SevenRivers Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Really? It is quite obvious by the way the man moves that he is disbaled to some degree. You obviously aren't very observant, which is probably why you are defending this crass idiot from the "lefties". The fact that an adult halted a speech from a young man to mock him in front of a room full of his peers is disgusting. I would expect that from a raucous student, not someone approaching pension age. I'd say it's quite a prejudice to assume somebody is disabled by the way they walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I'd say it's quite a prejudice to assume somebody is disabled by the way they walk. But obviously not to say they look like a well known disabled character. That's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I'd say it's quite a prejudice to assume somebody is disabled by the way they walk. That is because you obviously don't know what prejudice means. Predjudice is a pre-conceived opinion in the absence of reason. I have reason, an observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oooo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 This lad really does look like Richard III, especially with his Bay City Rollers hair-doo. This is just another attempt to discredit UKIP, and also goes to show people will jump on the next available bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 That is because you obviously don't know what prejudice means. Predjudice is a pre-conceived opinion in the absence of reason. I have reason, an observation. So you observed somebody for about a few seconds and made a judgement about their capabilities. I call that prejudice. All I saw, was smart, eloquent Oxford undergraduate (so already a cut above the rest of society, that includes most "able bodied") with the balls to stand in front of a crowd and argue a point (again, something many of what you would call "able bodied" would not be able to do). The difference between what you and I see, is that I see people for their strengths and abilities, whereas you cannot see past he fact that he walks slightly different. Shame on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 This is just another attempt to discredit UKIP, and also goes to show people will jump on the next available bandwagon. In case it escaped your notice, but Godfrey Bloom got kicked out of UKIP (for not being politically correct, but that's beside the point). Nobody is trying to discredit UKIP in this thread, just laughing at the ineptness / shooting-self-in-foot / continued-idiocy of Godfrey Bloom. ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 20:29 ---------- The difference between what you and I see, is that I see people for their strengths and abilities, whereas you cannot see past he fact that he walks slightly different. Shame on you. Your attempts at taking the moral high ground, are coming across as laughable rather than sincere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 So you observed somebody for about a few seconds and made a judgement about their capabilities. I call that prejudice. All I saw, was smart, eloquent Oxford undergraduate (so already a cut above the rest of society, that includes most "able bodied") with the balls to stand in front of a crowd and argue a point (again, something many of what you would call "able bodied" would not be able to do). The difference between what you and I see, is that I see people for their strengths and abilities, whereas you cannot see past he fact that he walks slightly different. Shame on you. Are you joking or is this actually serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Richard the Third is rhyming slang. Jesus wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oooo Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 In case it escaped your notice, but Godfrey Bloom got kicked out of UKIP (for not being politically correct, but that's beside the point). Nobody is trying to discredit UKIP in this thread, just laughing at the ineptness / shooting-self-in-foot / continued-idiocy of Godfrey Bloom. ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 20:29 ---------- Your attempts at taking the moral high ground, are coming across as laughable rather than sincere. That idiot bloom will always be smudging UKIP. That said, if the disabled want to keep banging on about equal rights, then blooms comments are equal to me being called a plank. ---------- Post added 27-01-2014 at 20:42 ---------- Richard the Third is rhyming slang. Jesus wept. Just like Eartha Kitt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Richard the Third is rhyming slang. Jesus wept. Yes and no. As someone who grew up around people speaking rhyming slang, no one would ever say the whole thing. In most cases (including this one) you drop the part of the slang that actually rhymes. So one would say (and I sometimes do) "I'm going for a Richard" (turd for those of you who don't know), one would not say "I'm going for a Richard the Third". So if, as I assume you are trying to claim, Mr Bloom was calling the student a turd he would say "Aren't you A Richard" (the "a" would identify an object, not a noun) rather than "Aren't you Richard the Third". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.