• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Canning Town Bingo Club

monkeybarry said:
you can see why it's just "banter" and would actually be quite funny if it was someone you knew..
Click to expand...

I’m having some difficulty imagining a context where that song would acceptably be funny banter amongst friends.

Two secular Jewish West Ham fans, one of whom is about to undergo a medical circumcision? No, even that is a stretch.
 
monkeybarry said:
Thanks for that clarification, I had assumed that was included, so does hugely change the context. If it's just the presence of a foreskin then you can see why it's just "banter" and would actually be quite funny if it was someone you knew.
So more just macaronic than sinister.
Click to expand...

It's a puerile song at best (middle-aged men singing about running round displaying their willies - they should be locked up based on the imagery that creates alone), but it also moves into potential anti-semitic territory because of its associations and target subject matter.
And it perpetuates the continuation of other clearly anti-semitic chants and actions.
Sung by macarons, I'd agree with that.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
I’m having some difficulty imagining a context where that song would acceptably be funny banter amongst friends.

Two secular Jewish West Ham fans, one of whom is about to undergo a medical circumcision? No, even that is a stretch.
Click to expand...

With the cavaet I haven't seen the video and only know the foreskin reference;
Group of friends in a pub, all "lads", one of whom is Jewish and has no issue with jokes about having no foreskin.
I look back on some of the things I said and sang in my 20s (let's say 15 years ago) in a football context and I was a taco at times.

Whether that's a sign of the times or just age, I'm not sure.
But I know I wouldn't sing homophobic (songs about Judas) or songs treating paedophilic actions as a casual pastime (a certain song about the way to Amarillo) now.
And let's be honest, the second song is fudging funny! And I'm sure very few members of this forum didn't sing at least one of them.

None of that is excusing the WHam video. But I do see how if it's just the foreskin line it was probably a joke that got out of hand - the kind where you need to have a look in the mirror the next day and tell yourself to stop being a taco.
 
monkeybarry said:
With the cavaet I haven't seen the video and only know the foreskin reference;
Group of friends in a pub, all "lads", one of whom is Jewish and has no issue with jokes about having no foreskin.
I look back on some of the things I said and sang in my 20s (let's say 15 years ago) in a football context and I was a taco at times.

Whether that's a sign of the times or just age, I'm not sure.
But I know I wouldn't sing homophobic (songs about Judas) or songs treating paedophilic actions as a casual pastime (a certain song about the way to Amarillo) now.
And let's be honest, the second song is fudging funny! And I'm sure very few members of this forum didn't sing at least one of them.

None of that is excusing the WHam video. But I do see how if it's just the foreskin line it was probably a joke that got out of hand - the kind where you need to have a look in the mirror the next day and tell yourself to stop being a taco.
Click to expand...

Just seen the video above now...
.....fudge me, what a bunch of cnuts.
 
monkeybarry said:
With the cavaet I haven't seen the video and only know the foreskin reference;
Group of friends in a pub, all "lads", one of whom is Jewish and has no issue with jokes about having no foreskin.
I look back on some of the things I said and sang in my 20s (let's say 15 years ago) in a football context and I was a taco at times.

Whether that's a sign of the times or just age, I'm not sure.
But I know I wouldn't sing homophobic (songs about Judas) or songs treating paedophilic actions as a casual pastime (a certain song about the way to Amarillo) now.
And let's be honest, the second song is fudging funny! And I'm sure very few members of this forum didn't sing at least one of them.

None of that is excusing the WHam video. But I do see how if it's just the foreskin line it was probably a joke that got out of hand - the kind where you need to have a look in the mirror the next day and tell yourself to stop being a taco.
Click to expand...

I may have been incorrect in my earlier statement. If you listen the video in the tweet SteveAwol posted above, it does sound like at least some of the participants do sing the Jew comment.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I may have been incorrect in my earlier statement. If you listen the video in the tweet SteveAwol posted above, it does sound like at least some of the participants do sing the Jew comment.
Click to expand...
Yeah I just noticed that.
Out of order to sing it to a totally innocent person full stop - but that's more of misstep. Adding the f'ing bit......that's a hate crime and needs police action.
 
West Ham have announced that the Daniel Křetínský and Pavel Horský have purchased 27% of WH Holding Ltd and become members of the Board of Directors
 
Expect full billionaire buy out on 1 March 2023?

Daniel Kretinsky has agreed an option for a full takeover of West Ham as part of his purchase of a 27% stake in the club.

The Czech billionaire became West Ham’s second-largest shareholder last month and documents submitted to Companies House this week show an option is in place for him to acquire the shares owned by David Sullivanand David Gold for a set price.

The papers reveal that there was a put and call agreement between Sullivan, 1890 holdings a.s, the holding company used by Kretinsky to buy his shares, and EP Investment Sarl, Kretinsky’s investment company. It will give Sullivan, West Ham’s biggest shareholder, the right to sell his shares to Kretinsky at a set price. Kretinsky will have the option to buy Sullivan’s shares.

The price is set in writing and cannot change if Sullivan or Kretinsky take up their option. The figure will not rise if West Ham qualify for the Champions League this season and the documents also show that other shareholders can be included in the deal under the same terms.

The option exists only for a certain amount of time, but West Ham have not said when it expires. Any sale by Sullivan before March 2023 would incur a cost to him and Gold under the terms of the agreement by which West Ham moved to the London Stadium in 2016. Sullivan and Gold will have to pay financial penalties to the taxpayer if the club is sold for more than £300m. Kretinsky’s investment, which was between £180m and £200m, is understood to have valued West Ham at £700m.


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...y-agrees-option-for-full-takeover-of-west-ham
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back