That omits the context of the words. Calling someone a Brit has no real negative connotations, whereas P**i is more routinely used as a racial insult (hence why HOL censors it), so that they're both four letter abbreviations or are not incorrect in conveying another meaning still strips what is often the meaning and reason for saying these specific words, especially nowadays.

If someones child had learning difficulties and you call them a 'retard' in certain circumstances it might technically be the right term to use, but in a societal context expect the parent to be grossly offended. If someone calls a man's wife a 'bitch' in front of him , fine she's female so again he's correct in a sense, but expect any man worth his salt to quickly correct the language used (unless his other half is indeed a bitch ).

Still, nothing is out of bounds really in the right setting. I'm just addressing your point regarding why words can often fairly be taken in very different ways.

Edited by BlueJay (06 Nov 2021 9.20am)[/quote

I can tell you right now Blue Jay that I am hugely offended by you referring to me and my fellow countrymen as B**ts and I would like you to withdraw this offensive word with a full apology to all B**ta.
There you have it. About time someone makes a stand against constant racist slurs against us B**ts.
Someone needed to say it.
Now get a life grow up and move on.
Probably find your in my row at the Palace. !!!

Maybe he has, but the BBC will, and seems to have, reached their own conclusions, unrelated to whatever Rafiq might have said.

Childish.

Puritanical is a term that is used well beyond the historical reference.

One definition: having or displaying a very strict or censorious moral attitude towards self-indulgence or sex.

It can be equally applied to a similar attitude toward language and race related matters.

Try not to be so antagonistic and wrong.

Look beyond the agenda and headlines.

Do you seriously believe that the kind of school boy antagonisms discussed here deserve to be called racism?

Of course we have all become more race sensitive, primarily because we have far more immigrants here. There is no doubt that insulting people using race related antagonisms is as unacceptable as any other insult in most situations. The one exception is when all parties deem any kind of insult as acceptable in a given situation, such as between good friends or colleagues.

Trying to pretend that these kinds of situations don't exist is simply dishonest. That is why the claims of Rafiq are so questionable, as he appears to have become offended retrospectively, whereas at the time he was happy to indulge in similar language toward others and be a willing participant in the 'banter' of that time.

It's no good just saying that racial antagonisms are no longer acceptable because that ignores the dynamics of a particular relationship. Furthermore, we are talking about conversations that happened several years ago, before the age of potty wokeism.

Well whatever he has lost work with the BBC

[Link]