Hotheads Title


NOTE: If you arrived at this page without seeing a menu, please click on this link - - to open the entire Hotheads website in a new window.

The author asserts his right to publish this information in the public interest
No responsibility is taken for consequences resulting from using any information contained herein



In 2019 in Britain, former Arsenal football club winger Perry Groves apologised for saying that Socceroos star Mat Ryan “had a holocaust of a game” for Brighton against Sheffield United. Groves made the controversial comment live on radio, following Brighton’s 1-0 home defeat to the Blades in the Premier League. Angry listeners phoned in to complain after Groves made the remark.

“I lost half of my family to the Holocaust and it really upset and angered me hearing him use those comments to describe a football game of all things,” said Joseph Reiselson, 72. “I phoned up to complain immediately and the man at talkSPORT who spoke to me said that I wasn’t the only one to call up about his comments.” Groves, 54, said sorry. “I’d just like to sincerely apologise for my misuse of words earlier,” he said. “I didn’t mean to offend anybody and if I have offended anybody I’m truly, genuinely sorry and that is from my heart.”

It seems that people cannot use the common English word "holocaust" it unless it refers to the Nazi extermination of Jews and nothing else. This is complete politically correct nonsense. The definition of that word is: “Destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, caused by fire or war” or “a sacrifice consumed by fire” or “a thorough destruction”. So where is any reference to Nazis or Jews here? The truth is that there is no such reference, unless the term is “The Holocaust”, referencing an event. Fair enough. If Jews wish to refer to the genocide committed by Nazis against them by using the term “The Holocaust”, that’s just fine

But nobody has any right to hijack a common English word and complain if it is used in any other context, such as the way Perry Groves described something in a football game, or anything else for that matter. For instance, the 2019 bushfires in Australia could easily be described as a holocaust and this would be quite correct, but no reporter or commentator would dare use the the word "holocaust" in this context and that is so wrong. We should never be afrait to use common English words, just because vested interests have hijacked them for their own purposes. The word “holocaust” is not exclusive to one event in history.


In 2018, former Senator Fraser Anning gave a speech in the Australian Senate, where he used the words "final solution" in calling for an end to the wanton immigration policies of the former Australian Labor Party that saw Australia flooded with illegal immigrants. There was no mention of Nazis and Jews whatsoever, but the problem for Anning was that the term "Final Solution" was used by the Nazis in Germany to commit genocide on Jews. So since then, anybody who uses the term "final solution" is condemned, even though that term was widely used long before the Nazis came into existence.

Anning was literally driven out of the Australian Parliament for innocently using "final solution" in his speech. Yes, Anning was proposing the re-introduction of a version of the former White Australia Policy, in order to curtail the influx of Muslims that could have been quite easily described as an invasion by stealth. But Anning was not advocating the extermination of anybody - just a change of immigration policy. However, using the term "final solution" was enough for gutless politicians to use it as a means to condemn a rogue senator who would not bow to their will, so Anning was pilloried for no good reason and lost his parliamentary seat.


Once upon a time, we could be described as being gay and this would have no reference to homosexuality. The word "gay" was a very common term found in many books to describe somebody who was light-hearted and carefree. But in the mid 20th century, the word was hijacked completely by homosexuals and nobody would dare to refer to somebody as being "gay" unless they were referring to them as being homosexual, lesbian or any of the nonsensical invented genders of our current era.


Many people seem to be incapable of using the English language in a normal manner. So they have invented terms to substitute for reality, but if people use those real terms, they are accused of insensitivity, racism, bigotry and all sorts of other derogatory slights. Here is a list of typical euphemisms and politically incorrect terms, apart from the above examples:

It seems that people are mostly terrified of using common English words and expressions and are being blackmailed into political correctness or social delicacy. Fair enough with social delicacy. One doesn't want to confront a recently bereaved person and say, "Hey Mary, I heard that your husband had carked it." A sensible person would use the term "passed away". Or "I heard that you are flat broke and out on your arse". A sensible person would say, "Oh, I heard that you took early retirement" and give the respondent a graceful way of replying without embarrassment.

But what is not understandable or acceptable to me is that terms that have nothing to do with the correct usage of those terms, such as "holocaust", final solution" or "gay". People are free to capitalise those words and use them to refer to historical or social matters, but they have no right whatsoever to try and restrict those terms in their normal dictionary definitions. Unfortunately, people are intimidated by vested interests into not using those terms, but in reality, they should stare down anybody who complains about the use of words such as "holocaust" to refer to something other than Nazi matters, such as when describing catastrophic bushfires or anything else.