He did claim to be.
It probably doesn't hurt if you get paid to write newspaper articles too.

In this instance Baddiel seems to have fallen into the trap of taking offence on behalf of somebody else. The chants weren't directed at him; those they were directed at were not offended. Why is it his self-appointed task to dictate what other people should take offence at? I find that offensive.

I read the JC article and Baddiel's and found Baddiel more persuasuveM much as I think he is. A slimy toad. He is Jewish and n avid football supporter which to my mind makes him well placed to comment.

Is that the same as the media, and other groups, taking offence at Lt Wales's statement to his "Paki friend"?

IT's not that far away, imo. THe opinion of pretty much everyone who understands soldiery was that the whole incident was rather overamplified. If (as seemed to be the case) the individual concerned was not offended by his nickname, what right does anyone else have to take offence on his behalf? Particularly in the context of a close-knit group like a troop or platoon of soldiers, who live and work in close proximity and rely on each other for their very survival, nicknames that seem derogatory or inappropriate to outsiders are worn almost as a badge of honour within the group.

There's absolutely no doubt that racism, and racial abuse of a verbal and physical nature, occur in the armed forces to an unacceptable degree. But nobody except the self-righteous (and oh so hypocritical) media thought that this was an incidence of that. I recall reading this guardian article at the time and thinking it had hit about the right tone.

"I am offended because you used a word that I don't like, when you weren't addressing me, and I was unaware both of the context and of the opinion of the person you were addressing" seems to me a rather weak position from which to argue.

His avid support of Chelski disqualifies him, he's like a black member of the BNP:


http://www.thstofficial.com/latest-n...d-baddiel.aspx

That's a pretty powerful piece, i think i am on the fence now. It's still a little worrying, wikll tgis argument become the Spurs defence for calling some os Yid?

(pun not intended but i like it)

Good response from the fan.

"wikll tgis"? Is that Yiddish?

I am not going to disagree with anything you have said. We both know that others will.

Ah, no, my tablet isSony so more likely to be Japanese.


"will this"

I think it's a valid defence. When I first arrived in Canada, I worked with an Indian from North London, when I heard where he was from I asked "Yid?" and he responded "Yiddo!". This is the Spurs defence in action, we're united in being yids even though neither of us is actually a binnie. I suppose I shouldn't have to explain that, given where and when we came from, we would have expected to be on opposite sides of any punch-up. I never encountered of any sort of bashing in real life except us bashing his people and them bashing us. Our commonality served to overcome the prejudice we would otherwise have acted upon. Yid, in the Tottenham context, is an inclusive term; anyone can be a yid.

Now, if we were to put on our thermals and go up to Bathurst and Lawrence and start calling passers-by "yid" then that'd be a whole other kettle of gefilte fish.

I'm still feeling uneasy about this. On the one hand it sounds all very jolly and everyone is BFF, and on the other i can't help but think underneath it all that for many there's an element of mockery? I remain on the fence but leaning towards not using the word.

Why Spurs and not Arsenal or QPR for a North London Queensbury man?

It's probably the thought of gefillte fish doing that.

That's true.