I used it as a general description of someone who isn't white leaving the option for the person describing themselves to replace it with what they deem suitable, in the same way as I mentioned several ages. It was not feasible to list all variation of non whites in the post.
However I will not amend my post simply because employment Judge Kirsty Ayre has ruled the term 'coloured' is not racist when used to simply describe someone from an ethnic minority background as a one-off comment in a case brought before her.
External Link/Members Only
So the courts have rules that coloured is not racist, but you mentioning age IS ageist and is something I find extremely offensive and that has nothing to do with my age.
You are happy to pull someone up when a term is used as a one off general description that has legally been defined as not racist yet post something far worse yourself.
Instead of using 'coloured' You could have listed several races like you did with ages, I don't see why that wasn't feasible.
I didn't ever suggest you should amend your post, I just thought it was worth flagging that the term is outdated and generally considered offensive/racist, while at the same time acknowledging that you hadn't said it with any ill-intent.
I can't see in the article you posted where judge Kirsty Ayre states it's not a racist term, just that the incident being reviewed in court didn't amount to racial harassment.
Apologies that the age comment extremely offended you. No offence was intended at all, i (perhaps wrongly) assumed that when you so casually used the term 'coloured' you were unaware that the term was outdated and considered offensive/racist, but I think you're now suggesting otherwise, and that you were already aware, but you disagree with it?