Henry James Foy

Ponder this. Two Russians are walking down a street in Moscow. One is the father of the other’s son. My question: how are they related?

Now, to give you time to think it through a little, I’ll fill this paragraph with superfluous details about the crisp winter air on that particular Moscow day, and the well-cut black trenchcoats that they were both wearing.

Got the answer? Well it’s rather simple really – they’re married, and are the mother and father of the son. Now I’ll bet the majority of you didn’t even begin to contemplate that one was female. Why? Do we think of Russia as a vast expanse of snow inhabited only by blokes? Of course not. Rasputin’s playboy reputation would be in tatters if we discovered he actually played with boys.

So what’s my point. Well, it’s that we’re all a little bit chauvinistic. Even you girls that didn’t spot the answer. It didn’t enter your mind that women were permitted entrance to a riddle.

Now chauvinism is wrong. In fact, not even wrong, but stupid and dangerous. Especially the inherent patronism inherent in chauvinism; the condescension dressed up as “Oh darling, let me get that for you” or “Don’t worry, I’ll build the wardrobe, you put the kettle on.”

I learnt my mistake on a night out in Leeds last week, where, soaked through with rain, we were waiting at the station for a bus that never came, when we spotted two young ladies, themselves and their suitcases drenched.

“Oh,” loudly remarked one of the more inebriated of our group, “Look at those poor girls with theirsuitcases in the rain.” His compassion for these lost waifs, so loathed by ardent feminists, was a mistake.

“POOR?! You calling me f*cking poor?” the one with the most acute sense of hearing and a repulsive crop of blonde hair screams in our general direction. We recoil. Perhaps they didn’t need our friendly sympathy. Perhaps, in fact, they were super-women. Perhaps I should research Leeds – obviously the domain of the Überfemsch – a little more next time.

“F*cking posh tw*ts, calling us poor.” Oh, silly me. This is about income groups, not mis-placed pity, and she’s united them both under the one socio-economic-slur banner. Now we’re for it. “We ain’t f*cking poor are we?” she asks of her partner in rain-soaked misery, whose ‘I’ll stab you’ glare confirms that she’s wholly on-board with this ‘piss-off-you-wankers’ enterprise.

A stranger stood near us pipes up in our defence: “No, you see, he was just saying that it’s unfortunate that you have to carry around that big suitcase in the rain… you poor thing.” Oh no. He used the sodding P-word again. It was all going so well until he said p…

“F*ck off! I’ll f*cking kick your head in!” she screams, leering and gesturing with her lit cigarette like it’s a full-blown flamethrower.

I’ve never had my (f*cking) head kicked in, and threats of that nature aren’t frequently directed at me, but I was pretty certain that she’d do a bloody good job of it. We scuttled off to safety.

The thing is, while I’m pretty sure she’s not read a lot of Simone de Beauvoir, and doesn’t subscribe to Germaine Greer’s podcast, the blonde-haired Myra Hindley lookalike and her medusa-esque companion on that rain-soaked night ultimately disproved exactly what my little riddle aims to state.

I not stupid enough to look down upon women. They’re bloody scary. If we’d provoked a bloke, at least the female members of our company might have escaped with their limbs intact. If blondie had got her way, it would have been like Ypres on the pavement.

Patently, feminism is dead. The bidding, patronised woman is dead. And if that night in Leeds was anything to go by, soon all men might be dead too. Welcome to the age of the Female 2.0.

And here’s some more food for thought. Women’s Committee – that bastion of social equality – has brought out a magazine full of ‘anonymous sexual experiences’. Now unless all the authors are lesbians, I’m sure there’s a fair few men across campus nervously flicking through the pages. Let that be an awkward lesson to all you chauvinists out there: The day of the silenced woman is gone, too.

So if you didn’t immediately work out that women are allowed in riddles, watch out. A Female 2.0 might find you and kick your f*cking head in.


  1. So you are arguing that ‘all men might be dead’ soon based the fact that a girl yelled at your friend? After admitting that he drunkenly shouted at her first?

    Also, saying that someone has an ”I’ll stab you’ glare’ after they just called you ‘a posh tw*t’ strikes me as classist.

    Reply Report

  2. ‘saying that someone has an ”I’ll stab you’ glare’ after they just called you ‘a posh tw*t’ strikes me as classist’

    You were not there, and therefore do not understand.

    Reply Report

  3. Ok. I think the choice of picture proves my point though.

    Reply Report

  4. My favourite HJF piece to date.

    Including the amusement of missing a word in the sentence “I not stupid enough to look down upon women” ;)

    Reply Report

  5. Everything about this article smacks of a man scared… but scared of what?

    Scared of an evolving social system, in which his ownership of testicles might afford him less standing? Definitely. The only possible outcome of this article is Daily Mail-style fear-mongering.

    Scared of ‘chavs’ in Leeds? Certainly, and he may as well have just used the word; it’s clear he wanted to. Every description of the girls was nothing if not pejorative, in a classist manner not normally seen outside of depictions of 1920s high society.

    Scared of feminism? Possibly. Using an allusion to Hitler’s ‘untermensch’ when describing a feminist not only suggests despicable taste in puns but also a desire to actively victimise a group of people.

    Then there’s the (terrible) photoshop that accompanies this article. Words aren’t even needed. It embodies the mentality that drives someone to write an article like this.

    Attempting to shock readers with a trick at the start of the article is nothing more than a cheap veneer to gloss over the triviality of the story behind this article. As well as being awfully written (whatever happened to proof-reading?) the article then becomes overtly venomous.

    “The day of the silenced woman [being] gone” is presented as though it were a negative thing, and is followed with a threat that these new, radical feminists are going to begin breaking skulls.

    “I not stupid enough to look down upon women” reveals the true caveman writing the article. After hundreds of words attempting to quell women’s equality, the line is snuck in like newspeak to reassure the reader that it’s okay, because it’s not looking down on women!

    This article is an act of deception, with an anti-woman agenda. It’s appalling that an editor of a student newspaper should write this, and it can only serve to provoke and demean a significant portion of the student body as well as groups working to promote equality.

    A disgusting abuse of journalism.

    Reply Report

  6. 9 Dec ’09 at 10:32 am

    God doesn't think he's HJF

    “It’s appalling that an editor of a student newspaper should write this.”


    Don’t make his head bigger than it already is.

    Reply Report

  7. 9 Dec ’09 at 10:52 am

    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Ubermensch, I think you’ll find, was mine.


    Reply Report

  8. Well said.

    I think, Lord Levy, this misunderstanding (or was it?) of a philosophical allusion to a higher being, replacing it instead with the thoughts of a fascist dictator, neatly exposes your valiant – and, I must say, rather successful attempt – to construe a piece of student commentary into a diatribe of woman-detesting filth.

    ‘“I not stupid enough to look down upon women” reveals the true caveman writing the article. After hundreds of words attempting to quell women’s equality, the line is snuck in like newspeak to reassure the reader that it’s okay, because it’s not looking down on women!’ – is perhaps my favourite paragraph of your rant. It’s a typo. The kind of typo that Nouse makes all the time. Not a subliminal message about pre-intellectual human beings and their animalistic chauvinism.

    Reply Report

  9. Lord Lever! I think you need to brutalise a few more peasants before you can re-enter this discourse constructively.

    Let’s be honest, people are finding things to get wound up about purely on the basis that it’s Foy.

    Seriously, is it really good to say that aggressive chavs should not be subject to ‘classist’ diatribe. Especially since those levelling these accusations against the writer are probably hopelessly middle class themselves. Such an assumption suggests an expectation of ‘chavs’ to account for the entirety of the provincial poor, when in fact people in the lowest income brackets (like much of my family, and my younger self) despise loud, obnoxious women (and men obvs) just as much! Foy isn’t sexist, People have just espied a chance to take a pop.

    Reply Report

  10. The allusion to a higher being still maintains the inequality, Miss Teri. Sneeringly describing feminists as some kind of superhumans is just as vitriolic as describing them as sub-human. Additionally, it doesn’t detract from any of the other points I’ve made.

    Furthermore, your apparent belief that I am unable to distinguish a typo with a Freudian slip-type alternate interpretation, after already denouncing the article as full of errors, is your misunderstanding of humour, not mine.

    As for you, Nietzsche, I’d expect more than ad hominem attacks.

    Reply Report

  11. 9 Dec ’09 at 1:32 pm

    Against narrow-minded prejudice!


    Nno one cares that it’s written by Henry Foy, except you perhaps. It’s just simply a ‘disgusting abuse of journalism’, for the reasons Lord Lever adeptly described.

    And why does being ‘hopelessly middle class’ render you incapable of recognising classism?

    Reply Report

  12. 9 Dec ’09 at 1:36 pm

    The worst bit in the article...

    “we’re all a little bit chauvinistic”

    This is like saying ‘we’re all a little bit racist’. The casualness with which you describe it suggest that it is acceptable to you.

    Sexism is not acceptable.

    Reply Report

  13. 9 Dec ’09 at 2:15 pm

    The next bit in the article...

    “Now chauvinism is wrong”

    Reply Report

  14. I find it amusing that Mr Foy has exclaimed that feminism is dead with an example of how some people in Leeds got angry when they thought they were being called ‘poor’. I don’t entirely see the relevance of their gender.

    Similarly, Mr Foy uses the term ‘feminist’ in a rather generic way. It is not necessary for me to explain that for a woman to take offence at being patronised (generally or for her gender) does not make her a feminist. Perhaps she just has some self-respect.

    It might also be useful for Mr Foy to know that ‘feminism’ does not translate into ‘man-hating’. A great deal of us aren’t ardent angry lesbians, but would just like to be paid the same amount as a man for doing the same job….

    Reply Report

  15. 9 Dec ’09 at 5:37 pm

    The major flaws

    Well said Anon.

    Foy clearly needs some lessons in how not to be sexist, and how to define a modern feminist. Feminists want gender equality, not the death of mankind as you hyperbolically suggest.

    He also needs to reasses the wild conclusions he has drawn from an isolated, and largely irrelevant, incident.

    Reply Report

  16. 9 Dec ’09 at 5:47 pm

    A rare Henry supporter

    “Feminists want gender equality, not the death of mankind as you hyperbolically suggest.”

    Surely that’s part of the point Henry is making. While many Feminists are simply those seeking gender equality, something none of us would argue against, there are many women who call themselves Feminists and yet their mission is not to champion the cause of women but to destroy and disparage men at any cause. This does nothing to help society and is arguably as much a part of the problem as chauvinism.

    Reply Report

  17. 9 Dec ’09 at 6:41 pm

    The major flaws

    It certainly does not come across that Henry was trying to make the point that ‘many feminists are simply those seeking gender equality’. After all, the article ends with the words:

    “Watch out… a Female 2.0 might find you and kick your f*cking head in.” implying that feminism has gone so far as to be violent. This fear is based on no evidence, and ties in with Lord Lever’s suggestion of a man fearing our evolving social system.

    Perhaps the author himself should shed some light on his motives? Rather than letting his friends attempt to answer the difficult questions. Would you rather be back in the 1950s when these loud women knew their place?

    Reply Report

  18. I’m shocked nobody has mentioned the fact his name was in the biggest font in the whole paper. That’s what’s making him so arrogant, his name being screamed from the page in HUGE letters!

    There’s nothing wrong with having a headline you know Henry, and only having your name in a tag line is fine too…

    Reply Report

  19. 9 Dec ’09 at 9:54 pm

    the alternative headline

    Perhaps a name is ok though, because the alternative would have to be something like:

    “Prejudice is rife at York University”

    Reply Report

  20. Bad choice of photo there Henners, it makes even me want to kick your f*cking head in..

    Reply Report

  21. I thought it was pretty funny. The idea that students take this article seriously is pretty funny too. I’m just glad that anyone that is roused by this will be as ineffectual as they are blinkered.

    Reply Report

  22. 10 Dec ’09 at 11:35 am

    'funny' doesn't cut it

    Yeah, you’re right. It MUST be ok, because it’s funny.

    Just like the Western world being prejudiced against Muslims is funny.
    Just like the right wing in America being prejudiced against gay people is funny.
    Just like the Taliban being prejudiced against women is funny.

    Why don’t you go and find a better argument?

    Reply Report

  23. I look forward to seeing you in the Daily Mail one day Foy

    Reply Report

  24. Oh HJF, more mundane idiocy.

    Reply Report

  25. 10 Dec ’09 at 3:05 pm

    get some perspective

    It’s a column, not a piece of academic criticism. Go scream and shout in your sociology seminars, but don’t read so deeply into what is, by definition, a flippant and written-for-entertainment space filler. I’m sure Foy is most amused by all this unfounded and badly-argued angry rhetoric. Find something else to do

    Reply Report

  26. Entertainment shouldn’t be offensive, and unfortunately this piece is offensive. It smacks of Foy being a chauvinist, and having the ‘pleasure’ of meeting him, i can certainly back that up on my experience of meeting him.

    Reply Report

  27. You guys (girls/people?) need to relax a little. Does no one have anything positive to say? (ok ~J, you get bonus points for first compliment, sarcastic or not. @Get some perspective, come sleep with me, @HJF you can watch.)

    @henry VIII – Daily mail? Sadly, I doubt if their audience even know where, or what happened in Ypres.

    @Em – “Entertainment shouldn’t be offensive” – I didn’t realise there wasn’t swathes of black comedy, off-colour humour, racist jokes, and schadenfreude circulating in moving picture form.

    The article is well written and humorous. The real joke is in these comments. At lest Henry has the courage to put his name to his words.

    Reply Report

  28. I heard Henry is upset about the bad press he is getting. Poor lil Henry.

    Reply Report

  29. Nipping back to defend Henry here.

    1- “Entertainment shouldn’t be offensive…”

    Yes, Em, most entertainment is ‘offensive’ I think you’ll find. The difference here is that *you* find it offensive and are therefore opposed to it. I’m afraid ‘offence’ is part of living in a free society. Ever thought Henry was possibly offended by the actions of the two girls in question?

    2- The use of ‘arrogance’ as a term-

    People that brand about that term when referring to others are actually often driven by the concept of envy. Henry has done much at York and therefore has much to be proud of. Arrogance is a perception driven by envy and jealousy.

    3- ““The day of the silenced woman [being] gone” is presented as though it were a negative thing…”

    No. Actually, this is how you interpreted it.

    Great article, Henry. You’ll go further than these social-policy female chauvanist pigs.

    Reply Report

  30. Haha! I had coffee today with him and I can assure you he’s not. Quite the opposite, actually.

    Reply Report

  31. I LOVE HENRY FOY x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

    Reply Report

  32. People are overreacting. This is intended to be a humorous article about a couple of random and evidently rather rude individuals. There is really no need to overanalyze it, and there is certainly no need to offend or to take offense. If you are passionate about issues of discrimination then I am sure you realise that there are far more serious things to worry about.

    Reply Report

  33. shut up foy. no one cares

    Reply Report

  34. 12 Dec ’09 at 1:54 am

    Adam Shergold

    Don’t you saddos have anything better to do?

    Henry James Foy – first rate journalist, tremendous Editor, someone i’m proud to consider a friend



    Reply Report

  35. How immature. Up the Arsenal.

    Reply Report

  36. I’m certain that Henry’s not that bothered by the tone of the comments – especially since there are a rather large number of them!

    But to explain why I think it’s not as bad as some have made it out to be; he starts off with the point that we can be persuaded to think in certain ways… I’m sure that even though some of us got the riddle, many didn’t and it shouldn’t have even registered as a riddle – I think it’s interesting because it’s the point that many feminists, including myself, make (that culture and society can shape our beliefs and thoughts).

    And another point that is made is that society has now passed beyond that of the 1960s; feminism wanted to give women a voice, grant them the possibility for equality and allow them to defend themselves – and now the kind of thing that happens in Foy’s story (albeit not that extreme, and I suspect that the story is exaggerated if not invented) happens all the time. Most girls are able and willing to fight back and it makes the point that “the bidding, patronised woman is dead” etc.

    Whether Foy was arguing that feminism is dead/useless or not, I can’t say, but I think that the article makes a clear point that it is not (but rather changed) – starting by making the point that chauvinism is alive and well and ingrained in all of us to an extent, finishing with the point that women now have the voice that they have previously sought, it shows that feminism is both in a completely different phase to the 1960s and also completely and utterly necessary.

    Some of the phrases may have been crude or satirical (e.g. the closing line of the piece) but I don’t think that Henry was being “scared” of feminism :P

    Reply Report

  37. If this is satire, I’ll eat my ASBO.

    Reply Report

  38. 12 Dec ’09 at 12:47 pm

    Ernie Goldberg



    fantastic journalism

    Reply Report


    fantastic moron

    Reply Report

  40. Foy is pathetic. He shat himself when a couple of girls had a go at him in the street so he uses this ridiculous column to get back at them.

    I see where you’re coming from Shergy: “Henry James Foy – first rate journalist, tremendous Editor, someone i’m proud to consider a friend”

    He’s a classy guy. I mean, a lesser man would have resorted to cheap shots about young, lower class, northern girls.
    Like putting up a badly photoshopped picture of him standing next to OTT chavs. Or suggesting these girls would stab him. Or comparing them to Myra Hindley.
    But Foy rises above all that and takes the moral highground. Oh wait, no he doesn’t, because he uses Nouse to get some sort of revenge not just on those girls, but on all women and on all the working class. “First rate journalist” indeed. Shush your mouth Shergold

    Note by moderator: this probably isn’t John Johnson

    Reply Report

  41. 12 Dec ’09 at 1:09 pm

    Ernie Goldberg

    Oh sorry anon is Nouse a satire magazine now? I thought it was a newspaper. I thought Foy was a “journalist” – at least that’s what he KEEPS TELLING PEOPLE.

    If it’s not serious, then shouldn’t it at least be funny? It’s just a bit nasty to women and to anyone who objects to being called poor.

    Is this really a shot at humour from Foy? Somehow, that makes it even more abhorrent

    Reply Report

  42. “is Nouse a satire magazine now?”
    Err, no.

    “I thought it was a newspaper.”
    Correct. But if you just want News, may I suggest you stick to reading the News section of the paper for the time being. Muse (which is what you are reading now) does “columns” which may not be satisfactory to your tastes.

    ‘I thought Foy was a “journalist”’
    Student journalist, correct.

    “If it’s not serious, then shouldn’t it at least be funny?”
    Humour is subjective. Abhorrent as it may be, but not everyone is like you.

    Reply Report

  43. Claims like ‘Foy is pathetic’ are in direct contravention of the YUSU Media Charter, which among other things, exists to protect the welfare of all students at the University of York.

    All of you anonymous commenters who get some kind of twisted pleasure out of attacking the personality of one of your fellow students while hiding like spineless cowards behind the veil of non-identity are breaching this document.

    Henry, as someone who has greater things on his plate than a once-monthly column, is most probably lapping up all your attention, which has made this the most commented article on the Nouse.co.uk website this week by a mile. Think about it, this is EXACTLY what a column should do! If he wasn’t stirring up debate, Nouse would probably find someone more exciting to write a column.

    That said, there is absolutely no place for personal attacks on fellow students that add nothing to the debate, and I frankly think the Editor(s) of this website, and more importantly the YUSU Welfare Officer elected to protect students, should be ashamed of themselves.

    Reply Report

  44. @Shergold… pretty sure you write for this too, and i’m pretty sure at the freshers nouse meeting one of the things mentioned was that you (and by you i mean Nouse) wanted people to comment on pieces, especially in Muse. So, dont insult people for doing what you want just because the views are against one of your friends, how old are we? I’m sure Foy can handle the critiscm

    As it goes, the sheer amount of negative comments should be responded to, but by Foy not you. Let him explain what he was trying to do, like any decent guy or journalist would.

    Reply Report

  45. 12 Dec ’09 at 3:27 pm

    Ernie Goldberg

    I’m not reading Muse you silly billy I’m reading an article on the Nouse website. Don’t say things which just clearly aren’t true just because you want them to be true. (Before you start, I AM AWARE THAT IT WAS PRINTED IN MUSE)

    Journalist and student journalist are two different things, let’s not equivocate. One is a career, one is a hobby. Foy is a student with a hobby, not a journalist. And let’s just be honest and admit that this article (or “column”) is not – and should not be referred to as – journalism.

    Somehow you’re taking issue with me for pointing out that this person’s subjective humour is not just not funny but also offensive.
    I realise that humour is subjective and I am airing a subjective opinion, I don’t see why you should take exception to my opinion.

    But actually up to a point, humour is objective, as there are certain things which are just quite unacceptable, whether they hide behind the excuse of “humour” or not. Racism is an obvious example, but why should classism and sexism be considered any more acceptable?

    WAIT, HANG ON. YOU MUST BE INVOLVED WITH NOUSE SOMEHOW!!! It became clear to me when I saw the quality of your grammar: “Abhorrent as it may be, but not everyone is like you.” All this Foy-defending suddenly makes sense now…

    Reply Report

  46. “to anyone who objects to being called poor”

    Now I am not a linguist and English is not even my native language, but I am pretty sure that exclaiming “poor girl/guy” at the sight of a drenched person does not necessarily refer to that person’s socio-economic status.

    Reply Report

  47. Ernie, my dear, journalism is always a hobby. Occasionally, although very rarely, it allows one to make money. In those circumstances it can be referred to as “a job”. But most of the time it is merely self indulgent, egotistical fun.

    Now you know why HJF’s so good.

    Amen to journalists.

    Reply Report

  48. 12 Dec ’09 at 6:49 pm

    Ernie Goldberg

    Loads of people have replied to my comments directly. Does that make me as good as Foy?? I THINK SO

    Reply Report

  49. Maybe you are Foy…

    Reply Report

  50. You are all left-wing class warriors!

    Now, I’m off to hunt a whale, chop a tree down, chase chavs horseback now foxhunting’s been banned, sip champagne, make a racist comment to a disabled transgendered lesbian and watch Thomas the tank engine.


    Reply Report

  51. “I’m not reading Muse you silly billy I’m reading an article on the Nouse website.”

    There are several different categories of the website. There’s a “News” section, a “comment” section, a “muse” section; “politics”, “sport”, “blogs” also have sections. This particular piece is in the “muse” section – kind of makes the point? Tbh, it’s more of a blog but w/e :P

    Reply Report

  52. 12 Dec ’09 at 10:41 pm

    Stacey Soloman

    Brilliant article Foy.

    I don’t know what all the fuss is about!

    Reply Report

  53. To be fair, I don’t think that those girls had feminism in mind when they were shouting.

    If this article were indeed mocking them, it wouldn’t be because they were ‘Women 2.0’ or whatever, it would be because they were quite obviously awful people, and deserve to be mocked. The lack of general public good behaviour and courtesy is indeed something to be looked down on, and harshly at that! This applies wherever it is found, in ‘lower class northern girls’ or ‘posh [email protected]’ from public schools.

    As to all you people getting offended on other people’s behalves, give it a rest. The world is far too full of people being offended and upset about something which shouldn’t really have upset them in the first place. If something offensive is directed at you personally, or is something so basely offensive as to be offensive to all**, be offended and do something about it. If not…then it’s not your place to be offended. Life is too short, and you could have done something more productive in the time it took for you to fume over this generally light-hearted anecdote.

    **for instance, the behaviour of the two girls in question.

    Reply Report

  54. “But actually up to a point, humour is objective, as there are certain things which are just quite unacceptable, whether they hide behind the excuse of “humour” or not. Racism is an obvious example, but why should classism and sexism be considered any more acceptable?”

    Wrong. Anything, including racism, can be humorous. Ever seen South Park? Arguably one of the best tv shows of the past decade – full of racist jokes. ‘Yes minister’? Considered a masterpiece of British Humour – no lack of racist jokes in there either.

    Lighten up people! I do not like Foy’s style either. He is not a good writer by any standards – too pretentious for me – but he is not chauvinist.

    Reply Report

  55. 13 Dec ’09 at 2:24 am

    Ernie Goldberg

    Catsambas, being humorous and being acceptable are two different things.

    Look, I’ve got nothing against Foy, but this article is odious. At the risk of resorting to stereotypes, it’s a story of a guy taking pity on someone and then getting told to shove their pity up their arse. Fair enough, I’m sure I would be just as pissed off if I got caught in the rain and someone started talking about me as if I was the most unfortunate soul around.

    This, in itself, is fair enough. But it’s the way that Foy takes revenge for this by calling the girls chavs (not directly, but the accompanying picture), comparing them to Myra Hindley and intimating that they would stab him if they had the chance that is just so classist and unacceptable to be associated with a university publication. And at the very least it is a basic right of university students to air our view that those opinions are not okay, and they have no place in a university publication.

    Reply Report

  56. Don’t be ridiculous. It’s perfectly acceptable. It’s an opinion column, most newspapers have them, and you’ll find they’re a good deal more outspoken than this article.

    Quite frankly, the behaviour of the girls – as I said above – is much more odious than Mr Foy’s article, and very much deserves to be shown in a negative light. If more people were willing to simply not accept that sort of behaviour and deride it as much as possible, then maybe fewer people would think it’s acceptable and we might have a bit more decency in the country.

    Moaning that describing someone as chav is classist is wrong. Chav isn’t a ‘class’, chav is a state of mind. I know many ‘working class’ people. None would behave in such a despicable fashion. Bad behaviour has nothing to do with class.

    Reply Report

  57. 13 Dec ’09 at 7:56 pm

    Ernie Goldberg

    Noone’s saying chav is a class. But comparing these girls to Myra Hindley and intimating that they wanted to stab him is classist. Why Myra Hindley? Northern and lower class. Why stabbing? Would Foy have said this if he was threatened by fellow students? By people of a similar socio-economic background? Somehow I think not.

    The girls misunderstood the situation, they thought they were being derided for being poor. How dare they take offence to someone saying “Look at those poor girls”!! (in the way that they thought it, that is) Foy’s indignation at these girls’, admittedly, over-vehement reaction is despicable. He not only points out their stupidity (quite fair enough) but pushes the point too far and actually hectors them. They are like Myra Hindley, they are like Medusa, they are like every evil young person who stabs anyone, they are like the chavs in the picture, they have “repulsive crops of blonde hair”. This is tantamount, in fact, to bullying, and should not be considered acceptable “journalism” in a student newspaper.

    Reply Report

  58. 14 Dec ’09 at 3:52 pm

    Danyl Johnson

    I agree with Stacey

    Reply Report

  59. 14 Dec ’09 at 3:53 pm

    Joe McElderry

    I f*cking won!!!

    Foy to win next year!!!!!

    Reply Report

  60. Foy, you’re as bad as that Geordie Joe McElderry. You take peoples’ dignity and humilate them in public. Just as Joe McElderry did to me.

    Reply Report

  61. I think this is a lovely piece. Evergreen some might say?

    Reply Report

  62. If those girls ever read this then Foy’s heart won’t beat again, beat again

    Reply Report

  63. So what if he hurts me? So what if I break down? Foy…. my heart just keeps bleeding, keeps keeps bleeding, when i read this article.

    Reply Report

  64. This is just amatuerish Foy.

    You are a cruiseship writer, not a stadium filler. You don’t have the X Factor, Jedward sh*t all over you

    Reply Report

  65. 14 Dec ’09 at 3:57 pm

    Dannii Minogue

    Perfection. That’s what this article is. Oh, that’s also the title of one of my singles. Not that any of you pop haters would know!

    Reply Report

  66. Absolutely. Brilliant.

    Simon doesn’t like this article – he doesn’t know what he’s talking about! He doesn’t know what people want. People want Foy. Henry James Foy – you have the X Factor!

    Reply Report

  67. 14 Dec ’09 at 3:59 pm

    Pete Waterman

    Ruddy brilliant. Yes Yes Yes

    Reply Report

  68. 14 Dec ’09 at 4:09 pm

    Steve Brookstein

    Henry, me enjoying this article, is against all odds but that’s a chance you gotta take

    Reply Report

  69. 14 Dec ’09 at 4:10 pm

    One True Voice

    Those type of girls are awful, like those cheating northern bints in Girls Aloud!

    Reply Report

  70. I dreamed a dream of Henry Foy.

    My single is White Horses…. but I prefer Craaaaazy Horses by The Osmonds.

    Reply Report

  71. Ooops, wrong shane

    Reply Report

  72. Thats better

    Reply Report

  73. Foy, you do not respect Diversity.

    I dance in your face

    Reply Report

  74. Nessun dorma! Nessun dorma!
    Tu pure, o, Principessa,
    nella tua fredda stanza,
    guardi le stelle
    che tremano d’amore
    e di speranza.
    Ma il mio mistero è chiuso in me,
    il nome mio nessun saprà!
    No, no, sulla tua bocca lo dirò
    quando la luce splenderà!
    Ed il mio bacio scioglierà il silenzio
    che ti fa mia!
    (Il nome suo nessun saprà!…
    e noi dovrem, ahime, morir!)

    Reply Report

  75. I am a real doctor, I am!

    Reply Report

  76. 14 Dec ’09 at 4:14 pm

    Sharon Osbourne

    I’d’ve stabbed him myself

    Reply Report

  77. 14 Dec ’09 at 4:14 pm

    Darius Donesh

    Pink trackies? THose girls must have been colourblind!!!!

    Reply Report

  78. Who ya gonna call? Henry Foy!

    Reply Report

  79. Foy, I think its Chico time for your Nouse career

    Reply Report

  80. 14 Dec ’09 at 4:18 pm

    ITV General Director

    ITV take no responsibility for the content of these comments.

    The comments represent the opinions of the individual performers and not of ITV or the X Factor.

    Note by moderator: This probably isn’t ITV General Director

    Reply Report

  81. 14 Dec ’09 at 4:19 pm

    Brendan Moran

    Sorry guys, I got carried away and posted all the above.

    Reply Report

  82. I didn’t go home with Tom Flynn last night, or Henry Foy.

    Reply Report

  83. 14 Dec ’09 at 8:29 pm

    the internet police

    The internet police chief would like a young Nick Scarlett to please take note of the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, 1st warning son.

    Reply Report

Leave a comment

Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.