From an academic perspective, chavs are what political theorists would call “scrotes”, or “scum”.

Indeed, Iain Dale and Stephen Pollard have written on similar themes. The latter went so far as to proclaim that he wore cufflinks coloured with the stars and stripes, in fearless solidarity with our oppressed ‘cousins’.

Bloody PC sub-Marxist wishy washy types.

Um… I have to concede that this is, if not in the whole of Europe (I don’t have that much knowledge!), definitely true in France.

I have to admit as well that I did cringe whenever I saw English people behaving like that. In fact, it was only the American tourists who managed to outdo us for obnoxiousness… No offense to anyone, I know that everybody is not like that!

I don’t think its bigotry… it would be bigotry if you were inciting animosity or hatred towards a group. This rather reminds of the times when Tim Mongtomerie of CH keeps talking about anti-Americanism as if its some sort of a big disease infecting anyone who questions American foriegn policy.

If you feel that you can type the word “faggot” as a non-expletive, feel free to use the word “nigger” likewise. That was just silly self-censorship.

I self-censored using the word “chav” two years ago. I observed how the meaning of the word was changing, and when it stopped being the equivalent of Scottish “ned” I started to challenge people about it. “Chav” did not originally mean underclass or poor working class; it defined attitudes that separated “chavs” from the working class.

If that particular OED definition is the right one then there’s no race relations problem in this country – except with people who hold a foreign passport – or is anyone who doesn’t ‘appear to be of the English race’ not actually English?
The OED is merely a collection of uses of words, right or wrong, it is not a definition.

OED: “A tribe, nation, or people, regarded as of common stock. In early use freq. with modifying adjective, as British race, Roman race, etc.”

Well that’s a crude generalisation, based upon selective experience and ignorance. Hmm anyone want to call it prejudice?

That’s pretty damning. The English are so unpopular in Poland now that you are better off pretending to be German…

But how many of you dress and talk and behave like “chavs”? Probably very few, because it’s just too kitsch for most of you. I wonder how many of you decorate yourselves with tattoos or (if you were old enough) would let their 12 year old son do so? I’m guessing only a small minority. Why? Because tattoos have a traditional association with aggression and deep down you know that they reveal a complete lack of taste. They are an attempt to achieve character and identity by means of mere adornment, which implies a certain narcissism and an intellectual vacuity.

But if it’s not acceptable for you or for your children then why it should it be okay for the poorest people in our society? Judging from your objections to this admittedly judgmental word, you seem very anxious to deprive people of any moral imperative to conform to any standard conduct whatever. Do you want to see the lowest common denominator triumph? If you’re a communist like Laurie Penny then perhaps yes, but what about ordinary liberals? Can you not see that it is precisely this attitude which is helping to turn Britain from a class into a caste society with social mobility coming to a halt or going into reverse? It makes any social aspiration besides downward aspiration pointless. It therefore immobilises people in their poverty; a material, mental and spiritual poverty. You are actually damning the people whom you wish to shelter from disapproval.

Now I was born and have lived in Poland and I’m also half Italian so I think I can bring an element of foreign perspective here. I can tell you that the English are no longer held in high regard by anybody. Across the whole of Europe the drunken, vulgar, and uninhibited behaviour of young Britons is exasperating and disgusting. And it’s definitely not just the “underclass” it’s the middle-class youths as well who feel that such behaviour is OK. They just cannot seem to enjoy themselves without being obnoxious. Anglophilia has all but evaporated in the past few years. You are seen as (to be quite frank) the “scum of the earth”. (By the way, best pretend to be Germans if you are ever sitting in back of a Krakovian taxi cab, otherwise you may be refused a ride; such is the intolerance of many cab drivers towards the English)

Similarly, it is undeniable that many if not most moderate Muslims (who are the best hope of undermining the extremists) think that British urban society is just too brutal and decadent to be worth being part of. It’s true and it is this rather than any intolerance shown towards them which is the real integration problem.

Now the word “chav” is a bit of a silly word and this is not the crux of the issue here. What concerns me about this new moral crusade is that it shows a total lack of awareness of how societies cohere and how existence within them becomes tolerable, let alone nice. The law cannot forbid bad manners or discourtesy or nastiness. But it is clear that if the prevalence of these things increase, social life becomes more fraught with friction and danger. I am sure you Sunder have good manners and good tastes. Why then do you have so little confidence in the value of things that you value? Why are you so untroubled by the mechanism of their disappearance or destruction?

The sad and painful truth about Britain is that in no other European country have the forces of decency and civility retreated so far in such a short space of time. Even as British society has grown richer, it has in many ways gone backwards culturally. But several of you seem unable to recognise this obvious truth, let alone begin to solve it, If the British could see themselves as other people see them then they simply wouldn’t be as they are.

I’m working class, my friends are working class, and we aren’t charvers. We don’t dress like them, we don’t speak like them, we don’t behave like them. This is despite the fact we attended the same schools and live in the same areas as them.

If those who are insulated from the debilitating effect of having to live with charvers on a daily basis want to stop using ‘chav’, that’s fine by me. They don’t know the meaning of the word anyway, so they’re unable to use it appropriately.

‘Chav’ is a term for young people who dress and behave in a certain way, not for all working class people, and I fully intend to continue using it in that way.

Obviously not

If you’ll forgive me for saying this, this is precisely the kind of po-faced nonsense that gets right on my tits. Words have meaning and context, and the precise meaning of words in the English can, and does, alter according to the context in which they’re used.

To be brutally honest, on reading Tom Hampson’s post of CiF, I got as far as his typically ostentatious reference to ‘the n-word’ and went looking for something more interesting to read. The word is ‘nigger’ and its use is perfectly acceptable as a figurative reference but not as a pejorative term of abuse.

In short, when Tom asks ‘could we use the word nigger in the Fabian Review?’ then the only correct answer is ‘yes, if its used in it proper context’, as in posing the question ‘could we use the word nigger in the Fabian Review?’, in fact I can easily conceive of situations in which it would be ridiculous not to use the word, as when writing about the history of the American civil rights movement where substituting ‘the n-word’ would strip an article of its emotional impact.

If your suggestion is simply that we should avoid using the word ‘Chav’ as a pejorative terms then that’s fair enough, but do make it clear that it’s that you’re referring to specifically, as anything just makes you appear rather ridiculous.

That certain parts at both ends of the social scale try and fail to imitate each other is an amusing adjunct to this miscast discussion.

For the ‘equality commissioner’ to attack our language only highlights the irrelevance of the intervention as it does nothing to address the political causes of inequality. The culture of communication is only one way in which relationships are understood, not created, so this case is another example of public appointed representatives failing to understand the nature of representation.

If the best that Ziauddin Sardar can do is to pretend to promote equality with statements like these then he can’t do the job properly and should stand down in order to let someone with the ability take over. He may be a prolific and respected critic, writer and lecturer but 18 months into the job with no comment on any number of high-profile concrete cases of inequality – we need to ask what is he paid for. Where are his contributions to the inequality debate? How has he failed to build up the profile of his office in order to bring the weigh of our institutions to bear in holding the government to account?

Is Mr Sardar just another political appointment designed to neuter opposition by his favorable disposition to our PM?