The post that was quoted here has been removed
If you can't see that your definition of terms is the pivot of your argument then I can't say anything to you about it.
If not all working classes are chavs you cannot apply the argument that is targetted at chavs and apply it to the working classes as a whole.
I dont know about Wayne Rooney being a chav, he may be from a chav background and share characteristics with chavs, but the fact that he has a job, talent and a secure future indicates he may have risen beyond his initial group. That I still find him a morally reprehensible simpleton is beside the point 🙂
And no, I don't agree that the term chav is used as a generic label for those from poorer, working class backgrounds (or at least I don't use it that way and don't think others should either). All chavs may be working class, but not all working class people are chavs.
The misdirection which Burchill applies is key. Chavs are a scum-sucking group of society, the working classes are not. That one resides in the other is what Burchill is playing on. Chav 'culture' and the existence of chavs are not one and the same. That chavs exist may be the fault of the Mail reading public, maybe not, but that chav culture is abhorrent, crime-ridden and base is not. Not all people that have been oppressed by the Mail readers turn out to be cr
@ppy people. When I see a Burberry clad fool, I consider him through his behaviour, not through his position on the ladder.