heavily agree with this post

One of my teams chants references "We hate Killie, black bastards", with "black" being a term used in the SW of Scotland to describe a foul dirty person as opposed to referencing their skin colour - in return, they chant "darkie bastards" as traditionally the team wears black jerseys with white in them

some fans suggested that its offensive to chant these and that they change both to "dirty bastards" but the song has been sung since 19canteen, its hardly likely to change now!

And hissing?

When the Mrs. was having the ultrasound to check whether Jones minor had everything where it should be, I asked the lady doing it was there any way she could check to make sure he wasn't ginger... She pretended not to hear me and only spoke to my wife for the rest of the appointment.

Only a ginger can call another ginger, ginger...
(if you haven't seen it check out Tim Minchin's 'Prejudice" on you tube.)

I'm sensing double standards here. Pretty sure some if the pro users have previously posted against the use of racist/ethic/religion based insults'.

'Yids' is offensive so don't use it. Hiding behind an excuse of 'we didn't mean any offense' doesn't make it right and continuing once you know that people are offended is, well, just wrong.

I can't understand your logic here at all.

It appears to be that you believe that name calling is fine so long as you agree with the noun being used, failing which it is racist, sexist, sexual orientationist, etc.

Where will it all end though? I think the UK is going down a really sad path in its attempt to legislate against offensive speech. I believe that free speech should be free speech even if its offends.

Offensive to whom? Did you read the Jewish Chronicle blog post linked up-thread? The author suggests that, in the context of a football chant, "yiddo" and "yid" are effectively terms of endearment used to describe Jews and non-Jews alike who support or play for Spurs.

I worry when organizations like the FA take offence on other people's behalf, when it is not at all obvious that those on whose behalf they're acting are actually feeling offended at all.

Of course it all depends on context. All words depend on context - that is one of the beauties of language, but one that can turn ugly if misunderstood. A Chelsea fan chanting "yid" and making gas-chamber hissing noises is obviously, and disgustingly, unacceptable. But a Spurs fan yelling "Yiddo" when Jermain Defoe scores a goal? Who is that offending, exactly?

The FA needs to understand this. Making some words taboo isn't the answer: cjones made the point well earlier that it just gives them additional power when used or misused. Euphemism and circumlocution will always find a way round a social taboo anyway - go to any school playground and you'll see that in action. For example, I remember when it became politically incorrect to refer to physically handicapped people (especially sufferers of Cerebral Palsy) as spastics, and instead the news media began referring to "special needs." It was a matter of only a few months before the playground insult of choice migrated from "spazz" to "special." Kids are cruel, but they have an innate understanding of the power and flexibility of language.

In the end it's all about tone and intent, not simply the word itself. Anyone that bothered with the word Limey or Jock? Generally not.

Offensive speech or engendering hate? Where is the line though? I agree that free speech is essential but, but are some words just too powerful to be used? What about the situation, someone might be happy to join in a crowd calling Yids or Niggers but brave enough to do so individually? I think not.

What's the difference between this and those guys turning up as KKK and slave at the Legion?

Mr. Baddiel

Primarily a Chelsea supporter, incidentally a Jew, he's not well placed to speak on behalf of the offended.

But he's a dirty bit of chav scum.

I thought he was the offended