Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oldies are also less affected by any change of outcome following a hypothetical second referendum. They'll literally won't have to live with those consequences as long.

And I genuine do not mean that churlishly. Brexit was foisted upon us by older generations - and they've damned the younger end of things to live with that decision.

Unless a second referendum can be pushed through.

A year ago it looked like the result would be the same, but I think now it would be the opposite, due to demographics.

75% of under 24s voted Remain. There are more than 2% more 18-24 year olds now than two years ago.

Conversely over 60% of the 65+ age group voted leave, and their numbers will have declined by more than 2%.

This isn't a matter of the older you get, the more conservative you become. It's a sea change in public attitudes that began about 45 years ago. I mean all the 64 year olds who become 65 don't suddenly change their mind. There is a demographic bulge of pre-European people coming up.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to add that I don't think the oldsters voted Leave because they thought "Ha ha!" let's feth up our childrens' and grandchildrens' future. They did it out of good intentions.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Uppity students threaten Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/12/one-million-students-call-vote-brexit-deal

I wonder how many of them would have actually bothered to vote if they had the opportunity - seems a lot of the younger generation didn't bother the first time and then screamed that it was the old people's fault.

64% of 18-24 year olds voted at the referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

More interesting and detailed stats here...

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum

Hmm - that's very misleading as its actually a poll of

about 2000 people

not the UK population - it could be considered a good sample I guess depending on the breakdown of the sample.

If it is a good sample (and there is little to base this on) the same report says that 90% of over-65s voted, its not like voting is hard for most people now.....

The second one is more interesting and informative but the following should still be noted when reading:

It is always important to stress that these are only estimates, based on aggregating the data from our election polls and other surveys over the course of the campaign, which asked people how they intended to vote, and then weighting these figures to the final actual results and turnout at a regional level

Personally I see no reason that 16-17 year olds should not have the opportunity to vote.

Polling is always done on samples, and always has a degree of error. A well constructed sample of 1,000 people is generally considered to be accurate enough for modelling purposes.

However the basic readings of this study are clear, and generally agree with other studies on the same subject, including the actual vote results analysed ward by ward.

It's so much easier for a pensioner to vote than a student.

They have all day to do it, more likely to live near the polling station, more likely to have a car or bus pass, know what they are doing, already registered.

18-24's are more likely to: live further away, have uni and/or job to go to, less likely to have transport, less likely to have voted before. 26th May is during exam season so plenty will have had other things on their mind.

Herzlos wrote:
It's so much easier for a pensioner to vote than a student.

They have all day to do it, more likely to live near the polling station, more likely to have a car or bus pass, know what they are doing, already registered.

18-24's are more likely to: live further away, have uni and/or job to go to, less likely to have transport, less likely to have voted before. 26th May is during exam season so plenty will have had other things on their mind.

Indeed. I seem to remember the timing of the referendum being highlighted as likely to result in lower turnout of young people compared to other times due to it being in the middle of exam season.

Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

Oh dear.

Lefty bigots on Dakka who think its OK to insult and demean people on the basis of their skin colour.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

The lack of self awareness being shown by the right wing press is stunning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

Oh dear.

Lefty bigots on Dakka who think its OK to insult and demean people on the basis of their skin colour.

Seriously? You actually think it’s ok to play the race card for this? Last time I checked “angry and middle aged” wasn’t a race. Making claims of this being racist (as the right wing press has) shows either a stunning lack of self awareness or a deeply cynical attempt to shut down criticism by trying to make them look hypocritical.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

Oh dear.

Lefty bigots on Dakka who think its OK to insult and demean people on the basis of their skin colour.

Yes, damn those racist bIgots.
However, I think if, like me, you're white and middle aged, I can use it in the same way that other races have taken ownership of their own pejoratives.

I'm quite comfortable with calling a fellow 40 something anglo-saxon a gammon faced gakker, if indeed he is one.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Seriously? You actually think it’s ok to play the race card for this? Last time I checked “angry and middle aged” wasn’t a race.

Oh sorry, my mistake. I forgot that theres no such thing as racism against white people.

Me too. I’m not quite middle age (at least until next year), but I am about as white and middle class as they come. Personally I think It’s a clumsy insult that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but it does paint a very vivid picture.

 r_squared wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh dear.

Middle aged, red faced bigots everywhere are proving really snowflakey at being called ‘Gammons’.

Oh dear.

Lefty bigots on Dakka who think its OK to insult and demean people on the basis of their skin colour.

Yes, damn those racist bIgots.
However, I think if, like me, you're white and middle aged, I can use it in the same way that other races have taken ownership of their own pejoratives.

I'm quite comfortable with calling a fellow 40 something anglo-saxon a gammon faced gakker, if indeed he is one.

If you're OK with it, cool. More power to you.

But I would rather prefer that we apply a consistent and universal standard for hate speech. If its not OK to call black people by a derogatory term referencing their skin colour, then its not OK to call white people by a derogatory term referencing their skin colour. Either its racist, or its not. It doesn't magically stop being racist, just because the target is white people.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Seriously? You actually think it’s ok to play the race card for this? Last time I checked “angry and middle aged” wasn’t a race.

Oh sorry, my mistake. I forgot that theres no such thing as racism against white people.

That’s not what I’m saying, and you know full well. Don’t go playing the “poor little white man” card either. Of course it’s possible, but not when it is one group of middle class white people talking about another group of middle class white people.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Seriously? You actually think it’s ok to play the race card for this? Last time I checked “angry and middle aged” wasn’t a race.

Oh sorry, my mistake. I forgot that theres no such thing as racism against white people.

That’s not what I’m saying, and you know full well. Don’t go playing the “poor little white man” card either. Of course it’s possible, but not when it is one group of middle class white people talking about another group of middle class white people.

I'm not playing a "poor white man card", I'm calling you an unprincipled hypocrite whose definition of racism morphs whenever you feel its convenient to make derogatory remarks about people whose politics you disagree with.

If you disagree with someone's political views, fine.
if you feel that someone is bigoted, fine. As long as you prove it.

But is it really necessary to start using labels referring to people's skin colour?

Of course it’s possible, but not when it is one group of middle class white people talking about another group of middle class white people.

You made the comment without providing any context whatsoever, no link to a news article, no background information. I took your remark at face value, which is clearly a reference to people of a certain ethnicity.

And besides, when people of one ethnicity call other people of the same ethnicity by a derogatory remark, isn't that just internalized racism?

No, I went to this thing called google. It’s a brilliant invention. It’s a reference to the colour the face of an over weight person with high blood pressure goes when angry. It’s not about race. The insults are not needed. I’m guessing this has hit a little close to home?

“racism
ˈreɪsɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.”

Please tell me how this fits in that definition?

If you're getting all hot around the collar, are white and outraged at this, you're pretty much living upto the stereotype.

I wonder if snowflake is similarly racist? After all, it's also an inanimate object, which is white.

I think having a sense of humour is important, but if not, then perhaps if somone being called a gammon and this upsets them, are they also a snowflake?

It's such a minefield. Non-PC gone mad!!!!

So it’s perfectly acceptable to make fun of people’s appearances then. Fine by me.

I find it ironic that you guys are all of a sudden keen on free speech and being anti-political correctness. If I had made a derogatory remark referring to people with a brown skin colour, you'd all be frothing at the mouth to denounce me.

Your principles are inconsistent. That makes you hypocrites.

If society is to have strict standards policing speech, fine. But I expect it to be consistent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:


If you're getting all hot around the collar, are white and outraged at this, you're pretty much living upto the stereotype.

I wonder if snowflake is similarly racist? After all, it's also an inanimate object, which is white.

I think having a sense of humour is important, but if not, then perhaps if somone being called a gammon and this upsets them, are they also a snowflake?

It's such a minefield. Non-PC gone mad!!!!

One day you will accuse someone of racism and somebody will quote this post back at you.

Brexit was foisted upon us by older generations

Those who scorn the older generation for Brexit, forget that they are probably the same people who took us into the EEC...

They lived with the consequences of their 1970s decision for 40 years, so in my book, they earned the right to change their minds.

The argument is not that people shouldn't change their mind.

The next generation have grown up within the EU and like it, and will take us back in at the earliest opportunity. Three years more will be enough time to decisively shift the balance, and neatly gets us to the 2022 election to crush the Tories, bring in a pro-EU Labour government and run the referendum again.

I hope you are reading this, Corbo.

To get back to Gammon, the BBC has a good write-up on it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-44108080

Personally I like a nice bit of gammon, preferably with chips and a fried egg or a pineapple ring, but my wife and daughter hate it, so we never have it.

Therefore it's going on my "bucket list" for the month they are away this summer and I can make my own catering arrangements.

No, like pretty much all things baby boomer, they took the bits they wanted, then voted to deny the same to those that followed.

As for Gammons....

You can be a red faced middle aged white dude and not be a Gammon. See, a key component of the Gammon recipe is getting red faced about anyone thats not you, thanks to an overdose of Middle England Persecution Complex, through dint of reading Das Daily Heil and other gutter rags.

It requires a deep seated belief that it’s everyone else, and not you, that’s the reason you may not have succeeded as you wished in life. You must be quick to the point the finger, and show not on iota of self reflection.

Consider my Dad. I take after him, politically speaking. He’s a wee bit red in the face, and he’s 70, retired, and doing well for himself. But Daddykins isn’t regarded as a Gammon, because he’s not a bigoted moron that buys their opinions from Das Daily Heil.

To qualify as a Gammon, one must also be woefully ill informed, and ideally, believe you know better than experts in any given field, because your own opinion has been carefully crafted to alleviate oneself of all blame.

You also need demonstrate such bizarre behaviour as demanding an end to immigration, whilst being an ex-pat in Spain, frequenting Eastend themed pubs and eating nothing but Fish and Chips. For the full fat Gammon experience, one must do the immediately above whilst also criticising foreigners for ‘refusing to integrate’.

That is what it is to be Gammon. Not white. Not middle class. Not Male. Just a sad individual devoid of introspection, but full of narrow minded bigotry.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I find it ironic that you guys are all of a sudden keen on free speech and being anti-political correctness. If I had made a derogatory remark referring to people with a brown skin colour, you'd all be frothing at the mouth to denounce me.

Your principles are inconsistent. That makes you hypocrites.

If society is to have strict standards policing speech, fine. But I expect it to be consistent.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:


If you're getting all hot around the collar, are white and outraged at this, you're pretty much living upto the stereotype.

I wonder if snowflake is similarly racist? After all, it's also an inanimate object, which is white.

I think having a sense of humour is important, but if not, then perhaps if somone being called a gammon and this upsets them, are they also a snowflake?

It's such a minefield. Non-PC gone mad!!!!

One day you will accuse someone of racism and somebody will quote this post back at you.

Oh no! Apparently I am now a racist! Where is the line anymore?

I best not out any racist lest they throw back in my face that I think someone being called a gammon or a snowflake gammon is not really a problem if used by me, a white middle aged man, against other white middle aged men with a passion for bigotry and shouting until they go pink in the face.

Can the term "gammon" be applied to a black man?

I rather doubt it. Its self evidently a reference to people with a pink complexion.

Ergo, its racist.

Or should I take this as a green flag for making derogatory remarks about people's skin colour now? Is racism to be tolerated now on Dakka Dakka?

Oh, and don’t forget that despite decades of not very well closeted racism, you must, must get up out of your Pram, spit your dummy and throw your teddy the very instant anyone calls you out on your bigoted views, or gives you the merest hint of a taste of your own medicine.

If you don’t identify with the above, congratulations. You’re not a Gammon.

So what you're saying is...its OK to be racist against racists?

No. You’re purposefully missing the definition.

A Gammon is a white, middle class bigot.

Not sure why you’re struggling with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here’s some petitions to Parliament launched by Gammons.

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/112909

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/133554

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/139333

Do you see the common thread? Hero worship of a racist charlatan. A shocking lack of knowledge of how our Government is appointed.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can the term "gammon" be applied to a black man?

I rather doubt it. Its self evidently a reference to people with a pink complexion.

Ergo, its racist.

Or should I take this as a green flag for making derogatory remarks about people's skin colour now? Is racism to be tolerated now on Dakka Dakka?

I'm sure you can give it a try, but I wouldn't advise it.
A mod will be along in a minute as there'll definitely be a few of you banging away at the report button, whining at the racism against poor old white middle aged men.

They just can't catch a break, especially now that snowflakes are saying mean things about them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Can the term "gammon" be applied to a black man?...

If he's a self-righteous, bigoted knob end, then sure, why not?

I haven't reported anybody over this.

I’m not being racist against Gammons. Because I’m not singling out an entire race, or calling all middle aged white males Gammons.

Being racist would be calling anyone of a brown complexion a shortened form of Pakistani, regardless of where they’re actually from. Or referring to all black people by a word. Lumping them all in together for the crimes of a handful. Claiming all Terrorists are Muslim, and all Muslims are Terrorists. Racism is labouring under the misapprehension that Halal food somehow commends one’s soul to Allah. Or singling out the Halal slaughter process, whilst not kicking up a fuss about the Kosher slaughter process.

It’s criticising the contents of the Koran, whilst utterly ignoring the same evils in the Old Testament, and by extension, the Torah. And again, for bonus points, one must also claim that if it’s in a Holy Book, then all followers of that faith must therefore follow it slavishly. Whilst enjoy a Prawn Sandwich, dribbling the Thousand Island Sauce down your Cotton/Polyester shirt.