No soap-box and no defending taking place.

Again you are using what you think a chav is when the OP provided theirs on page one.

Nah someone else got the point I was making.

People choose their religions, therefore they aren't some sort of protected minority.

Getting it now?

So you are comparing choosing to be a chav to choosing to practice a religion? Plus i'd say the vast majority of people dont' choose their religion.

One person on the whole thread sort of agrees with you, the rest of us think you are a very strange person.

So you've changed your point now? That we shouldn't protect minority groups afterall?

Or that chavs don't have the same minority status as some other groups in society and you think not protecting chavs is unfair?

I might argue that point, he's bound to disagree with me as there is obviously a 'point' being made here.

I'm off to go find a chav and give them a hug. Poor souls.

UK-based Muslims aren't a minority group, but chavs are?

I just find it very odd someone would want to give chavs their own specific minority status, just because other minority groups exist.

Your posts betray you. Or maybe I'm in the minority?

Anyways, Merry Chrimbletide!

I refer you to an answer I gave some moments ago.

Yeah, I replied to that one.

So, my position remains the same.


Yet you keep putting words into my mouth,, I haven't said minority groups shouldn't be protected or that chavs should be.


I have drawn a parallel between two minority groups, both suffer derision based on the actions of some of them and yet. And yet those that criticise people who attack one of the groups are quite happy to let attacks on the other go or indeed partake in a little themselves.

Yes, THAT'S exactly what I said isn't it?

Either you're a chav or you aren't, so you don't get the actions of a few ruining the reputation for all. You're the one sounding guilty of generalising here, why class people as chavs who aren't?

No idea, hence my question to you seeking clarification.

If you're just going to be all bolshy and take this thread further off topic, I don't think I'll bother.

This thread has not been on topic for ages, I don't understand how someone can still be arguing about the use of the word 'chav'.

I musc prefer 'ned' anyway...

Townie was the one we always used.

Though that just meant an urban dweller unaccustomed to country life!

I remember when an elderly relative first heard the word chav and trying to explain it to her, she suddenly said oh common people, in her world there were poor but hard working working class people who wanted to better themselves, then another layer who didn't have any ambition to better themselves and revelled in being common.

I've never really heard a better explanation and they are not a minority needs protecting they enjoy being who they are, but there is no need to be rude to them or belittle them either.

I've seen many arguments over the years on forums about the word it seems to earn different things to various people.

Why were you using the word? Hope you weren't discriminating against them.

Still having that battle between having something to say and having to say something I see.

I probably was, back then.

Go look on some of the religion threads here. Plenty on there who think it's solely about choice and that choice gives them carte blanche to insult and demean.

But of course it's not just choice as is being a chav isn't just about choice for the main part. Culture social influences etc all play their part.

He did clarify earlier that he didn;t really believe his own point... he was making some obscure double standards argument that doubled for deflecting from the actual point of the thread.

If he is still banging on about it he;s being "politically correct"...

Who is this "he" person?

Are your teeth insured?