnell sings Bonny Bunch of Roses to the tune of The Rose Tree - is that what you were thinking of?

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:51 AM

I'm beginning to think that Pip is part of what David Lowenthal calls the MOPE School of History

Not in the least. My view of history is that all sorts of people have been oppressed for all sorts of reasons, and the more important reasons are very rarely the ones that get shouted about the most. And I don't condone people slagging off 'the English', still less slagging off English people to their face. As far as that goes I agree with WLD - the 'compliment' paid to Dick was downright rude.

What I don't agree with is Dave P's argument that all kinds of discrimination and bias are the same. I never kicked any Irish peasants off their land - my ancestors were working in smithies and bakeries while all that was going on - but English people did: if you're Irish and you're bitter against the English, that's understandable in a way that anti-Irish prejudice isn't.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:43 AM

I didn't mean to use that many OK's - OK?

:D

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:41 AM

Thanks Pip (Slow day for you too? :-) )

I can see your reasoning now and, although I disagree with it, it is a huge improvement on the thinly disguised insults and sneers that some people use in place of reason. What I disagree with is that it is 'excusable'. Racial stereotyping should not be excused, even if made in jest. For all the reasons that Paul mentions above plus the fact that it does nothing at all to improve the strained relationship that the two countries have had for countless years. Who oppressed whom and when is in the past and although we should learn from it we should leave the past hatreds there.

It's only a short step from 'OK for an Englishman' to 'Bastard Brits' and a bombing campaign. OK - I know it is extreme but when enough people begin to think that the Englishman has no soul then it becomes OK to treat him as something other than a human being with feelings. Just as when enough people believed in 'Thick Paddies' and 'Heathen Blacks' it became OK to enslave them. Should we not learn by those mistakes and try to stop being hurtful?

OK, I am by no means perfect and cannot help making the odd hurtful remark either unthinkingly or in the heat of the moment. Trying to justify it only makes it worse:-(

Good to see you the other day btw - When Dick was on of course! Maybe we we should have said he was OK for a Southerner;-) Out of interest, the song you did, Bonny bunch of Roses, is done by Bernard Wrigley to a completely different tune - Sounds very much like a slow version of Salmontails. Have you heard that one?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:27 AM

Try this one, (which seems to fit Pip's rules)

A McDonald can say 'Not bad for a Campbell' but a Campbell can't say 'Not bad for a McDonald.'

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,Onion Cat
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 08:20 AM

"Where did you get that impression, Onion Cat?"

Erm, let me just think about that one.....

Oh here it is;

"Perhaps the appropriate response would have been to congratulate her on her fluent English."

Might have been a comment like that. Tut tut Paul!

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 07:59 AM

Plus the point everyone seems to be neglecting.

Visiting artists are called 'guests'.

This is because they are strangers perhaps visiting a place they have never been before. And the spirit of the folk club movement (somethng which is sneered at in a dozen different unconscious ways, usually by people who have assumed a magisterial role - deciding what is and what isn't folk music) - says that you treat the'guest' as a guest. That means courtesy. It means friendliness.

Its what attracted me to the folk club movement. And it always grieves me to see this unwritten contract not being honoured by either side.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 07:35 AM

Let's rephrase that a little bit: it's seen as OK by some to give the English a hard time, because it's believed, rightly or wrongly, that the English have given other people a bad time in the past.

The flaws in that attitude are obvious. First, the ones they are taking it out on aren't the ones who gave them trouble. Secondly, they aren't the ones who got the aggro, they only know of it by repute. Thirdly, petty revenge is stupid. And fourth, when you really look into it, it was seldom as simple as "the English hate the xxx" (substitute name of putative victim).

People always want someone to blame for their woes, and Ireland is certainly less developed than many European countries as a direct result of imperial policy. But it's a long way from Lord John Russell to Dick Miles.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,Piece
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 07:29 AM

I was once told by an American woman that I was 'not a bad lover for a Brit'.....

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 07:22 AM

I'm beginning to think that Pip is part of what David Lowenthal calls the MOPE School of History in his 'Possessed by the Past - the Replacement of History by Heritage.' MOPE? 'We are the Most Oppressed People.....Ever.'

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 07:07 AM

Why is it OK to take the piss out of the English but not out of other people?

a) I don't think it's OK, I think it's rude and ungracious. But I think it's excusable in a way that taking the piss out of (e.g.) the Irish isn't.

b) The reason we've got on to "who oppressed whom and when" is that that's what makes all the difference.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 06:51 AM

Thick Paddy and uptight Englishman are both stereotypes and both wrong. Who said the latter is OK and the former isn't isn't? Why? And why on earth have we got onto who oppressed whom and when?

Only one person has answered the question up to now and I feel that answer needs an explanation. Why is it OK to take the piss out of the English but not out of other people?

Nice to see that Jim has sucessfully managed to evade the question by intimating that anyone that does not agree with him has no sense of humour. Must try it myself:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 05:01 AM

Your English is not bad for a German.
Your English is not bad for an Irishman.

Superficially identical, the context makes these two remarks different.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 04:38 AM

I don't disagree with the points made by Paul and Terry, which makes it hard to argue with them. But I'll try...

We're talking about nationality both as a label one group applies to another, and as an identity members of a group claim for themselves. And yes, it is a massive oversimplification to say (for instance) "the Irish have been oppressed by the English since Cromwell's time": it would be truer to say that different groups in Ireland (most of whom we'd recognise as Irish) have been oppressed at different times by different groups of powerful people (most of whom we'd recognise as English), many of whom also oppressed lots of other people while they were at it.

But here's the thing: the negative labelling of 'Irish' was involved in a lot of those complex processes - and many people looking back on that history now do claim the identity of 'Irish'. "The English oppressed the Irish" obviously isn't be a true statement, for all the reasons we've been through. But I think it is true enough to be a legitimate source of resentment: some of the forebears of contemporary English people did oppress people who contemporary Irish people recognise as their forebears, and the negative labelling of 'Irish' was part of that oppression. 'English' as an insult just doesn't have that kind of history of injustice behind it. ('Common' on the other hand...)

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 03:28 AM

Where did you get that impression, Onion Cat? There seems to be a wide range of opinion represented here, including mine, which of course is the right one.

When have the English, as a national group, ever suffered systematic, enduring, deprivation and oppression?

It's true that between the mid 17th century and the late 18th century there were oppressive laws applied in Ireland, but note that these were targeted against Catholics, not the Irish as a "nation" (if an Irish nation existed at that stage. Outside these times, oppression was applied as much on a class basis as on nationality, and noblemen came and went from favour as they supported or opposed the government of the day.

As for oppression of the English as a group, you could (and people did) argue for the period from Edward the Confessor to about the mid 13th century, and from 1973 to date :)

Were the Scots ever oppressed "as a national group"? As for the mobilisation of English national feeling against the Irish, this kind of nationalism has been a given of almost all distinguishable groups for centuries, a useful tool for authority, and continues today. This divide- and- rule tactic has split many Northern towns, despite the interests of the white working class being identical to those of the Asian ancestry.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,Onion Cat
Date: 01 Oct 08 - 02:53 AM

Wow! This thread has turned into one of those right wing BBC message boards!

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 06:11 PM

oops - emigrated for a better life, that is!

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Terry McDonald
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 06:08 PM

Come off it Pip - the English people were oppressed by their 'betters' for centuries. I'm also an academic historian (as I assume you are)and not a left wing one but have always been conscious that the problem (in all countries) lies with the nature of the ruling class. More English people emigrated to North America (and elsewhere) in the 18th and 19th centuries than the Irish or Scots, but that's not good for the myth.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 06:05 PM

The intention to wound and hurt with a remark is pretty unmistakeable. Particularly when you're a solo artist travelling round - very obviously dependent on the goodwill of others.

The best strategy is to draw your horns in, and say nowt. As you can see there are some who cannot countenance the idea that there is some fault to be found in places they can find no fault. They aren't you.

Come home, lick your wounds, or if you're lucky get someone to lick them for you.

Whenever two or more musicians are gathered together - its war story time. Anybody who's done it understands. If you haven't, you dont. That simple.

People like say Martin Carthy and Derek Brimstone are so skilled at receiving hospitatlity - watch them if you can, how they conduct themselves. I have never seen either of them grasp some ruffian by the throat, and shout - shut up! you bloody fool! You are an idiot and your licence to speak should be revoked!

God knows why.....

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Goose Gander
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 05:59 PM

"When have the English, as a national group, ever suffered systematic, enduring, deprivation and oppression?"

Defining people by 'nationality' rather than social class, religion, region, occupation or any other number of possible categories leads (inevitably?) to this sort of nonsense. Define 'English' and provide some sort of context (time, place, etc.) and then maybe someone can answer your question.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 05:38 PM

The Irish are bad singers
Black people are bad singers
Jews are bad singers
The English are bad singers

Surely it must be all of them or none. Which do you believe it is?

I don't think it is all or none, though. Irish, Black and Jewish people can all look back on centuries of serious, often murderous, discrimination and oppression. The phrase not bad for an Irishman would immediately evoke a situation where an Irish person - any Irish person - would have to work ten times as hard as their English counterpart to be treated equally - and that situation's not a fantasy but a historical reality for many thousands of people.

What does not bad for an Englishman evoke - what historical realities does that tap into? When have the English, as a national group, ever suffered systematic, enduring, deprivation and oppression? That's not a rhetorical question - with my historian's hat on, I'm trying to think of examples. I can't think of many.

Calling someone a thick Paddy, even in jest, is offensive - I think we're agreed on that. But I don't think there's any comparison between that and calling someone an uptight Englishman. It's annoying, and it may make you think less of the person doing it, but it doesn't resonate in the same way.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Aeola
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 05:18 PM

comments are often made in jest, and if you know someone reasonably well you know how to say it and what body language to use, as Cap'n B said he read the body language and made his interpretation accordingly. However I'm sure it won't bother him as in the big picture it very rarely happens! Now I put my foot in it and say I make allowances for the Irish. Thing is who is Irish and who is English? We've all got a mixture of various origins that basically we're all the same!

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 04:52 PM

Subject: RE: Irish Travellers in London on Lyric FM -Saturd
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:54 AM

No; but the point you made applies to society in general. I lived in London during 'the recent 'Troubles' and I know that the Irish community as a whole bore the brunt of what was happening.
There are angels and devils in all communities, and while I wouldn't want to excuse a Traveller's bad behaviour, nor would I want to draw conclusions about the community as a whole by the acts of a few individuals.
I may have misconstrued your statement; if I have I apologise; put it down to over-sensitivity on my part.
At the present time here in Ireland there is a campaign against Travellers which verges on ethnic cleansing. There are around 30,000 Travellers on the road; around three quarters of them have no legal stopping place. If they camp illegally they can, and are imprisoned and their caravans are confiscated. Many of them who have attempted to settle into houses have been prevented from doing so by irate neighbours. In this town two winters ago a family of 8 who had been made homeless by a caravan fire were prevented from accepting temporary accommodation (uncharacteristically) provided by the council by demonstrating residents who managed to terrorise them back onto the road ("If you hang around here you'll be needing the fire depatment again") in a borrowed holiday caravan (mid-December).
The official halting sites that are provided have only a stand-pipe, one toilet for the whole site and (if they are lucky) one electricity supply. Those with no site have no legal (or otherwise) access to sanitation, clean water, education, and no easy access to health care..... or any of the facilities we take for granted. As a result the average life expectancy of a Traveller is considerably less than that of a settled person.
As has been shown by earlier postings, they have no access to a legal process through which they can attempt to improve the conditions they endure and they are regular victims of racist bigotry.
In short, the conditions that are imposed on them are third-world, justified by pointing out the behaviour of the few to condemn them all.
Pat and I were recipients of Traveller hospitality for over 30 years; we counted many of them as dear friends - please excuse me if I knee-jerk occasionally.
Jim Carroll
PS Cap'n,
Nobody (in these islands anyway) has the right to take a life - that's the law.
so here we have Jim Carroll,making statements about travellers enduring racial bigotry,and campaigns verging on ethnic cleansing,since this is happening in Ireland,is it racist to conclude that it is Irish people who are responsible.,or are English/japanese/chinese, people responsible
I certainly have heard Irish people make derogatory /racist statements about travellers.

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Rog Peek
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 03:20 PM

When I left this thread, there was just Dick and me. When I came back there were 72 postings. I'm amazed. Also strikes me that some people are awfully easily offended.

Rog

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 02:47 PM

"In the view of many Irish people, the English are roughly what the kids of SS officers must be when they visit Israel."
"Perhaps the appropriate response would have been to congratulate her on her fluent English. "
"many people here in Ireland are going to have to change their insular attitudes,the country is changing very fast,a need to examine ingrained prejudices is important,if Ireland is to live with many nationalities in its island."
Some of the comments on this thread are some of the most blatantly racist I have come across on this forum.
We seem to have moved from what I have no doubt whatsoever was an innocent, if somewhat flippant compliment to the Nazi death camps.
1 The lesson for me has been - never criticise certain people's singing - they don't like it.
2 If you complement somebody, make sure you do it in words they understand.
3 Before you crack a joke, make sure you are talking to somebody with a sense of humour.
I'm off for some fresh air - I'll leave you to your Rally
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 12:25 PM

Hehehehe - How did you know me 'ome team, Jim? Oh aye - just remembered, I was wearing me pale blue scarf, Noel Gallager parka and monobrow in the cab:-D

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: GUEST,Jim Knowledge
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 10:41 AM

I `ad that Dave Polshaw in my cab the other day. `is face was black as thunder and `e looked well down in the dumps.
I said, "You look a bit iffy. What`s up?"
`e said, "I just experienced the most racist event you could imagine"
I said, "Oh, you just been to that anti-immigration march in town?"
`e said, "Nah, I just seen Chelsea play Manchester City!!"

Whaddam I like??

Subject: RE: not bad for an englishman
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 09:41 AM

I don't think its paranoid, Jim. Its just paying attention to whats going on in the audience. god help yer, wherever you are if you don't.