Home / What’s The Real “Deeply Offensive” Issue Here?

What’s The Real “Deeply Offensive” Issue Here?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

If you want a great example of why the thugs control Britain, you could do worse than the recent condemnation of the "Class Wars" short on YouTube (note: this particular vid has been modified, with commentary by the holier-than-thou BBC.) The video shows upper-class young people assembling for what is assumed to be a fox hunt. Instead, the hunters go after chavs, running them down, shooting them, and beating them.

A "chav," for those who don't live in Britain and are unfamiliar with the term, is an abbreviation for "Council House and Violence (or Vulgar)." Chavs are young people who live in ghettos or substandard housing, are aggressive and usually white ("wiggers"), aspire to a life of crime, and are less educated than a second-grade pupil, making Anna Nicole Smith look like a scholar by comparison. They always wear the same thing: NY Yankees baseball caps — or any caps that are "loud" — usually worn sideways, nylon jogging pants (sometimes stuffed into tube socks), Nike, Reebok or Umbro sneakers, and a "hoodie," that is, a hooded sweatshirt. They also tend to wear quite a lot of jewelry, most of it cheap, though there's always a good chance that they're wearing high-quality — hence, stolen — goods. Chavs can be either male or female; female chavs are often called "chavettes." You get the point, dear reader. They are a bloody nuisance. No normal, law-abiding, hard-working person would lose a moment's sleep if they all disappeared tomorrow.

However, political correctness dictates that we accept these morons. The warden of Glenalmond College, where the filmmakers were once educated, stated that he "strongly" disapproved of the video and found it "deeply offensive." The Scottish National Party attacked the video as well. One SNP politician said, "Doubtless, it is intended as humour and irony but it comes across as brash, crass and arrogant."

Arrogant, eh? Deeply offensive? What I find arrogant and deeply offensive is the idea that no one can apparently take a joke anymore. Because some former students of a posh school decided to have a little fun and film a harmless spoof video where fox hunters chase after and run down a few no-good-nik hoodlums, everyone in Scotland seems to be bending over backwards to declare, "How awful! 'Class wars,' my God! What will people think?"

The title of the video was a spoof as well. It is not about picking on the poor or underprivileged or putting down the "lower" class as a whole. The video's ethos seems to reflect what most non-Chav Britons have long dreamt of: a group of hunters who really would rid us of this imbecilic menace. That such an otherwise harmless short would become so popular — and so despised by airy-fairy, Guardian-reading officials — speaks volumes about how chavs are regarded. No one takes pleasure in people being underprivileged, but neither do most people think being poor is a valid excuse to look, sound, and act like an idiot. Being poor was always one thing, but reveling in it is quite another.

Having seen it for myself, I can report that the video is hilarious. You can imagine Monty Python's Flying Circus containing a skit just like this. (Though I must say, given the Python crew's penchant for liberalism, they probably would have sided with the "deeply offended" over this.) Just forget the whole "class wars" junk and take it for the joke it was meant to be and laugh at it.

But that's just the problem. We're not allowed to laugh anymore. Our politically correct overlords don't approve. We must spend every waking minute of every day agonizing over the problems of the world's underprivileged criminals instead. Then, with practice, we can became as dull, dour, and humorless as them.

What a life.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • Dr Dreadful

    Bollocks, Mark, as (sadly) usual. The world is not coming to an end because the warden of the filmmaker’s college and the Scottish National Party didn’t find the skit funny.

    It does seem like the sort of thing Monty Python would have done, but you’re way off the mark in your assessment that they would have sided with the politically correct in this case. In fact, just saying “Python” and “politically correct” in the same sentence is ludicrous. They were equally adept at lampooning every social class – viz. the “Upper Class Twit of the Year” skit, the “Gumby” (spoof of working-class Northerners) character, and the “Judean People’s Front” in The Life of Brian (poking fun at middle-class revolutionary wannabes).

    Also, if the BBC is so “holier than thou” and politically correct, what do you make of characters such as Vicky Pollard on Little Britain?

  • I never said that the world was coming to an end; I simply said the reaction on the part of the school’s dean and the SNP was ridiculous, which it was. And how ridiculous it makes British society seem, which it does.

    The fact is, you’re not going to find one politician in Scotland or anywhere else in Britain opining that the short was funny, which it was. Even if he or she was saying what everyone else is thinking, the sensationalist press in this country will tear them apart and make them seem like they said they wanted to make chav-hunts official policy.

    I suppose you’re right about Monty Python, though I certainly don’t consider the “Upper Class Twit of the Year” skit to be un-PC. It’s very PC in that it lambasts the rich. (But I appreciate it because I’ve never had any love for fox hunters.)

    And as for Little Britain‘s Vicky Pollard, it’s funny you mention that character because I remember reading something in all the papers recently where some dole agency or teen health “professional” or whatever said that teenage mothers are not a bunch of Vicky Pollards and that the very suggestion this character of Vicky Pollard initiates is insulting and demeaning. Which pretty much backs up my argument that unless you’re willing to accept everything and anything in this country, you’re going to be seen as the worst thing since George Bush.

  • Lumpy

    From what I could see it’s as much of a lampoon of the upper class toffs as it is of the british kevin federline wannabes.

  • STM

    Was anyone photographed in mock school uniform, with a toaster cord around their neck, school pants around their ankles, begging to be beaten with a cane wielded by an older man dressed in a mortar board, headmaster’s cape, fishnets and suspender belt?

    No? Oh, sorry … I’m not talking about the shenanigans at the annual Conservative Party conference … I mean at the college.

    Nuh? Well what’s everyone complaining about then?

    Sounds like a bit of fun to me, and chavs are the targets of a bit of bile in the UK, and deservedly so in many cases as they fall niocely into the soccer hooligan mould and cause a bit of strife. Their idea of a good night out is 20 pints, a vindaloo with chips or a kebab and a punch-up. Mark forget to mention that they ruined the Burberry label in the UK, where it was born, by insisting on wearing burberry check baseball caps and shirts whilst hurling bottles and insults at soccer matches.

    And chav isn’t an acronym. It was being used when I was at school in England in the 1960s, at that time as a perjorative form of address between those regarded to have been occupying the lower runs of the socio-economic strata.

    I’ll back up the dread man: it’s bollocks, and a story largely manufactured by the media. Most people in the UK wouldn’t give a rat’s.

  • archie wedderspoon

    I’ve only just seen the video , which was made by pupils at my old school. It seems to me the only thing they did wrong was to post the thing on YouTube, for the politically correct were always going to work themselves into a delicious lather of indignation, as of course happened. I’m sorry the Warden of Glenalmond felt he had to apologise for it – I can’t believe he really meant it.

  • Vicky Pollard

    It’s in no way ‘deeply offensive’ I wholeheartedly agree, decent post.