To be surprised Andrew has lost his Prince title

[Viviennemary]

I certainly think this is absolutely the right decision. But this has all been swept under the carpet for a long time with the usual head in the sand approach. If makes me think there might be more to come out. This wasn't just going to go away.

That is a nasty thing to say. Why you would choose to be so rude is beyond me. Why you should be so against someone who doesn't like bad language just shows why children are growing up so disrespectful to those who want to live decent lives.

I am a Christian. Christians give their lives to God. We think that God would rather we didn't use filthy language.

Obviously you don't care what you say. How many people have you ground into the ground with such an attitude. I hope it doesn't rub off on the kids.,

Would it hurt you to use better words? Do swear words give you courage? If they do, why do they? What is in your life that stops you being nice?

If Parliament repeals the Act, the monarch is replaced by a President and Britain will no longer be a predominantly Christian country
Hate to break it to you but Britain isn't a predominantly Christian country now. Most people are atheist. The Christian church is being propped up by evangelical Christians from Africa and Catholics from Eastern Europe. William by his own admission doesn't go to church apart from when he has to do the Christmas and Easter pap walk. I doubt he could be bothered to do b that part of his job either. He can barely be bothered to do any Royal duties although he visits himself with his duchy that enriches himself.

They've been perfectly adequate words for hundreds of years. Cunt was in the Canterbury Tales, after all.

Flen flyys in 1445 had the phrase 'They are not in heaven because they fuck the wives of Ely'.

Religious phrases were viewed as far more offensive than any mere mention of shit, fuck or cunt.

These days, coming out with racist conspiracy theories is probably viewed by most as significantly more offensive than either of those.

HTH.

The wrong meanings are put on words to deliberately hurt. Only those who were uneducated used words which now titillate foul mouthed individuals who either don't know any better or want to shock. Modern films use bad language because t he actors cannot act and have to enunciate the emotion of the character they are playing.

The words of the Gospel have never been offensive to people.

Conspiracy theories? Do you mean the English translation of the Quran?

The Gospel came to Britain and Ireland before any other religion. In the desire of early Christians to spread the Gospel, they had to be very careful how they carried themselves, and ensure they did not break any rules or sin. I suppose even then there were folks who goaded them on to retaliate then say ''call yourself a Christian? You're just like the rest of us''.

Early Christians represented Christ, and therefore had to honour his teachings and educate the masses whose education was lacking.

I like to think that modern and future Christians will continue to do so.

But that is not the point, is it? It is how many parliamentarians there are in Westminster who might repeal the Act.

The barmy army we have in power at the moment did not win the election on votes. They won seats. There is a difference.

There are enough Christians in Britain to ensure this lot never get elected again.

Which was the last government that won on votes then?

Bit rich from someone who repeatedly claimed Hitler invented fascism and Britain stood alone against the Nazis...

I don't want to humiliate you in public by telling you how the British voting system works.

You can look that up yourself.

So you have paid mumsnet to access all my posts?

Does it matter who ''invented' the word 'fascism'? What matters is the people who carried it out.

Introducing comments from another thread because you like to troll posters should not be encouraged. That you are enabled by paying a fee to follow posters on mumsnet and bring up what they say on other threads, is not my concern, but it begs the question: why would anyone want to do such an unloving thing and use it out of context? Is it clever to do such a thing? Does it make you appear more or less intelligent?

What Hitler did was fascist. You can look it all up yourself. I think there was an argument arose on a thread because you and others called anyone loyal to the British flag a fascist. I posted that no one can be called fascist at the present time, except Islamist extremists like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, ISIS and Iran and others.

They are guilty of fascism because they have said all Jews should be killed on sight. Now they have added Christians to that. To threaten to kill a whole nation or religion is what fascism is. It is even in the Quran, that muslims should kill infidels - and currently that is Christians and Jews. In fact, the instruction goes as far as to say that they cannot be guilty of killing, because it is Allah who is guiding their thoughts, hands and weapons, not them.

That is what fascism is, not the people who stand by the Union Flag, such as Ministers and MPs and those who are loyal to Britain, but the ones who march in London waving flags of extremism.

So long as there are Islamic extremists in the world, who want - as the Quran instructs - to get rid of all unbelievers, no one is safe.

Lmao no. I haven't paid mumsnet

But your post about Hitler was the single most ludicrous thing ive ever seen on here and I will never forget it, as will many of the people trying to reason with you

The rest of your posts aren't worth reading even for free, let alone payment. Dont flatter yourself.

Oh, where to start...

1. Chaucer uneducated?
2. Fucking the wives of Ely was written by monks as a descriptive criticism of the men they saw as morally lax.
3. 'My God' still tends to annoy the particularly religious.
4. Would be difficult to speak to the locals about the gospel if they couldn't use the language - how would they explain what circumcision is to non Latin speakers without using the local language for penis and foreskin? It's not as if there isn't a festival commemorating The Circumcision of The Lord and descriptions of how the Jews were to show their obedience to God.
5. Pretty sure the other religions that were described by Bede, for a start, in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People - they'd have to be there first to be described - unless you're suggesting that he made it up for profit, influence or attention?
6. What's wrong with translating the Qu'ran into English? The Bible's been translated into thousands of languages.
7. Using your own argument, the existence of the Crusades means that Christians nearly 1,000 years ago were fascists. And those carrying out the Inquisition later. And those executing heretics. And those burning Catholics. And the entire history of Antisemitism.
8. And more or less intelligent? Well, the other poster is capable of performing a search that's freely available to anybody on the site whilst you're claiming special payments are made to access your posts as though it isn't possible without some sort of conspiracy and money changing hands.

I never said anything about the crusades. Never mentioned them.

The Canterbury Tales has nothing to do with Canterbury Cathedral or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

They were stories written by -presumably Chaucer - before he died in 1400. He was also a poet as well as a writer. He made up the tales, just like any other author of fiction. They were baldy and intended to shock the reader, which they probably did in the 15th century.

The words that you so enjoy being able to write as many times as you can were illegal until the publishers of DH Lawrence finally one a court case to publish the Chatterley book, in comparatively recent history.

I won't be humiliated, what a weird thing to say. I was asking a question following up something you posted. I know how the voting system works very well.

Of course I can look it up, as can you. Since it's your point you should be prepared to defend it.

Don't hold your breath

Strangely enough, I know the history around the writing of the Canterbury Tales. He was a very educated man and he used the language of the people, what is known as Middle English (London dialect), rather than the Latin of ecclesiastical writing or the Anglo Norman French of Court. He was a very intelligent man and spoke at least three languages. There would have been words of different origin for many things, including bodily functions. Piss, for example, comes from Latin via French, shit from Old English and all the way back to proto Germanic language. I'm quite sure he would be able to tell the difference between the state of being bereft of hair and being a bit rude, as well.

The words themselves were not illegal, any more than the first known use of the word dildo was in a 16th Century song, The Maid's Complaint, or the oldest known manuscript of six part polyphony (a musical form used in worship) where the lyrics of Sumer is icumen in includes uerteþ, which, despite disagreement, seems to be clearly sounded as something akin to farteth. Otherwise, the Canterbury Tales would never have been published and studied at great length, any more than the considerably bawdier diaries of Samuel Pepys would have been.

You called any group that wished the extermination of others fascists. By that reasoning, so were the Crusaders and all the other groups I listed.

I am also aware of the trial that resulted in the continued publishing of Lady Chatterley's Lover. I'm not particularly a fan of Lawrence, but it certainly wasn't the first time the words had been published.

It's strange how you think I 'enjoy' using particular words. They're just words - quite often multipurpose ones, but just words nonetheless. To declare that, on top of the earlier claims and insinuations of plots, that there was no religion on these islands before a handful of missionaries turned up - when every culture has evidence of supernatural belief and origin stories - and that those people would have exactly the same delicate sensibilities as a random internet poster nearly two thousand years later - is ridiculous.

I don't care whether he was educated or not. He is an author of bawdy tales.

The first printing press was c 1440. They had to be hand printed at first, if in fact Chaucer did write them.

Education seems to be a completely alien idea to you so that's unsurprising.

The poster sounds like David Brent in that episode where he's trying to outdo a team member who had been on Blockbusters, and he kept going off to check the facts!