Kaizero Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. 2015 http://www.disclosurenewsonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/shots-fired.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. 2015 Motherfucker, it's got me already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Flash Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/666/_57c8a1a431a592af806925e57258202f.png Extra for it not even being right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well that's the season over with... Though with these two picking the team we will probably flirt with relegation... It got ugly at the end with Carver left in no doubt what we thought of it all... Did he not threaten to chin you? If not, you got off lightly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. 2015 PMSL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/007/666/_57c8a1a431a592af806925e57258202f.png wrap it up, KI Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 That was worse than the vast majority of genocides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Our football does represent a tragedy though In before Pilko. We started out like Romeo and Juliet but it ended in tragedy. nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazi Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? this thread is taking ridiculous turns like Love this place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? PAHAHAHAHAHA. Fucking hell. Are you being serious? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ujpest doza Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? PAHAHAHAHAHA. Fucking hell. Are you being serious? What do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp40 Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? this thread is taking ridiculous turns like tiote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? Why not? PAHAHAHAHAHA. Fucking hell. Are you being serious? What do you think? I'd like to hope that you're blatantly taking the piss, but I'm genuinely not sure. If it's a joke then I don't see you're angle, if you're being serious then I don't know where to begin on just how thick of a thing that is to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 In Shakesperes plays, a Cockney was referred to a mummy`s boy,an effeminate man. It's 2014, not 1602. Stop ignoring history man. What? So I should dislike people because of things that happened hundreds of years ago? this thread is taking ridiculous turns like Love this place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickthemagpie Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Since when did 'Cockney' become a derogatory term anyway? It's derogatory when sandwiched between with 'fat' and 'b******'. Aye but at least one of those two things is true. Not sure if he's medically fat like. Medically fat. MEDICALLY. Aye, and black people are black, that's a fact. As Hans pointed out though it's a different context if it's sandwiched between 'fat' and 'b******' though, isn't it? Introduce race to try and take the moral high ground. Pathetic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicane Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What is going on This was supposed to be a happy day, Pardew is finally gone and yet people are angrier than ever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Open_C Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 What is going on This was supposed to be a happy day, Pardew is finally gone and yet people are angrier than ever But about different stuff this time, which is nice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Since when did 'Cockney' become a derogatory term anyway? It's derogatory when sandwiched between with 'fat' and 'b******'. Aye but at least one of those two things is true. Not sure if he's medically fat like. Medically fat. MEDICALLY. Aye, and black people are black, that's a fact. As Hans pointed out though it's a different context if it's sandwiched between 'fat' and 'b******' though, isn't it? Introduce race to try and take the moral high ground. Pathetic. I could introduce anything else mate, it's another example of something out of his control, that's the entire point. You put something in the middle of 'fat' and 'bastard' and it's obviously meant as an insult, it shouldn't need to be explained. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Since when did 'Cockney' become a derogatory term anyway? It's derogatory when sandwiched between with 'fat' and 'b******'. Aye but at least one of those two things is true. Not sure if he's medically fat like. Medically fat. MEDICALLY. Aye, and black people are black, that's a fact. As Hans pointed out though it's a different context if it's sandwiched between 'fat' and 'b******' though, isn't it? Introduce race to try and take the moral high ground. Pathetic. It's because it's sandwiched in a list of negatives. Fat bastard. Okay. He probably leads a sedentary lifestyle. His obesity is on him. And he acts in a right bastard way. But he has no control over where he was born, thus the analogy with race because it's outside of his control; it doesn't belong in a list of negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrisjraby Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/kingofpopcorn1.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 That was worse than the vast majority of genocides. behind Cambodia, but just nipping Armenia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 "You person from London, we do not like you." Proper venomous that like. Him being from London has got NOTHING to do with it. I dunno how many times it has to brought up with you in particular, you just don't get it like. I do get it. Completely. It just doesn't f***ing matter like you seem to think it does. It matters from a public perception perspective. We'll always be seen as being unjustly harsh on people just because they're from Larndarn. It's not the end of the world, it's just another stick to beat us with, and another way for everyone to bang on about how unrealistic we are. I don't really give a s*** if Londoners think we hate London. We know we don't. Anyone with any sense knows we don't. If they think we do well tough s*** - more fool them for making a stereotype. Well you should give a s***, it puts us in a bad light and gives everyone another stick to beat us with. Just because other fans sing it to opposition players doesn't make it fine, we're doing it to our own owner as if 'cockney' is a derogatory term, if you think that's fine then that's fair enough, but you're a bit naive if you think that other people outside of the club don't believe the same (including players and managers and staff that we might want as some point) Why should I give a s*** if Southerners think that I, as a Geordie, hate them all on the basis of one song against one Southern c***? Even if they do make that assumption - more fool them. Their narrow-mindedness will be far worse than mine for singing that about one person. Quite frankly even if people don't like it when I'm abusive about one of their "own" then that's tough s***. I wouldn't be abusive if he wasn't a c***. Which he clearly is. If the shoe was on the other foot I'd totally expect Southerners to call their owner a Geordie c***, and I wouldn't think they hated all of us for that reason. You should give a s*** because for the last 4 years we've had a manager that was excused by the media, fans, pundits and possibly our own owner from being totally s*** because they assumed we didn't like him for being Southern. It's one of the reasons that he got away with being s*** for so long. And it's not their narrow-mindedness if you're calling someone a cockney ffs. It's yours. If someone called me a thick geordie c***, or any other slur I wouldn't think that it was my own narrow-mindedness for not realising that it was some sort of delightful banter, I'd think they were an ignorant dick, the same is true the other way around. Basically it blurs and undermines any real message from getting through because it's easy to look at it and think that people dislike them because of where they're from and I'm f***ing sick to back teeth of having to explain this to people who wonder why the media talk s*** about us on a regular basis and everything feeds into itself and nothing ever gets better. That bit is just utter s****. Sorry like, it just is. He was excused through his football friends in the media and generally lazy journalism and reporting. We had Hughton who was absolutely loved before him. You're totally missing my point. I'm not saying us singing that isn't narrow-minded. I'm saying them assuming all Geordies hate all Southerners from that one chant is even more narrow-minded. Pardew hardly ever got any grief for being a Cockney. He got grief for being a lying, inept, deceitful c***. Ashley however, is a different matter. It's not a particularly thoughtful chant, but then how many are? If you want them to be bellowed out then they need to be simple so that the masses can get involved. The North-East is one of the poorest regions in Britain so inevitably there will be some discontent towards London anyway. That's not to say it's right, but it probably contributes. He is a fat, rich, London twat. Therefore, if he is called a Cockney so be it. Regardless of how accurate it is. Frustrating it may be but surely the fat and bastard are the offensive parts. The poor reporting is the issue, the disregard for the actual facts. People know about the politics surrounding the local papers and the club so the rest get brandished Southern papers. Which probably isn't far from the truth. I just think this whole debate goes further than football. It's all about people's ideas about what is and isn't offensive and what is / isn't politically correct. I assume those of you kicking up a fuss about "cockney" probably have stronger links than most to the London area? Either that or totally left wing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holloway Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 lads howay man ,I only brought it up because I work with the fuckers,and it boils their piss to near derogatory northern monkey levels,take a chillpill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now