OK. First of all I don't think I am part of some over zealous PC Brigade ready to find offense in even the most innocent of comments. I have no quibble whatsoever with the use of terms such as "Taff", "Jock" or "Paddy". I enjoy a bit of banter as much as the next person. However, the attempt, several posts ago, to compare my complaint about this word to someone taking offence at being known as "Wee Tam" suggests a certain lack of thought about how this word has been used in the past and is still used today.
Guy Gibson, I'm sure, had no intention of belittling or deriding anyone when he chose this name for his black labrador. As an English man in the 1940's he probably didn't think of it as being any different to calling his canine companion Taff, Jock or Paddy.
Today, however, our knowledge of history should tell us that it is different because it is the name given by generations of violent racists to the victims of their attacks.
This is why I find the word unacceptable - it is a term used by the perpetrators of this type of violence to describe those they have murdered or left horrifically injured.
When I hear this word I think of the type of scene depicted in the Billie Holiday song "Strange Fruit".
I hope other contributors will now at least try to understand my point of view.